Rev. John Blankespoor is pastor of the Pine Creek Christian Reformed Church of Holland, Michigan. He writes: “In more recent times, the decree of reprobation has been brought into question—in the Netherlands, but also in America and in the Christian Reformed Churches as well.” It is to this matter that he addresses himself in this article.

As believing Christians, confessing the Reformed faith, we believe that God not only knew what would happen in time, but also fore-ordained all things according to His counsel or plan. It has been confessed for centuries that this includes the eternal destinies of men.

This is called predestination, which has two parts. On the one hand God has elected some people to be saved from sin through faith in Christ unto eternal glory. This is called election. On the other hand He has reprobated others, which means that He has decreed to reject them, passing them by in their sins, and condemning them on account of them.

We are talking about God‘s decree, plan. Not about His rejection of sinners in time. This surely is also true. The Scriptures teach throughout that God rejects those who reject Him and spurn His Word. But in this article we are busy with the matter of His decree. decision, plan, made before He made the world, in which He chose some and reprobated others.

As can be expected. this doctrine has never been very popular, even in many church circles. On the one hand it surely emphasizes the sovereignty of God. Those who oppose it claim that it makes Cod the cause of people being lost, and denies the responsibility of man. Calvin, even though he firmly believed in it, called it a “decretum horrible” (dreadful decree). However, this doctrine of predestination has been taught by many great leaders in the church, like Augustine, Calvin, Bavinck, Kuyper, Warfield, and many others . . . .

Taught in the Creeds – Reprobation is also taught in our Creeds. particularly in the Confession of Faith and the Canons of Dort.

Confession of Faith, Article 16, entitled Eternal Election reads: “We believe that, all the posterity of Adam being thus fallen into perdition and ruin by the sin of our first parents, God then did manifest Himself such as He is; that is to say, merciful and just: merciful, since He delivers and preserves from this perdition all whom He in His eternal and unchangeable counsel of mere goodness has elected in Christ Jesus our Lord, without any respect to their works; just, in leaving others in the fall and perdition wherein they have involved themselves . . . .”

The Canons of Dort, Head I, Article 6 states: “that some receive the gift of faith from God, and others do not receive it, proceeds from God‘s eternal decree. For known unto God are all His works from the beginning of the work! (Acts 15;18, A.V.) Who worketh all things after the counsel of His will (Eph. 1:11). According to which decree He graciously softens the hearts of the elect, however obstinate, and inclines them to believe; while He leaves the non-elect in His just judgment to their own wickedness and obduracy. And herein is especially displayed the profound, the merciful, and at the same time the righteous discrimination between men equally involved in ruin; or that decree of election and reprobation, revealed in the Word of God . . . .”

In more recent times the degree of reprobation has been brought into question, in the Netherlands, but also in America and in the Christian Reformed Churches as well. The main question perhaps is, is there Biblical proof for this kind of creed? That the Bible teaches election these objectors do not deny, but they do question or even deny that the Scriptures teach the doctrine or decree of reprobation.

Romans 9:13 – “Even as it is written, Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.” This is one of the classic passages given as proof for the doctrine of the decree of election and reprobation.

However, people have questioned this as legitimate proof. On the one hand, it is said that this refers not to Jacob and Esau as individuals, hut to the nations of the Israelites and the Edomites, who came from these two men. Also it has been said that the word hate really means or can mean to love less, i.e., Esau have I loved less. Because of these objections we find it necessary to go into some detail in this passage to prove that these objections are not valid, and that this is a passage that teaches the decree of reprobation.

Notice the setting (vss. 1–5): “I say the truth in Christ, I lie not, my conscience bearing witness with me in the Holy Spirit, that I have great sorrow and unceasing pain in my heart, For I could wish that I myself were anathema from Christ for my brethren‘s sake, my kinsmen according to the flesh; who are Israelites; whose is the adoption and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promise; whose are the fathers, and of whom is Christ as concerning the flesh, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen.”

Paul is grieved deeply because of the unbelief of the nation of the Israelites, His fellow people. He could wish that he himself would forever perish, if they could he saved. On account of this he has constant pain in his heart.

Paul says: “But it is not as though the word of God hath come nought” (vs. 6). The Word of God has not failed. His Word stands, He keeps His Word. No doubt, the concept Word here must be seen in the light of the promise of verse 4. His promise has not failed, even though so many Israelites have perished and are perishing. Further (vs. 6), he states: “For they are not all Israel, that are of Israel.” This means that they are not all true, spiritual Israelites who are of the nation of Israel. And so the promise of God has not failed, even though many Israelites are lost. True, spiritual Israelites are being saved.

Notice also: “Neither, because they are Abraham‘s seed, are they all children; but in Isaac shall thy seed be called.” By Abraham’s seed Paul refers to all the  Israelites. But just because they are Israelites they are not all children of God. This Paul applies also to the seed of Abraham. Being naturally a child of Abraham does not mean that one will be a child of God. Ishmael too, was a son of Abraham. But in Isaac God’s seed is called. Paul is “narrowing” the entire matter down to Isaac. And notice that he is “narrowing” it down from the nation of Israel to the individual of Isaac (vs. 1).

   

Paul goes on: “That is, it is not the children of the flesh that are children of God; hut the children of the promise are reckoned for a seed.” Here the term, children of the flesh is the same as the term, Abraham‘s seed in the previous verse. And the term, children of the promise refers to Isaac. He is the son of promise. He was not born by virtue of natural procreative powers, Abraham and Sarah were much too old to have babies in the normal way. But God promised them a son. And through faith in this promise and by the power of the promise of the Almighty, this son Isaac was born. He was therefore called the child of promise. This thought is expressed as follows: “For this is a word of promise, according to this season will I come, and Sarah shall have a son” (vs. 9).

