# Sproul On Double Predestination



## Bryan

I finally got around to picking up a copy of Sproul's "What Is Reformed Theology" (Formally Grace Unknown) today and was flipping through it and stopped on his section on Double Predestination to see what he had to say. In part he said:



> Given that the bible teaches both election and particularism, we cannot avoid the subject of double predestination. The question then is not if predestination is double, but how it is double. There are different views of double predestion. One of them is so frightening that many shun altogether the use of the term double predestion. This scary view is called equal ultimacy, and is based on a symmetrical view of predestion. It sees a symmetry between the work of God in election and his work in reporbation. It seeks and exact balance between the two. Just as God intervenes in the lives of the elect to create faith in their hearts, so he similarly intervenes in the hearts of the reporbate to work unbelief. The later in inferred from biblical passages that speak of God's hardening people's hearts.
> 
> Classical Reformed theology rejects the doctrine of equal ultimacy. Thought some have labeled this doctrine "hyper-Calvinism" I perfer to call it "sub-Calvinism," or even more precisely, "anti-Calvinism." Though Calvinism certainly holds to a kind of double predestination, it does not embrace equal ultimacy. The Reformed view makes a crucial distinction between God's positive and negitive decrees. God positively decrees the election of some and he negatibely decrees the reprobation of others. The difference between positive and negative does not refer to the outcome (though the outcome indeed is either positive or negitive), but to the manner by which God brings his decrees to pass in history.
> 
> The postive side refers to God's active intervention in the lives of the elect to work faith in their hearts. The negative refers, not to God's working unbelief in the hearts of the reporbate, but simply to his passing them by and withholding his regenerating grace from them.



Now I like Sproul but does this not seem really simplistic? It seems to leave out the fact that God ordained everything to come to pass and therefore even if He does simply leave men to sin on their own (although I believe Romans 9 shows that He doesn't), which since the fall they would, He still ordained that the original sin would occur and thus ordained who would and wouldn't save. So I would agree with Sproul that there is not an exact balance between election and reporbation but I do believe that God is not as passive in reporbation as he makes Him out to be when the ordaining of sin is considered. 

The other thing that bugs me is calling the last two lines of the first paragraph hyper-calvinism. Is this all hyper-calvinism is? How does Sproul then explain the hardening of people in scripture?

Bryan
SDG


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia

The way I see it is that God positively decrees who is elect and He positively decrees who is to be left to their just damnation, before the foundation of the world.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia

It sounds like Sproul is using the Augustinian view of gemina praedestinatio. Augustine believed that God elected men to salvation but that He simply "passed over" the rest.

Calvin, on the other hand, believed God was active in both election and reprobation (along with Luther and myself).


----------



## Bryan

But if He simply passed over I don't see how that differs from Single Predestination which he says he doesn't believe.

If God is not active to some extent in reporbation then I don't see how passages like Romans 9, and when God sends the lying spirits to the phrophets can be explained. Yes Man on his own will fall (actually run as fast as they can) into sin, but God still seems to be actively involved in this.

Bryan
SDG


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia

Exactly. That's why I disagree with Augustine's view. I don't believe God can be passive in anything.

[Edited on 7-18-2005 by WrittenFromUtopia]


----------



## Preach

Augustine said that God's passing by the reprobate was not an unwilling act of God. My source for this is "Giants of the Christian Faith" 3 volume video series put out by Ligonier ministries, and taught by Dr. John H. Gerstner.
"In Christ",
Bobby


----------



## Myshkin

If I may, I think too much is being read into the excerpt. Re-read it slowly and think about what he is really saying...It may seem simplistic, but maybe that's the point. He is trying to show the fundamental aspects of double predestination in classical reformed theology, not the nuances and qualifications that we tend to speculate on and divide over. Sproul takes an infralapsarian double predestination view, which is the majority view of the reformed in history. In another article he shows how single predestination is logically inconsistent.

Nowhere does Sproul say that God "simply" or "merely" passed over the reprobate. All he is saying that God actively predestines (a positive act) the reprobate to be left (a negative act) to themselves. This is essentially what Gabe said:



> _Originally posted by Wriiten from Utopia_
> The way I see it is that God positively decrees who is elect and He positively decrees who is to be left to their just damnation, before the foundation of the world.



