The Convoluted Idea of Divine Reprobation
I come away from a reading of Austin Fisher’s book, Young, Restless and No Longer Reformed more disturbed than ever over the idea of “Divine Reprobation,” a Calvinist doctrine defined as follows in Wikopedia:
“… A person can reject the gospel to a point where God in turn rejects them and curses their conscience… The doctrine is found in many passages of scripture such as Romans 1:20–28, 2 Corinthians 13:5–6, Proverbs 1:23–33, John 12:37–41, and Hebrews 6:4–8.
When a sinner is so hardened as to feel no remorse or misgiving of conscience for particularly vile acts, it is considered a sign of reprobation. The doctrine does not stipulate that because of their wicked deeds God will not save them, but rather that God has effectively permanently withdrawn His offer of salvation by giving them over to a seared conscience, now capable of willingly committing certain sins not common among mankind.”
In his section on “The Reprobate” Fisher writes:
“This is a technical term used to describe those humans who, according to Calvinism, have been unconditionally predestined to hell. To say it another way, the reprobate are those humans who before they existed, were chosen by God to spend eternity in hell. And to be clear, the reprobate will spend eternity in hell for sins God ordained they would commit. In summary then, the reprobate are all those humans who will experience a fate dreadful beyond comprehension (hell) as they are eternally punished by God for sins he ordained they would commit before they existed — they were created so they could be damned. If you don’t cringe a little, you don’t have a pulse” (p.22).
Fisher goes on to say:
“Some Calvinists find this idea abhorrent and attempt to label it extreme Calvinism, and while I appreciate the sentiment, I don’t think its extreme so much as it is consistent. It is what any Calvinist should believe if he/she adheres to the notion that God is the all-determining reality (a fundamental tenet of Calvinism… I would also note that Calvin, Edwards, and Piper stand by it, insisting that those who shy away from it are wimping out…”(p.22–23)
Kevin DeYoung writes that “as an ordained Reformed pastor it will come as no surprise that I found his [Fisher’s] arguments ultimately unpersuasive and… full of significant weaknesses…”
So I have to ask myself… where does the truth lie between the two diametrically opposed positions of Fischer and DeYoung?
I have to say I’m surprised by Kevin DeYoung’s review of Fisher’s book, a very weak, desperate attempt to criticize Fisher’s well-reasoned case against Reformed Theology. I think there are at least three problems with DeYoung’s criticism.
DeYoung’s first response is to refer readers to “the case for Reformed soteriology” by reading “any number of books by John Piper, R.C. Sproul, John MacArthur, or one of the bazillion resources you can find on sites like The Gospel Coalition or Monergism.” Really? This represents the best response that a Calvinist can come up with? I’m not sure why DeYoung thinks those resources (numerous as they are) would change the mind of anyone who understands Calvinism for what it is — a doctrine that posits a God who condemns indiscriminately. That teaching of Reformed soteriology should seem odd to anyone committed to the simple universal idea of God’s goodness and his love and care for his created beings. (It really should be that simple!)
Then DeYoung goes on to what seems to be his main argument — that Fisher, while he was reformed early on in life, is simply too young, that he wasn’t Reformed “long enough” to give reformed theology a fair chance; that Fisher’s journey is “not the journey of a lifelong Calvinist or a deeply entrenched Reformed thinker who threw in the towel, as much as it is the story of an earnest young Christian who didn’t grow up Reformed…” DeYoung goes on to characterize Fisher’s disqualification to reject Calvinism, stating that he (Fisher) “didn’t grow up Reformed, was never trained to be Reformed…”
I’m not sure how this argument has any relevance to Fisher’s opposition to Calvinism or Reformed theology. I mean, really, how mature or seasoned as a theologian does one have to be in order to recognize that a God who punishes indiscriminately is not a fair God by any conceivable definition? It doesn’t require years of study or “entrenchment” as a Reformed thinker to grasp that idea.
Thirdly, DeYoung goes on to say that “Fisher’s arguments suffer from a lack of familiarity with the important distinctions frequently cited in the Reformed tradition.” By way of example, he cites the “distinction between remote and primary causes.” What does that mean? Is God in control of (or responsible for) only his primary causes, but not remote causes? Is God (so to speak) “off the hook in sending people to hell because after all, God only made the rules, he doesn’t enforce them? The convolution of such reasoning is astounding! Unfortunately, no amount of philosophical jargon can relive the burden of Reformed theology to explain God’s seeming indiscriminate behavior. Is DeYoung saying that God is responsible for only those eventualities that he actually “triggers,” but he’s “off the hook” (so to speak) for those “remote” eventualities that come about as a direct result of his primary causes?
