From Thomas Talbott: Belief in reprobation is an expression of human rebelliousness.

[geebob]

The following arguements are from an article I found while doing a little research for my debate with Pilgrimagain on the eternal destinies of the unevangelized in the Battle Royal arena at TheologyOnline.com (Battle Royale VI).

The reference to the article was in one of the footnotes in John Sanders' No Other Name.

The article, by Thomas Talbott, a reformed theologian, is from The Reformed Journal and is titled On Predestination, reprobation, and the love of God. It was published in February of 1983.

John Piper also wrote a rebuttal to this the following month. Naturally, I wasn't convinced, but as to whether his arguments were good reasonable arguments, the jury is still out on that. Supposedly, Talbott wrote a response to Piper's rebuttal in the month after Piper's response, but my town library has not yet gotten a hold of that.

Now I'm going to say one thing up front about the way this debate will proceed (not that I necessarily intend to debate this vigorously). This is not a debate concerning the scriptures used to support individualistic predestination and reprobation. This topic is for the problems that Talbott raises, problems that naturally arise out of other scriptures. The issue of the scriptures used to support individualistic predestination are important to discuss, but they will not be discussed in this thread. For the sake of arguement, I will say even if you find those scriptures to be proof of your position, If you do not handle the arguements here which are biblically based, then as far as this thread is concerned, scripture may be considered inconsistent. Again, this is for the sake of argument.

Important Disclaimer
I'd like to give one more preliminary before the arguments. I'm going to present most or all of Talbott's main arguments the last and most powerful of which argues the title of this thread (and the one I will put any effort into if at all with regard to debate), belief in reprobation is a manifestation of rebellion. However, I do not want to give the impression that I believe that because I do not hold to reprobation that I am on better terms with God, or that my love is more perfect than that of many Calvinists, especially some at this website. There are many Calvinists who are more pious and exhibit greater Christian love than I do. So I suppose I make that arguement at the risk of having a speck in my eye. Nevertheless, this is a substantial issue which deserves attention which I can offer only in as much humility as I can muster.

Now on with the show.

Four Awkward Conclusions
Talbott defines reprobation as the doctrine that God passes over some people for merely the pleasure of his own will. There is nothing in us that would compel God to save some and not others. Thus, as I have heard personally from several Calvinists, Jesus does not love all the children of the world.

So this doctrine causes four awkward conclusions.

1)God himself fails to love some of the very persons he has commanded us to love.

Obviously, the mandates to love our neighbor and enemies comes to mind, many of whom are reprobate, which leads us to our second point

2) The very God who commands us to love our enemies fails to love his enemies.

Most orthodox christians would have a decent objection to this in that God does not love Satan nor does he expect us to love that enemy, thus 2 does not have the same strength as 1 except when the enemy in 2 is the same enemy that God expects us to love.

This may not be an issue with Talbott as he is a universalist believing that everyone will eventually be saved, and many universalists suppose that maybe even Satan will be saved.

3)Loving-kindness is not an essential property of God, not part of his essence.

Talbott's reasoning here is along the lines that if Justice is an essential property of God, then it is logically impossible for him to act unjust or if omniscience is an essential property, it is impossible for him to hold a mistaken belief. Thus to posit loving-kindness as an essential property supposedly indicates that it is impossible for God to ever act without loving-kindness.

4)God is less loving, less kind, and less merciful than many human beings.

The demonstration of this is the apostle Paul’s statement at the beginning of Romans 9.

1I speak the truth in Christ--I am not lying, my conscience confirms it in the Holy Spirit-- 2I have great sorrow and unceasing anguish in my heart. 3For I could wish that I myself were cursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brothers, those of my own race, 4the people of Israel.

Talbott considers these powerful enough to reduce the traditional reformed doctrine of predestination to an absurdity. I think the first and last points are the strongest, but I’m not sure about the second and third.

The kicker (this is the primary arguement for this topic)

I as well as Talbott consider his last argument in his essay to have logical strength deriving a contradiction out of the two greatest commandments placed next to the doctrine of Reprobation.

Talbott’s claim is this:

…it is not psychologically possible, not even logically possible, to love God with all one’s heart, to love one’s neighbor as oneself, and simultaneously to believe in the Reformed doctrine of [reprobation].