Sproul is distinguishing this form of double predestination from another one which says that not only does God ordain both election and reprobation (Sproul, and the classical reformed view), but also the _way_ reprobation is acted out _in time_ is through God's positive effects internally/within the heart of the reprobate. Whereas God internally causes the elect to believe through the indwelling Holy Spirit, in equal ultimacy God also internally causes the reprobate to not believe. This is hyper-calvinism, or at least a tenet of it, historically. God certainly does ordain external means that will lead to the reprobates hardening in sin, and the classical doube predestination view does not deny this, what it does deny is that this "active" work of God in the lives of the reprobate takes place within them internally, hence they are left to their own sin.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia

A huge problem in understanding gemina praedestinatio is the fact that many think of it as God making good people bad... when really He is confirming the badness of bad people and leaving them to their just destruction.


----------



## Michael Butterfield

> _Originally posted by RAS_
> If I may, I think too much is being read into the excerpt. Re-read it slowly and think about what he is really saying...It may seem simplistic, but maybe that's the point. He is trying to show the fundamental aspects of double predestination in classical reformed theology, not the nuances and qualifications that we tend to speculate on and divide over. Sproul takes an infralapsarian double predestination view, which is the majority view of the reformed in history. In another article he shows how single predestination is logically inconsistent.
> 
> Nowhere does Sproul say that God "simply" or "merely" passed over the reprobate. All he is saying that God actively predestines (a positive act) the reprobate to be left (a negative act) to themselves. This is essentially what Gabe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Wriiten from Utopia_
> The way I see it is that God positively decrees who is elect and He positively decrees who is to be left to their just damnation, before the foundation of the world.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sproul is distinguishing this form of double predestination from another one which says that not only does God ordain both election and reprobation (Sproul, and the classical reformed view), but also the _way_ reprobation is acted out _in time_ is through God's positive effects internally/within the heart of the reprobate. Whereas God internally causes the elect to believe through the indwelling Holy Spirit, in equal ultimacy God also internally causes the reprobate to not believe. This is hyper-calvinism, or at least a tenet of it, historically. God certainly does ordain external means that will lead to the reprobates hardening in sin, and the classical doube predestination view does not deny this, what it does deny is that this "active" work of God in the lives of the reprobate takes place within them internally, hence they are left to their own sin.
Click to expand...


Far too much is being read into R. C. Sproul. His teaching is in full agreement with the Westminster Confession of Faith chapter 3 and section 7. The WCF teaches the view of preterition, a passing by, of the non-elect. It is just as L. Berkhof defines it: reprobation (read preterition) is "œ"¦that eternal decree of God whereby He has determined to pass some men by with the *operations of His special grace*, and to punish them for their sins, to the manifestation of His justice." (Emphasis is mine).



> The WCF 3.7 says, "œVII. The rest of mankind God was pleased, according to the unsearchable counsel of his own will, whereby he extendeth or withholdeth mercy, as he pleaseth, for the glory of his sovereign power over his creatures, to pass by; and to ordain them to dishonor and wrath for their sin, to the praise of his glorious justice."



And Dabney says,



> "œThe application of this word to the negative part of the decree of predestination has doubtless prejudiced our cause. It is calculated to mis"“ represent and mislead, because it suggests too much the idea of a comparative judicial result. For then, the query arises, if the non"“elect and elect have been tested as to their deserts, in the divine mind, how comes it that the elect are acquitted when they are as guilty, and the non"“elect condemned when they are no worse? Is not this partiality? But the fact is, that in election, God acted as a sovereign, as well as a judge; and that the elect are not taken because they are less guilty upon trial, but because God had other secret, though sufficient reasons. If the negative part of the decree of predestination then must be spoken of as a decree of reprobation, it must be understood in a modified sense."


----------



## Bryan

> Far too much is being read into R. C. Sproul



Very possible.

Bryan
SDG


----------



## jfschultz

> _Originally posted by Michael Butterfield_
> Far too much is being read into R. C. Sproul. His teaching is in full agreement with the Westminster Confession of Faith chapter 3 and section 7. The WCF teaches the view of preterition, a passing by, of the non-elect. It is just as L. Berkhof defines it: reprobation (read preterition) is "œ"¦that eternal decree of God whereby He has determined to pass some men by with the *operations of His special grace*, and to punish them for their sins, to the manifestation of His justice." (Emphasis is mine).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The WCF 3.7 says, "œVII. The rest of mankind God was pleased, according to the unsearchable counsel of his own will, whereby he extendeth or withholdeth mercy, as he pleaseth, for the glory of his sovereign power over his creatures, to pass by; and to ordain them to dishonor and wrath for their sin, to the praise of his glorious justice."
Click to expand...



