Reprobation

[jacob662]

I always believed that God hardened the hearts of the reprobates as we see in Romans 11 however when considering total deprivaty it would be redundant for him to do so? So are their hearts hardened and if not what is Romans 11 referring to?

 

[jdbrown]

I always thought the hardening was a result of God removing the restraints (common grace) from their natural wicked (depraved) inclinations.

 

[singlecandle]

That is what some Calvinists believe but the text is pretty clear
about what God actually does to them.

Romans 11:8 ...just as it is written,
“GOD GAVE THEM A SPIRIT OF STUPOR,
EYES TO SEE NOT AND EARS TO HEAR NOT,
DOWN TO THIS VERY DAY.”

I believe some would call this hyper-Calvinism, sub-Calvinism, or anti-Calvinism.

I'm still undecided on this point since I'm a new Calvinist.
It is something to wrestle with, I think.

 

[JM]

I don't believe it is either / or, but both.

God hardens the hearts of deprived sinners because they will not believe. Fallen man is extremely hostile to God that is our natural, unregenerate state to begin with...but God hardens the heart of the reprobate even more "lest they see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and convert, and be healed." (Isa 6:10)

Isaiah preached the Gospel and it wasn't to save but to harden the hearts of its hearers: "Also I heard the voice of the Lord, saying, Whom shall I send, and who will go for us? Then said I, Here am I; send me. And he said, Go, and tell this people, Hear ye indeed, but understand not; and see ye indeed, but perceive not. Make the heart of this people fat, and make their ears heavy, and shut their eyes; lest they see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and convert, and be healed. Then said I, Lord, how long? And he answered, Until the cities be wasted without inhabitant, and the houses without man, and the land be utterly desolate," (Isa 6:8-11)

Pharaoh's heart was hardened by God and he also hardened his own heart when confronted by God through the Prophet Moses.

God increases the guilt of the sinner for refusing to believe and they refuse to believe because God, using secondary means, the preaching of the Gospel, etc, hardens their hearts.

It is more of a mystery than a paradox. I'll read A. W. Pink tonight and make another post.

jm

 

[JM]

A long quote but worth the read:

Though Romans 9 contains the fullest setting forth of the doctrine of Reprobation, there are still other passages which refer to it, one or two more of which we will now briefly notice:

"What then? That which Israel seeketh for, that he obtained not, but the election obtained it, and the rest were hardened" (Rom. 11:7 R. V.). Here we have two distinct and clearly defined classes which are set in sharp antithesis: the "election" and "the rest"; the one "obtained", the other is "hardened". On this verse we quote from the comments of John Bunyan of immortal memory:—"These are solemn words: they sever between men and men—the election and the rest, the chosen and the left, the embraced and the refused. By ‘rest’ here must needs be understood those not elect, because set the one in opposition to the other, and if not elect, whom then but reprobate?"

Writing to the saints at Thessalonica the apostle declared "For God hath not appointed us to wrath, but to obtain salvation by our Lord Jesus Christ" (1 Thess. 5:9). Now surely it is patent to any impartial mind that this statement is quite pointless if God has not "appointed" any to wrath. To say that God "hath not appointed us to wrath", clearly implies that there are some whom He has "appointed to wrath", and were it not that the minds of so many professing Christians are so blinded by prejudice, they could not fail to clearly see this.

"A Stone of stumbling, and a Rock or offence, even to them who stumble at the Word, being disobedient, whereunto also they were appointed"(1 Pet. 2:8).The "whereunto" manifestly points back to the stumbling at the Word, and their disobedience. Here, then, God expressly affirms that there are some who have been "appointed" (it is the same Greek word as in 1Thess. 5:9) unto disobedience. Our business is not to reason about it, but to bow to Holy Scripture. Our first duty is not to understand, but to believe what God has said.

"But these, as natural brute beasts, made to be taken and destroyed, speak evil of the things that they understand not; and shall utterly perish in their own corruption" (2 Pet. 2:12).Here, again, every effort is made to escape the plain teaching of this solemn passage. We are told that it is the "brute beasts" who are "made to be taken and destroyed", and not the persons here likened to them. All that is needed to refute such sophistry is to inquire wherein lies the point of analogy between the "these" (men) and the "brute beasts"? What is the force of the "as"—but "these as brute beasts"? Clearly, it is that "these" men as brute beasts, are the ones who, like animals, are "made to be taken and destroyed": the closing words confirming this by reiterating the same sentiment—"and shall utterly perish in their own corruption."