To draw this out, we will highlight some differences between our love of God and our love for our fellow man. Now as Talbott points out the difference in loving each other and loving God is that our love for others is such that we seek to improve each other or encourage each other towards the end of perfection as “iron sharpening iron.” But our love for God entails no such thing but rather that we approve of him as he is (or at least be in the process of coming to the place where we approve of him as he is). God is, after all, perfect. So our love requires absolute respect and approval of God.

An essential aspect of our love for God is gratitude and this is another kind of love that does not transfer over to love for our fellow man. “We love Him because He first Loved us.” In keeping with reformed doctrine, with total depravity, it is not possible for us to love God unless he first loves us.

So here’s where the road meets the rubber. So my love of God requires my gratitude for what he has done for me and absolute respect. How in light of that can I love all of my neighbors as myself when God has not done what is necessary for ultimately significant love for them? If God must love me for it to be possible for me to love him, then my love for my neighbor as myself entails that God loves them for me to maintain the same quality of gratitude to God in loving my neighbor as myself. Since some of my neighbors may be reprobate, according to Reformed doctrine, I cannot be fully grateful to God for them as myself nor I cannot love them as myself as my love for myself involves my desire to be saved from damnation.

[smilax]

geebob:
Thus, as I have heard personally from several Calvinists, Jesus does not love all the children of the world.I thought that was called "hyper-Calvinism." As far as I understand it, historic Calvinism has held to common grace, and in particular, the benevolence of God. Recall from Luke xiv, 26 that "hate" can be a hyperbole for less love; in this sense, sure, God loves the whole world, but the fact that people go to hell shows that it is not an equally distributed love, and in final analysis, God hates sinners.1)God himself fails to love some of the very persons he has commanded us to love.Quite untrue. Matthew v, 45 says rain is an example. Mark x, 21 has Jesus loving a man who shortly rejects salvation. And I deny limiting the scope of John iii, 16. Again, I have no problem with reprobation in the context of common grace.2) The very God who commands us to love our enemies fails to love his enemies.http://www.antithesis.com/features/love_01.html has a piece by Carson on the love of God. He describes the following:

1. The peculiar love of the Father for the Son, and of the Son for the Father.
2. God's providential love over all that he has made.
3. God's salvific stance toward his fallen world.
4. God's particular, effective, selecting love toward his elect.
5. God's love is sometimes said to be directed toward his own people in a provisional or conditional way.

So in the case of the reprobate, one could say God loves His enemies in the second and third, sense, but not the fourth.3)Loving-kindness is not an essential property of God, not part of his essence.Hmm... If it's not essential, then what is it? A prosthetic limb? Seems to fly in the face of the clear statement in I John iv, 8 that, "God is love."4)God is less loving, less kind, and less merciful than many human beings.No way. God's love for His enemies is infinite. Proof:

1. God is infinitely holy.
2. Sin directly opposes the holy character of God.
3. The punishment due to sin is infinite.
4. Therefore, upon sinning, every individual should be instantly destroyed and sentenced to eternal damnation.
5. The fact that this infinite punishment is averted is grace.
6. Therefore, God's love, even to the reprobate, is infinite, or else it could not have delayed the punishment.
7. See also http://justthinkingpages.tripod.com/hell.html for a description of hell as mercy.

[geebob]

Quite untrue. Matthew v, 45 says rain is an example. Mark x, 21 has Jesus loving a man who shortly rejects salvation. And I deny limiting the scope of John iii, 16. Again, I have no problem with reprobation in the context of common grace.

I assume common grace is distinguished from salvific grace. I'm not familiar with all the terms.

But is this love truly significant. I'm just not impressed with love that fills the intestines only for a short time before an eternity of unspeakable torment. Calling it half measures is a huge overstatement.

Suggesting oblivion does reduce this problem greatly, but I still have a hard time calling it signficant love.


3. God's salvific stance toward his fallen world.
4. God's particular, effective, selecting love toward his elect...So in the case of the reprobate, one could say God loves His enemies in the second and third, sense, but not the fourth.

I don't see how God could consistently have a salvific stance for the reprobate and yet deny them the thing necessary for that kind of love to mean anything and to very well be worth anything.

Hmm... If it's not essential, then what is it? A prosthetic limb? Seems to fly in the face of the clear statement in I John iv, 8 that, "God is love."

That's your problem. I don't believe in reprobation.