Notice verse 10: “And not only so; but Rebecca also having conceived by one, even by our father Isaac –for the children being not yet born, neither having done anything good or bad, that the purpose of God according to ejection might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth, it was said unto her, the elder shall serve the younger, even as it is written, Jacob I loved but Esau I hated . . . .” Here another appeal is made to the same kind of distinction in the history of the patriarchs. Paul adds argument to argument. Ishmael, though a child of Abraham, was not a child of the promise. Isaac was.

Now with the example of Esau and Jacob we have added factors. Ishmael did not have the same mother that Isaac had. Hagar was a slave woman and Sarah a free woman, the “real” wife of Abraham. But with Rebecca it is different. Her boys are born of course of the same mother, but also they are twins. Added to that Paul says, “before they had done any good or evil.” What a similarity, children of the same parents and even twins . . . . And now the word election is brought into the picture . . . Jacob is elect, Esau is hated . . . . Remember the beginning of the chapter. Paul is grieved about the many Israelites being lost. Why? Did God‘s Word fail? Then he followed the argument that the Word has not failed by referring to the spiritual Israelites. From there he goes on speaking about Isaac and then comes to Jacob. The final and real argument is this, the promise of God stands. God saves His elect. Ishmael and Esau are not the promised seed, nor spiritual children of Abraham, according to God‘s intention.

It has been argued that when Paul speaks here of Jacob he is referring not to the individual, the man Jacob, but to the nation that would be born from him and his seed. And so they say the text does not speak about God electing individuals but nations in time. But then the text would say that God chose Israel as a nation to be His people instead of the other nations. After all, so the argument goes, doesn’t the quotation from Malachi speak of the Israelites and the Edomites, descendants of Jacob and Esau? But this is not a correct explanation of the text. Remember the original question in the beginning of the chapter. Paul is so grieved that the Israelites (plural), as a nation are not being saved. And so he asks the question, is God’s Word failing, or His promise? But if this ejection of which Paul speaks, in vss. 11 and 12, refers to Israel as a nation, so that Israel is the elected nation, how can that in any way, shape or manner be the answer to the original question about Israel as a nation being lost? Neither would or could that satisfy the grieved soul of Paul. God’s election is the answer, and His reprobation. If the love for Jacob is love for the individual man, surely the hatred for Esau must be the same. And it is this hatred for Esau which God had toward him before he was born, that is proof for the doctrine of the decree of reprobation.

It is said that God loved Esau less. But would a “love less” attitude answer the question and do justice to the radical distinction Paul makes in this entire passage? But above all, listen to Malachi 1:3–5. Surely this does not imply or speak of any love, “But Esau I hated and made his mountain a desolation and gave his heritage to the jackals of the wilderness. Whereas Edom (Esau) saith, we are beaten down, but we will return and build the waste places; thus saith Jehovah of hosts, they shall build, but I will throw down; and men shall call them the border of wickedness, and the people against whom Jehovah hath indignation forever.” Who would call this “a loveless attitude” of God?

A final word about the word hate as used here. I quote from Professor John Murray’s Commentary on Romans (Vol. II, p. 22). “We must not predicate of this divine hate those unworthy features which belong to hate as it is exercised by us sinful men. In Cod’s hate there is no malice, malignancy, vindictiveness, unholy rancour or bitterness. The kind of hate thus characterized is condemned in Scripture and it would be blasphemy to predicate the same of God. We must … recognize that there is in God a holy hate that cannot be defined in terms of not loving or loving less . . . . It is difficult for us find terms adequately to express this holy hate as exercised by us. It is still more difficult to express this hate as it belongs to God. And it is not to be supposed that an appeal to the analogy between our holy hate and that of God resolves for us the precise character of the hate specified in the proposition, ‘Esau I hated.’ The hate of verse 13 belongs to the transcendent realm of God’s sovereignty for which there is no human analogy.”

John 10:25–27 – In this well known chapter Jesus speaks of Himself as the Shepherd of the sheep. Also that He is the door through which they can enter. Also that He is the Good Shepherd.

As so often happened, opposition arose against Our Lord. At the feast of dedication at Jerusalem they confronted Him directly with the question, “How long dost thou hold us in suspense? If thou art the Christ, tell us plainly.” Then follow verses 25–27. “Jesus answered them, I told you and ye believe not; the works that I do in my Father’s name, these bear witness of me. But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep. My sheep hear my voice, and they follow me.” Notice especially three thoughts here.

1. Jesus speaks of believing, hearing and following Him. These all are part of the Christian‘s actions as of a regenerated and converted sinner. 2. Before the people do that they have to be and are His sheep. “My sheep hear my voice,” says the Lord. This is election. 3. But these Jews who oppose Jesus do not believe, do not hear believingly and do not follow Him. Why not? Because they are not of His sheep, says Jesus. They are not elect, they are what the church has called “the reprobate.” These words cannot mean anything else.

Conclusion – If one takes the infralapsarian viewpoint (which we find in our Confessions) this means that Cod in mercy chose some in their sins unto eternal life in Christ, but also in His justice decided not to give to other sinful people who had fallen in Adam, the gift of salvation. Instead He passed them by and will punish them on account of their sins.

In the conclusion of the Canons some very important statements and judgments are made in connection with the doctrine of predestination. For example, that it cannot and should not be said that this truth makes God the author of sin. It also states that we should not say “that in the same manner in which election is the fountain and cause of faith and good works, reprobation is the cause of unbelief and impiety.” In other words, not God’s decree but man himself is responsible for his own unbelief and sin. And the implication is that God in all His deeds is always good, just, and sovereign.