"For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation; ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ" (Jude 4). Attempts have been made to escape the obvious force of this verse by substituting a different translation. The R.V. gives: "But there are certain men crept in privily, even they who were of old written of beforehand unto this condemnation." But this altered rendering by no means gets rid of that which is so distasteful to our sensibilities. The question arises, Where were these "of old written of beforehand"? Certainly not in the Old Testament, for nowhere is there any reference there to wicked men creeping into Christian assemblies. If "written of"be the best translation of "prographo", the reference can only be to the book of the Divine decrees. So whichever alternative be selected there can be no evading the fact that certain men are "before of old"marked out by God "unto condemnation."

"And all that dwell on the earth shall worship him (viz. the Antichrist), every one whose name hath not been written from the foundation of the world in the Book of Life of the Lamb that hath been slain" (Rev. 13:8, R. V. compare Rev. 17:8). Here, then, is a positive statement affirming that there are those whose names were not written in the Book of Life. Because of this they shall render allegiance to and bow down before the Antichrist.

Here, then, are no less than ten passages which most plainly imply or expressly teach the fact of reprobation. They affirm that the wicked are made for the Day of Evil; that God fashions some vessels unto dishonor; and by His eternal decree (objectively) fits them unto destruction; that they are like brute beasts, made to be taken and destroyed, being of old ordained unto this condemnation. Therefore in the face of these scriptures we unhesitatingly affirm (after nearly twenty years careful and prayerful study of the subject) that the Word of God unquestionably teaches both Predestination and Reprobation, or to use the words of Calvin, "Eternal Election is God’s predestination of some to salvation, and others to destruction". 5. The Sovereignty of God in Reprobation
​

 

[AMR]

Supralapsarians and infralapsarians disagree on the matter as can be seen from the above. This is an in-house discussion that will likely continue until the eschaton but should never be a matter of division among Calvinists.

As noted earlier above, the majority view (infralapsarianism) is that God, in His sovereign act of hardening a particular person for His own glory, withhold's the restraints placed on already fallen mankind.

 

[JM]

Supralapsarians and infralapsarians disagree on the matter as can be seen from the above. This is an in-house discussion that will likely continue until the eschaton but should never be a matter of division among Calvinists.

Very true.

As noted earlier above, the majority view (infralapsarianism) is that God, in His sovereign act of hardening a particular person for His own glory, withhold's the restraints placed on already fallen mankind.

I don't know if infra is the most popular at least with the current generation. Do you recall the 'Where are you on the Calvinism Chart' thread on PB? Over 55% that voted were 'High Calvinists' which would/should place them in the Supra class. 5% voted Ultra High and 2% voted Hyper Calvinist. It seems the growth in Calvinism among the younger crowd has lead to a popularity of the Supra position. (at least that is my impression from the net and folks I speak with)

jm

 

[AMR]

JM,

I do not think an internet sampling, especially of sites like PB, are indicative of the greater population of Calvinists. From all my readings and study, infralapsarianism is the majority report and has been since the Reformation. There is not a single confession affirmed by Reformed or Particular Baptist that is decidedly supralapsarian, rather they are implicitly infralapsarian but written such that a supra may nevertheless affirm them.

 

[JM]

JM,

I do not think an internet sampling, especially of sites like PB, are indicative of the greater population of Calvinists. From all my readings and study, infralapsarianism is the majority report and has been since the Reformation. There is not a single confession affirmed by Reformed or Particular Baptist that is decidedly supralapsarian, rather they are implicitly infralapsarian but written such that a supra may nevertheless affirm them.

I just had a discussion with a Supra that declared when the confessions speak categorically their are crystal clear...on this issue they are ambiguous. The doctrine is in the eye of the beholder?

 

[AMR]

Okey dokey, JM!

 

[JM]

AMR, do you think net polls are good to gauge popular belief?