But i have my own reservations about this one anyway. I'm just putting it out on the table for everyone to see.

No way. God's love for His enemies is infinite. Proof:

Well it's interesting then that Paul's allegedly lesser love involves a desire for greater mercy than God's infinite love.

[smilax]

geebob:
I assume common grace is distinguished from salvific grace. I'm not familiar with all the terms.Common grace is universal but non-salvific, whereas salvific is only for the elect. In Reformed thought, anyway.But is this love truly significant. I'm just not impressed with love that fills the intestines only for a short time before an eternity of unspeakable torment. Calling it half measures is a huge overstatement.Well, it's significant enough to condemn them, no? To whom more is given, more will be expected. And in any case, it's more than any of us deserves.Suggesting oblivion does reduce this problem greatly, but I still have a hard time calling it signficant love.Why doesn't God keep those who reject Him on perpetual life support until they decide to turn to Him?I don't see how God could consistently have a salvific stance for the reprobate and yet deny them the thing necessary for that kind of love to mean anything and to very well be worth anything.This is where that nasty concept of two wills comes into play. The salvific stance is one of command and responsibility. "Repent," Christ says, "for the kingdom of God is at hand." But does this entail enabling? I have yet to see a convincing argument that it does.That's your problem. I don't believe in reprobation.What's your take, then? Annihilationism? Universalism?But i have my own reservations about this one anyway. I'm just putting it out on the table for everyone to see.Sounds good to me.Well it's interesting then that Paul's allegedly lesser love involves a desire for greater mercy than God's infinite love.Not sure about this one. Reprobation does not state that God derives pleasure from the destruction of the wicked, but rather glory. (Ezekiel xviii, 23; Romans ix, 20-23.)

[geebob]

Well, it's significant enough to condemn them, no? To whom more is given, more will be expected. And in any case, it's more than any of us deserves.

nevertheless, God commands us to love those who he fails to love in an ultimate sense.

Why doesn't God keep those who reject Him on perpetual life support until they decide to turn to Him?

Talbott would probably say that he does. I would say that one of the consequences of free will may be the possibility that rejection is final.

What's your take, then? Annihilationism? Universalism?

The article addresses the issue where the difference between condemnation and salvation for an individual is ultimately within God's will.

As a free will theist though, the spurning of love and grace is on our heads. It is not though an act of omission or commision on God's part. He did all he could to make it possible for everyone.

Not sure about this one. Reprobation does not state that God derives pleasure from the destruction of the wicked, but rather glory.

I can't say how I see this was relevent to my statement.


BTW Do not forget, these four awkward conclusions are not the primary problem with reprobation.

[smilax]

geebob:
nevertheless, God commands us to love those who he fails to love in an ultimate sense.Hmm...

Galatians vi, 10: "As we have therefore opportunity, let us do good unto all men, especially unto them who are of the household of faith."

I Timothy iv, 10: "For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe."I can't say how I see this was relevent to my statement.Paul's desire: their salvation. God's "desire": their salvation.BTW Do not forget, these four awkward conclusions are not the primary problem with reprobation.Well, then, let's take a stab at it.Since some of my neighbors may be reprobate, according to Reformed doctrine, I cannot be fully grateful to God for them as myself nor I cannot love them as myself as my love for myself involves my desire to be saved from damnation.What, then? Perhaps this is implied by shaking the dust off one's feet, excommunication, the rejection of a heretic, and so forth. And perhaps this is what David meant by his "perfect hatred"; because we love God, His enemies are in that sense our enemies.

[geebob]

Paul's desire: their salvation. God's "desire": their salvation.

:huh:

What, then? Perhaps this is implied by shaking the dust off one's feet, excommunication, the rejection of a heretic, and so forth.

Does this imply that we are giving up on them? Paul spoke of handing someone over to the devil, but that was not so that they would be damned. Also, it may have been the case that the individual should give up with his particular efforts. But where he may have failed (or succeeded only in sowing a seed?) others may succeed.

Also, consider that the shaking of the feet and so on is only after the marks themselves have rejected the message. Before that, we are to approach them in hopes and good intentions with gratitude that God has already acted in love for them in making the long impossible path possible.

And perhaps this is what David meant by his "perfect hatred"

"but now I give you a new command..."