DeYoung (thankfully) admits that “God is never the doer of evil.” But then he rehashes the completely convoluted Calvinist argument that although God admittedly doesn’t actually commit horrendous acts of evil, he “ordains what comes to pass while it is “the role of human agency to actually and voluntarily perform the ordained action.” How any Calvinist, no matter how learned in the ways of Calvinism) can make such a claim in good conscience, is beyond comprehension. In simple language, DeYoung seems to be saying that the one who “ordains” an act, but leaves it to his “ordainee” to carry it out, is not to be held responsible for the action taken. In other words, the fact that the “judge” leaves it to the “executioner” to carry out the sentence implies absolutely no responsibility on the part of the judge.
In summary, DeYoung (true to his understanding of Reformed Theology) claims that “there is a difference between God ordaining what comes to pass and the role of human agency in actually and voluntarily performing the ordained action.” Take a moment to think about that statement… then ask yourself which party is chiefly responsible for the act — the one who ordains the act or the one who carries out that which is ordained by another? By Calvinist reasoning, it seems that I would be “off the hook” if I (as the father of my children) would discipline of my child indiscriminately, or without explanation.
I resonate deeply with Fishcer’s instinctive reaction to the idea of election, and my reaction to Reformed Theology’s view of “reprobation” is similar to Fischer’s. As he puts it:
“… as I began to mull these things over afresh [the idea of the Reprobate], I didn’t like what I saw. I saw someone (me) focusing on the grace shown him to avoid considering the animosity shown others. I saw someone singing the grace of God over the cries of the reprobate. And try as I might, I could no longer muffle their wailing.” (p. 23)
For me (as it seems for Fischer), the idea of God’s consignment of some people to eternal suffering and his election of others to eternal happiness gradually came to be a repulsive and mean-spirited idea, one that I simply couldn’t justify with the necessary idea of a good God. To think along those lines is surely the epitome of self-centeredness and heartlessness on the part of any committed Calvinist. Here’s what I mean by that — I simply can’t understand how a Calvinist finds comfort in the idea that he finds himself on the right side of God’s mercy (because God has chosen him for that end) while others are committed (by that same God) to eternal torment in a lake of fire because God hasn’t chosen them to be recipients of his grace.
I find myself pulled in opposite directions here because I know deep down that my Calvinist friends are not heartless, yet the theology of reprobation that they embrace is surely a heartless and calloused theology. As I pointed out in my own book, Between Faith and Doubt (p.106, n.72), the idea of Reprobation, (what Calvin himself called a “Horrible Decree”) could only be embraced by someone who has actually experienced the grace of God to the extent that he/she finds himself/herself on the “right side” of God’s extended grace. No one who is outside of that grace would dare to make such a self-inflammatory argument, as that would be an affirmation of self-condemnation to eternal suffering. Only a fully committed hyper-Calvinist would make a statement like this one from John Piper: “It is right for God to slaughter women and children anytime he pleases… Everybody who dies, does because god wills that they die.”
Now a good Calvinist will automatically appeal to the idea of “mystery” — the ways of God are far beyond our ways; “who can know the mind of God?” Undoubtedly true, as far as it goes. But I would ask a simple question — What is it about God’s consignment of untold millions of people to eternal suffering that makes for a good mystery devised by a Good God? Is God’s sense of mystery so different from ours (as those who are created in God’s image) that His sense of mystery has a completely opposite meaning from our own?
All that said, what I appreciate most about Fischer’s book are his closing comments about faith vs. doubt and uncertainty. He says: “Rather than destroying faith, doubt and uncertainty can animate it by moving us towards that proper posture of humbled humanity and confident submission…” (p.90); or as he says, humility, restraint, and moderation… far from being the marks of spinelessness or skepticism, , are the marks of a theology that limps because it is actually dealing, wrestling, and struggling with God.
As I tried to say in my own book, I firmly believe that the most honest posture with regard to faith is to embrace our limitation, to acknowledge our humanity, and to live in light of a recognition that the deep and hidden things are not for us to know with certainty.
Bottom line for me — after reading Fischer’s book and DeYoung’s response, I’m more convinced than ever that Reformed Theology’s view of an Electing God is unbiblical, but more than that, it represents a false view of God.