 

[AMR]

AMR, do you think net polls are good to gauge popular belief?

No I do not in general. A poll needs to be conducted with a proper sample set from a population for the results to be statistically valid. When the population is already narrowed by, say, membership in a very conservative group (population), the results are going to be skewed accordingly. That is not a bad thing per se, if the poll is related to conservative topics. So it comes down to the context of the poll.

 

[Iosias]

I always believed that God hardened the hearts of the reprobates as we see in Romans 11 however when considering total deprivaty it would be redundant for him to do so? So are their hearts hardened and if not what is Romans 11 referring to?

Romans 9-11 has been misread by many Calvinists during the ages; it is to do with Gentiles and Jews within God's plan of salvation, it has nothing to do with the election and reprobation of individuals. Try Romans and the Theology of Paul where the author deals with 9-11 on pp. 21ff.

 

[JM]

No I do not in general. A poll needs to be conducted with a proper sample set from a population for the results to be statistically valid. When the population is already narrowed by, say, membership in a very conservative group (population), the results are going to be skewed accordingly. That is not a bad thing per se, if the poll is related to conservative topics. So it comes down to the context of the poll.

AMR, would you say, historically, Particular Baptists tended to be supra?

 

[AMR]

AMR, would you say, historically, Particular Baptists tended to be supra?

I am not as familiar with Baptist history, but I would hazard to guess that the accordng to the way the 1689 LBCF reads, one would be hard pressed to claim it is so explicitly supralapsarian that a majority would agree.

I know this is a hobby horse of yours, so here are some quotes for your files...

"Although supralapsarianism never received confessional endorsement within the Reformed churches, it has been tolerated within the confessional boundaries."

Walter A. Elwell, Evangelical Dictionary of Theology: Second Edition (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2001). 1155.

"Though logical consistency may appear to favour the supralapsarian position, the milder *sublapsarian doctrine (q.v.) has been generally dominant among Calvinists, esp. since the Synod of *Dort (1618)."

F. L. Cross and Elizabeth A. Livingstone, The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, 3rd ed. rev. (Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press, 2005). 1570-71.

"Our confessional standards embody the infralapsarian position, but do not condemn Supralapsarianism. It was felt that this view was not necessarily inconsistent with Reformed theology. And the conclusions of Utrecht, adopted in 1908 by our Church, state that, while it is not permissible to represent the supralapsarian view as the doctrine of the Reformed churches in the Netherlands, it is just as little permissible to molest any one who cherishes that view for himself."

L. Berkhof, Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans publishing co., 1938). 125.

"Most Reformed theologians are infralapsarian. Most Reformed confessions have adopted the infralapsarian view but have not condemned the supralapsarian view."

Alan Cairns, Dictionary of Theological Terms (Belfast; Greenville, SC: Ambassador Emerald International, 2002). 235.

"This synod pronounced against the Arminians, asserting in its decrees the so-called five points of Calvinism: total depravity, unconditional election, limited atonement, irresistible grace, and the final perseverance of the saints. But Gomarus, who played a prominent role at Dort, was unable to persuade the synod to endorse his supralapsarianism—i.e., the idea that God’s decree of election preceded the fall of man and contemplated man’s fallen estate as part of the divine plan of predestination."

Walter A. Elwell, Evangelical Dictionary of Theology: Second Edition (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2001). 510.

"Besides, that the Supralapsarians have no object corresponding to the nature of the decree, their system is liable to other and insurmountable objections:"

James Henley Thornwell, The Collected Writings of James Henley Thornwell, Volume 2: Theological and Ethical, ed. John B. Adger (Richmond; New York; Philadelphia; Louisville: Presbyterian Committee of Publication; Robert Carter & Brothers; Alfred Martien; Davidson Bros. & Co., 1871). 24.

"75. What has the Synod of Dordt declared regarding this issue?
It has maintained an infralapsarian position, but without the intention of wanting to condemn supralapsarianism."

Geerhardus Vos, Reformed Dogmatics: Theology Proper, ed. Richard B. Gaffin, trans. Annemie Godbehere. 113.

"The infralapsarians, always a majority among the Calvinists, held that God first decreed or permitted the fall and then decreed to save some and to condemn others."

Sinclair B. Ferguson and J.I. Packer, New Dictionary of Theology, electronic ed. (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2000). 529.

"Girardeau, John L. Calvinism and Evangelical Arminianism: Compared As To Election, Reprobation, Justification, and Related Doctrines. Columbia, S.C: W. J. Duffie; and also New York: The Baker and Taylor Co., 1890, 574 pages.

The first 177 pages [in the work above] deal with Election and Reprobation. In this section Girardeau distinguishes Sublapsarianism from Supralapsarianism and insists that the former view is the position held by the main body of Calvinists. He then argues that Evangelical Arminianism has aimed much of its criticism at Calvinism per se instead of at Supralapsarian Calvinism. "

David N. Steele, Curtis C. Thomas and Roger Nicole, The Five Points of Calvinism: Defined, Defended and Documented (Philadelphia, PA: The Presbyterian & Reformed Publishing Co., 1963). 65.

 

[JM]

Great quotes AMR. Do you have any by supras about the history of the position or just infras? I use to think Calvin was infra but recently found out otherwise. Any idea why Calvin and Beza's supra position was rejected? Anything from history?

Thanks

 

[JM]

Double post.

 

[AMR]

Great quotes AMR. Do you have any by supras about the history of the position or just infras? I use to think Calvin was infra but recently found out otherwise. Any idea why Calvin and Beza's supra position was rejected? Anything from history?

Thanks

I do not have anything of use for the supra position. Of course, Gill would be a useful source as he was quite the supra.

Calvin's position is not as simple. The general view among theologians is that he is infra. I realize that there are some that argue Calvin was supra.

[FONT=&quot]It is true that Calvin wrote some things that would seem to indicate he would have been in sympathy with supralapsarianism, although the debate about supralapsarianism, did not occur in his lifetime (see Calvin's Calvinism, trans. by Henry Cole, 89ff; also William Cunningham, The Reformers and the Theology of the Reformation, 364ff).[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Calvin wrote:[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]"The decree, I admit, is, dreadful; and yet it is impossible to deny that God foreknow what the end of man was to be before he made him, and foreknew, because he had so ordained by his decree. Should any one here inveigh against the prescience of God, he does it rashly and unadvisedly. For why, pray, should it be made a charge against the heavenly Judge, that he was not ignorant of what was to happen? Thus, if there is any just or plausible complaint, it must be directed against predestination. Nor ought it to seem absurd when I say, that God not only foresaw the fall of the first man, and in him the ruin of his posterity; but also at his own pleasure arranged it. For as it belongs to his wisdom to foreknow all future events, so it belongs to his power to rule and govern them by his hand" (Institutes of the Christian Religion, III.xxiii.7)[/FONT]
​

[FONT=&quot]It is important to understand what Calvin is not saying in this often quoted passage of the Institutes. In order to prove that Calvin (or anyone else) held to supralapsarianism it is not enough to show that he believed that the fall was decreed (he did, and it was), for this is admitted by all sublapsarians (infralapsarian); it must be shown that the fall was decreed as a means towards carrying out a previous decree to save some and leave the others to perish—a view Calvin turned from as an otiose curiositas (idle curiosity). Nothing in what Calvin wrote supported this key distinction.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]The supralapsarian view was formulated by Theodore Beza, Calvin’s son-in-law (and one of Jacob Arminius’ teachers), who propounded the doctrine at the Colloquy of Mümpelgart, Mar. 14–27, 1586, some twenty-two years after Calvin’s death. Beza’s Greek editions and Latin translations of the New Testament were basic sources for the Geneva Bible and the 1611 King James Version. Those familiar with Calvin’s full corpus of writings would agree that Beza would have not succeeded in his efforts had Calvin been alive. Unfortunately, Beza’s supralapsarianism is what most non-Calvinists think Calvinism represents. Some also know this view as one of double predestination since both the elect and the non-elect (reprobate) are included in God's decrees. This view does not represent the majority of Calvinism.

Recommended:
https://itunes.apple.com/us/itunes-u/history-theology-puritans/id378878741?mt=10
(see esp. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Lecture 5, “The Bible in Puritan Theology – 1”, beginning at 28:00).[/FONT]