[smilax]

geebob:
:huh:...Does this imply that we are giving up on them?In the case of rejecting a heretic, I believe so. But I am reminded that the sons of Zedebee wanted to call fire upon a city, after which they were chided by Christ. And excommunication seems pretty harsh, not even eating with them. How is the chance for reconciliation to be made?Paul spoke of handing someone over to the devil, but that was not so that they would be damned."That they may learn not to blaspheme," the text says. And as a result, as Peter, John, Jude, and others show, there is a huge difference in attitude towards the misguided sheep versus the intentionally divisive. I have doubts that being handed over to Satan was good for them. His statements that such people's mouths must be stopped in Titus is more in line with condemnation.Also, it may have been the case that the individual should give up with his particular efforts. But where he may have failed (or succeeded only in sowing a seed?) others may succeed.I would certainly agree with this.Also, consider that the shaking of the feet and so on is only after the marks themselves have rejected the message. Before that, we are to approach them in hopes and good intentions with gratitude that God has already acted in love for them in making the long impossible path possible.But once again, there is an unequal love once the decision is made. Assuming timelessness, the only difference is that the contingency of God's love becomes merely logical, (first common, then salvific,) whereas for humans, it is also a temporal issue, (approaching with hopeful expectation, possibly rejecting the person afterwards.) Besides, none of us knows who is elect or reprobate. That is precisely why evangelism should offer equal opportunities."but now I give you a new command..."Psst, this one refers to love among Christians.

[geebob]

How is the chance for reconciliation to be made?

on our part? prayer and patience.

But once again, there is an unequal love once the decision is made.

Talbott defines reprobation (actually he says predestination, but I have used reprobation for it's specificity) to the effect that God passes over someone whom he could've saved. If God has given us self-determining freedom of the libertarian sort and has made our willingness a necessary part of salvation, then it is not the case that it was possible for God to save this person.

Assuming timelessness, the only difference is that the contingency of God's love becomes merely logical, (first common, then salvific,)

which I don't. But assuming timelessness, it is still the case our hopes for salvific grace are still based upon ignorance and not the reality that God has passed over them.

Besides, none of us knows who is elect or reprobate. That is precisely why evangelism should offer equal opportunities.

So we can't know if our love for our neighbor as ourselves is based on reality or ignorance.

Psst, this one refers to love among Christians.

I was thinking of Matthew 5.

43"You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor[8] and hate your enemy.' 44But I tell you: Love your enemies[9] and pray for those who persecute you, 45that you may be sons of your Father in heaven.

Nevertheless, there is an error and it is mine. Love for enemies may not be relevent to this arguement.

The problem is love for neighbors as ourselves, which invovles hope for there salvation and that hope may be baseless in a world where reprobation is the case. Thus gratitude towards God in loving others as ourselves cannot be fully realized.

[smilax]

geebob:
on our part? prayer and patience.Hmm... What's your take on I John v, 16?Talbott defines reprobation (actually he says predestination, but I have used reprobation for it's specificity) to the effect that God passes over someone whom he could've saved.The infralapsarian sense, as opposed to strict double predestination, right? That's what I thought.If God has given us self-determining freedom of the libertarian sort and has made our willingness a necessary part of salvation, then it is not the case that it was possible for God to save this person.Hey, hey, you can't mix libertarian free will with Reformed reprobation! It would be abundantly clear that a logical hole a pickup truck could drive through would arise.which I don't. But assuming timelessness, it is still the case our hopes for salvific grace are still based upon ignorance and not the reality that God has passed over them.I know, I know, but we are discussing a Reformed doctrine, so I figured it was fair enough. It is by God's grace that we are ignorance is a reality.The problem is love for neighbors as ourselves, which invovles hope for there salvation and that hope may be baseless in a world where reprobation is the case. Thus gratitude towards God in loving others as ourselves cannot be fully realized.Hmm, but the emphasis is more on the obligation for salvation, not so much hope that they will convert, just as Moses proclaimed, "Thou shalt not kill," even though he knew people would disobey. Repentance is an imperative. It is in the end based on God's holy character. And why can't we love them as much as we love ourselves? We all equally deserve damnation, and God's grace does not give us opportunity to boast; quite the contrary, it should make us weep for the reprobate as Paul did.

[geebob]

Hmm... What's your take on I John v, 16?