There is a reason that the WCF talks of predestination of the elect and foreordination of the reprobate. Man's fallen nature is such that God can leave the reprobate to themselves for them to merit condemnation.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia

This is one of those topics that borders on a semantic nightmare constantly.


----------



## Craig

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> A huge problem in understanding gemina praedestinatio is the fact that *many think of it as God making good people bad*... when really He is confirming the badness of bad people and leaving them to their just destruction.


I think this was Sproul's point...God isn't working against these people, preventing them from having faith: God doesn't work unbelief in people, its already there. He's trying to keep those new to Reformed thinking away from misunderstanding things. We know what Total Depravity is and understand Election in light of this...to the semi pelagian, he may misunderstand double predestination as God actually working unbelief in people so that they won't be elect.

[Edited on 7-19-2005 by Craig]


----------



## cih1355

Sproul believes that just because God passes by the reprobate does not mean that God is passive.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia

Then Sproul is correct-a-mundo.


----------



## Arch2k

> Institutes, Book I, Chapter 18, Section 3
> 
> I have already shown clearly enough that God is the author of all those things which, according to these objectors, happen only by his inactive permission. He testifies that he creates light and darkness, forms good and evil (Isa_45:7); that no evil happens which he has not done (Amo_3:6). Let them tell me whether God exercises his judgements willingly or unwillingly. As Moses teaches that he who is accidentally killed by the blow of an axe, is delivered by God into the hand of him who smites him (Deu_19:5), so the Gospel, by the mouth of Luke, declares, that Herod and Pontius Pilate conspired "œto do whatsoever thy hand and thy counsel determined before to be done" (Act_4:28). And, in truth, if Christ was not crucified by the will of God, where is our redemption? Still, however, the will of God is not at variance with itself. It undergoes no change. He makes no pretence of not willing what he wills, but while in himself the will is one and undivided, to us it appears manifold, because, from the feebleness of our intellect, we cannot comprehend how, though after a different manner, he wills and wills not the very same thing.



Does God work equally between reprobates and the elect? In some way, we have to say yes. 

Is it God's will that evil and good happen alike? In the compound sense, YES. God predestines EQUALLY both the actions of the reprobate and the actions of the elect. In this sense, God's actions in the lives of both must be equal.


----------



## RamistThomist

Double, double
Toil and trouble.


----------



## Poimen

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> 
> Calvin, on the other hand, believed God was active in both election and reprobation (along with Luther and myself).



You heard it hear first folks: Let us follow our Reformed fathers Calvin, Luther and *Martini.*


----------



## Bryan

This post is a lesson to myself; don't offer critism until the whole book is read. 

After reading through the whole book I actually think Sproul did a good job explaining things. He touched on what I thought he had missed in his section of Double Predestination elsewhere in the chapters on calvinism. All in all decent book. There are a few issues I still have with it regarding what he presented as Reformed Theology, not his stuff on calvinism.

Bryan
SDG


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot

> _Originally posted by poimen_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> 
> Calvin, on the other hand, believed God was active in both election and reprobation (along with Luther and myself).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You heard it hear first folks: Let us follow our Reformed fathers Calvin, Luther and *Martini.*
Click to expand...


I'll drink to that!


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia

> _Originally posted by poimen_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> 
> Calvin, on the other hand, believed God was active in both election and reprobation (along with Luther and myself).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You heard it hear first folks: Let us follow our Reformed fathers Calvin, Luther and *Martini.*
Click to expand...


----------



## Arch2k

> _Originally posted by Bryan_
> This post is a lesson to myself; don't offer critism until the whole book is read.
> 
> After reading through the whole book I actually think Sproul did a good job explaining things. He touched on what I thought he had missed in his section of Double Predestination elsewhere in the chapters on calvinism. All in all decent book. There are a few issues I still have with it regarding what he presented as Reformed Theology, not his stuff on calvinism.
> 
> Bryan
> SDG



I have read the whole book. In fact, I deeply respect Sproul, but I think that you bring a valid criticism.


----------



## BrianBowman

The following are my observations after reading (and listening to the .mp3's) from Sproul's works: "Chosen by God" and "Willing to Believe".

_Sproul is careful to make a disctintion between justice and unjustice. He further divides unjustice into two categories: mercy and injustice. He concludes by stating that the elect get mercy and the non-elect get justice, but no one gets injustice for that would be impossible with God._


----------



## Arch2k

I concur.


----------

