GeneMBridges
New Member
You are correct, it does. This text says nothing, however, about preterition as condemnation. You've equivocated over the meaning of "hate" and "condemn." Esau is reprobated unconditonally, but that does not mean he is condemned unconditionally. He is condemned because of His sin, just as men are justified as a consequence of their faith.
Election itself does not render a man justified. They must believe and repent. Preterition does not render men condemned, they must also be guilty of sin.
Reformed theology is very specific about necessary and sufficient conditions. Calvin himself said that the fall, for example, was made necessary by God's decree, but not compelled by God's decree. The sufficient condition for the fall is found in Adam's sin, not in God's decree. God's decree merely rendered it necessary, e.g. certain. The same holds true for election and reprobation. Election makes salvation certain for the elect. Preteriton makes condemnation certain for the reprobate, but neither side of the decree alone compels, in and of itself, justification or condemnation. That requires a specific action, a sufficient condition.
In Reformed theology, these decrees are asymmetrical. The necessary conditions are election and reprobation as preterition (passing by). However, without the sufficient conditions of faith and repentance (actions), no man elected will be saved. God decrees the ends as well as the means, and this includes the preaching of the gospel and their individual faith and repentance, which, because of men's natural state, can only be affected by the effectual call and regeneration by the Holy Spirit Himself. Faith and repentance arise within men as a natural result of the effectual call and regeneration. As breathing is to a newborn, so faith in Christ and repentance are the natural result of our new birth.
Reprobation as preterition is the flipside of election, but, like election, it requires a sufficient condtion (action) to come to pass. Since all men are sinners already, they are condemned already. This condemnation supplies the condition sufficient to their condemnation, and is their own. No effectual call is required to make them disbelieve, thus reprobation is asymmetrical in its execution.
No, because the decree of the fall makes all men sinners along with their freedom of spontaniety which they use to sin on their own, and thus they are under condemnation, and men have the freedom of spontaniety to act within the category distinctions set by God's decrees. The decrees of God with respect to election and reprobation are uncondtional, so He is sovereign. However,the sinner himself has fulfilled the decree through his sin and is thus chargeable with filling the sufficient condition. Thus he is to blame.
The decree of reprobation makes God responsible for their reprobation the way He is responsible for election, creation, and all things He decrees, but decretal responsibility is not a sufficient condition for moral blame, and blame is necessary for condemnation. Moral blame lies with the proximate, moral cause of sin, the sinner himself, the moral motive behind his actions.
Put in concrete terms: What God desires for His glory, the sinner does because he hates God and loves evil As such he and he alone is to blame for his sin, and thus his condemnation. If he would sincerely not believe (e.g. reject Christ and live in sin) because he truly loves God, he would not, in theory, be condemned, but doing such a thing is a logical contradiction, for one cannot possibly love God apart from also believing in Christ as His Lord and Savior and repenting of his sins and hating sin, which will result in salvation, which only comes from God's decree of election through the effectual call and regeneration.
Most people don't understand the doctrine of reprobation, mostly because not many good treatments on it have been written. Reprobation as preterition is unconditional, and as condemnation it is conditional, because sin makes men guilty and thus condemned. Likewise, election is unconditonal, yet as justification, it is conditional, because faith and repentance, arising from regeneration and calling, connect men to the righteousness of Christ imputed to them by God.
God's passing of some by is not conditioned by their unbelief. It is no more based on God's foreknowledge of their wickedness than election is based upon their foreseen faith. The only reason given for God passing Esau by is the text you cited. As the flip side of election it is unconditional. However, reprobation as condemnation is conditional, because a person is condemned by God for his sins and unbelief. Although all things proceed from God's decree, man alone is to blame for his sins. He is guilty, and the fault is not God's.
One of the best treatments of reprobation is in The Five Points of Calvinism by Edwin H. Palmer. He has a section called "Twelve Theses on Reprobation" at the conclusion of his text.