I don't know what to make of it, except that it is not relevent since there is no indication that God could've prevented the person from this sin without removing his free will. Thus it is not relevent to the issue of reprobation as Talbott defines it.

You're probably thinking that thus I can not love this person as myself. I'd say that I can and I can be grieved, but there is nothing about God that brought this situation about. He saves who he can and that would have included this person had they not commited this terrible sin.

The infralapsarian sense, as opposed to strict double predestination, right? That's what I thought.

at least the infralapsarian sense and at most double predestination.

Hey, hey, you can't mix libertarian free will with Reformed reprobation!

I thought you were asking me of my view. I don't believe in reprobation.

And why can't we love them as much as we love ourselves? We all equally deserve damnation, and God's grace does not give us opportunity to boast; quite the contrary, it should make us weep for the reprobate as Paul did.

You see, this is the problem. The love I have of myself necessarily includes my self preservation. I wan't salvation and I don't want damnation. So I don't deserve salvation. So I can understand and accept that. It still does not take away from the fact that it would not be well with my soul to be damned and I do not want to be damned. It would be the greatest tragedy of my being to be damned and there would be no consolation. And if I am damned, I cannot love God. And so if I am to love even the reprobate as myself, I cannot love God who reprobates to the fullest that I should love him as there is an action he performed (of omission or commision) for which I cannot respect. And If I love the God who reprobates with the fullest approval, I cannot love my neighbor as myself, as Jesus commanded because I cannot approve of reprobation.

[smilax]

geebob:
I don't know what to make of it, except that it is not relevent since there is no indication that God could've prevented the person from this sin without removing his free will. Thus it is not relevent to the issue of reprobation as Talbott defines it.No, no, we were dealing with love, and I asked how one would show it. You responded by saying prayer and patience, but for some reason, John advises his readers not to pray in this particular case. What's up with that? The unequal love shows.And so if I am to love even the reprobate as myself, I cannot love God who reprobates to the fullest that I should love him as there is an action he performed (of omission or commision) for which I cannot respect.I am having serious problems with this reasoning. It sounds as though this sort of reasoning assumes the love we have for God is grounded on selfishness, that we love Him only because He saved us. Whether we by human nature can is one thing; but what we should do is entirely other, and because of God's very character, not to say anything about His actions, He already deserves all glory and praise, and yes, love.And If I love the God who reprobates with the fullest approval, I cannot love my neighbor as myself, as Jesus commanded because I cannot approve of reprobation.In light of Romans ix, 20-23, what exactly is so horrible about reprobation?

[geebob]

No, no, we were dealing with love, and I asked how one would show it. You responded by saying prayer and patience, but for some reason, John advises his readers not to pray in this particular case. What's up with that? The unequal love shows.

In such a hopeless case, I don't know what our response should be.

But that I cannot love them in the sense of hoping for them, It has no bearing on my love for God as it is not by his reprobation.

It sounds as though this sort of reasoning assumes the love we have for God is grounded on selfishness, that we love Him only because He saved us.

I have already argued for this. "We love him because he first loved us." And there is also the issue of total depravity.

Interestingly you say that there is an issue of selfishness here. But that we refuse to love our neighbor as ourselves is the essence of selfishness. It is not how we view our selves that is the issue in selfishness.

Whether we by human nature can is one thing; but what we should do is entirely other, and because of God's very character, not to say anything about His actions, He already deserves all glory and praise, and yes, love.

I cannot seperate the worthiness of God's character from his actions.

In light of Romans ix, 20-23, what exactly is so horrible about reprobation?

If reprobation involves damnation, (which it does) ask Lazerous.

[Sparko]

:grin:

[Nang]

In such a hopeless case, I don't know what our response should be.


Is this thread choreographed, or what?

Putting it in the category of "propoganda," ( or spiritual "brainwashing") perhaps?

Nang







If reprobation involves damnation, (which it does) ask Lazerous.[/QUOTE]

[geebob]

I didn't see that I mentioned this above so I'm clarifying this here. This thread is for the topic and the topic only.

[geebob]

I didn't see that I mentioned this above so I'm clarifying this here. This thread is for the topic and the topic only.

[geebob]

That said, bumping is always on topic. :wink:

[yxboom]

That said, bumping is always on topic. :wink:
must say ive never seen this thread. good read. excellent points. :thumb: