Friday, August 26, 2022

Examples of the Reformed Interpretation of Isaiah 45:7, Ezekiel 14:3-11, John 17:12, and 1 Peter 2:8 to Support Reprobation

As most critics of the Church who are theists come from a Reformed/Calvinistic perspective, I think it would be useful to see how they interpret various Old and New Testaments to support their theology (here, the doctrine of reprobation). The quotes that follow come from Peter Sammons, Reprobation and God’s Sovereignty (2022).

 

For a thorough refutation of Reformed theology, see, for e.g.

 

An Examination and Critique of the Theological Presuppositions Underlying Reformed Theology

 

Reformed understanding of Isa 45:7:

 

Many texts speak of God’s control over catastrophe in general, stemming from the weather to war. Isaiah 45:7 says about God: “The one forming light and creating darkness, causing well-being and creating calamity; I am the LORD who does all these.” The prophet Isaiah is not saying that God merely fashions an already evil situation for his otherwise good purposes; rather, he uses the word “to create” בָּרָא. On a linguistic level, “The root bârâ’ emphasizes the initiation of the object” (Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament [Chicago: Moody, 2004], 1:127). One cannot conclude that God is merely fixing a problem, but in some measure he is causing it to exist. In fact, this is the same term used in Genesis 1:1 to refer to God’s creation of the world. It is not merely reshaping old material but creating something that has not existed. (Peter Sammons, Reprobation and God’s Sovereignty: Recovering a Biblical Doctrine [Grand Rapids, Mich.: Kregel Academic, 2022], 187-88)

 

Reformed understanding of Ezek 14:3-11 (note: the author believes this to be normative not merely an instance of divine judgment):

 

. . . God explained an important truth to Ezekiel concerning true prophets:

 

Son of man, these men have set up their idols in their hearts and have put right before their faces the stumbling block of their iniquity. Should I be consulted by them at all? Therefore, speak to them and tell them, “Thus says the Lord GOD, ‘Any man of the house of Israel who sets up his idols in his heart, puts right before his face the stumbling block of his iniquity, and then comes to the prophet, I the LORD will be brought to give him an answer in the matter in view of the multitude of his idols, in order to lay hold of the hearts of the house of Israel who are estranged from Me through all their idols.’” Therefore say to the house of Israel, “Thus says the Lord God, ‘Repent and turn away from your idols and turn your faces away from all your abominations.’” (Ezek. 14:3-6)

 

In other words, if an Israelite asked a prophet for spiritual insight concerning Jerusalem’s future, all the while secretly harboring sin in his heart, he would not cooperate by proving a positive word for them—that is, if he were a true prophet. After all, no true prophet would ever coddle an idolater’s feigned devotion to God. Instead, he would rebuke the inquirer for his hypocrisy, and call him to repentance. People like Ezekiel would expose the inquirer’s sin and not give them the lie they wanted.

 

On the other hand, God explained how false prophets would respond to these inquirers:

 

But if the prophet is persuaded so that he speaks a word, it is I, the LORD, who have persuaded that prophet; and I will stretch out My hand against him and eliminate him from among My people Israel. And they will bear the punishment for their wrongdoing; as the wrongdoing of the inquirer is, so the wrongdoing of the prophet will be, in order that the house of Israel may no longer stray from Me and no longer defile themselves with all their offenses. So they will be My people, and I shall be their God,” declares the Lord GOD. (Ezek. 14:9-11)

 

Here, God explained that if an Israelite approached a prophet in feigned devotion, and the prophet was convinced or persuaded to give him the soothing lie that he wanted, both the false prophet and the one who inquired of him would suffer judgment. Nevertheless, don’t miss this vital detail in the passage: “If the prophet is persuaded so that he speaks a word, it is I, the LORD, who have persuaded that prophet” (Ezek. 14:9, emphasis mine).

 

In other words, God said he would persuade false prophets to lie to those who sought prophetic counsel while treasuring idols in their hearts. God would give the false prophet a ministry opportunity that would bring about both the prophet’s and the hearer’s own condemnation. He would be the one enticing false prophets to give the people what they wanted. . . . . Some might try to resolve this by saying that the Hebrew word for “persuade” doesn’t actually mean what we understand it to mean in English. However, underlying the verb “persuade” is the Hebrew word pathah, which means “to allure or deceive.” . . . Lexically, then, the semantic range and use of the word enforces, rather than refutes, a straightforward understanding of the word. “Persuade” means “persuade.” (Ibid., 267-68, 269)

 

On the Reformed understanding of John 17:12 and Judas being “the son of perdition”:

 

A son of perdition is someone born to be lost; implying that destruction is the ultimate purpose for decreeing and executing reprobation (in this case, specific to Judas). In other words, the ultimate purpose of Judas’s life was destruction. Judas’s betrayal of Christ was always part of God’s plan—it was ordained before the foundation of the world. This is why Jesus says in John 6:70, “Did I Myself not choose you, the twelve, and yet one of you is a devil?” (Ibid., 250-51)

 

Reformed interpretation of 1 Pet 2:8:

 

First Peter 2:8 provides a helpful statement explaining the relationship between the truth and the reprobate’s preordination to condemnation: “A STONE OF STUMBLING AND A ROCK OF OFFENSE’; for they stumble because they are disobedient to the word, and to this doom they were also appointed.” A more literal Greek translation reads, “and the stone of stumbling and a rock of offense for they stumble because they disobey the word as they were appointed to do.” Commentators have very divided opinions as to the nature of the “appointment.” The question commentators try to resolve is, “What is the antecedent of ο in the phrase εις ο και ετεθησαν?” Some take it to be απειθουντες (“disobedience”), while others take it to beπροσκοπτουσιν (“stumbling”). Those who appeal to προσκοπτουσιν (“stumbling”) do so on the basis of various proofs. Some propose that disobedience is not preordained, yet stumbling is. Their proposal results in making “stumbling” a mere consequence or penalty for disobedience. According to such an interpretation, God ordains punishment (stumbling) but not the crime (disobedience). Beyond the fact that it would be illogical for God to ordain the effect (the punishment of stumbling) without ordaining the cause (the crime of disobedience), it is difficult to see what difference such a view makes. After all, stumbling is a form of disobedience. These proposals do not alleviate the involvement of God in anyway.

 

One simply cannot ignore the reality that this text presents God as ordaining people to disobedience. With the pronoun being nearer to the relative clause, it makes little sense to jump over the clause and connect the pronoun with stumbling to the exclusion of disobedience. Further, stumbling is a form of disobedience. The fact that God ordains people to punishment is indicated by the word ετεθησαν because God has ordained people unto a rejection of his Word resulting in their damnation. The stone of stumbling is none other than Jesus Christ and the truth that he is Savior. They were appointed to stumble upon him, to reject salvation by faith in him. Condemnation was their appointment and Christ was the means of sealing their fate.

 

The fact that the truth provokes in the non-elect a response of rejection, by divine appointment, unmistakably indicates that it is a means of reprobation. Theologians have recognized this for a long time. Charles Spurgeon illustrates, “The same sun which melts wax hardens clay; and the same Gospel which melts some person to repentance hardens others in their sins” (The Lesson of the Almond Tree”). Michael Horton states, “The same word that is faith0producing and life-generating for some is for others an occasion to become more resolute in unbelief” (For Calvinism, 69). Ultimately, Peter explains that the Gospel is inherently scandalous for an additional reason often overlooked: the same message has drastically different outcomes on the elect and the non-elect, based on God’s foreordained intention. (Ibid., 256-58)