Pilgrim said:
Joe k said:
So when one objects, or ends up in the sproul, HB, "passing by" camp, one has not learned rightly that God is not passive in anything. Including the reprobation/condemnation of men.

What I can agree with is that the term "passes by" can be easily misconstrued to mean something "passive", i.e., a non-action on the part of God. However, the euphemistic use of the term doesn't negate the actual view held by Infra's. No doubt you already are privy to what I'm about to explain, but I'm doing so for the benefit of those who do not know. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

The Infralapsarian position holds to a "positive-negative" predestination. That is, in regard to the elect and salvation, God "positively", i.e., actively intervenes in their lives and actually creates a new disposition which infallibly unites with Christ by faith securing their justification and final glorification. In short, God actively "changes" the elect so that they are reconciled to God through Christ. On the other hand, in regard to the reprobate who will be ultimately damned, God also decrees who those individuals are and their ultimate end. However, in their case, the decree is "negative", i.e., God does not "change" anything in the reprobate in order to make them "fit for destruction". The reprobate are by nature "fit for destruction" and thus God is not "active (aka: positively active) in their case. Thus the term "pass by" has been used specifically to distinguish between the active intervention of God, by His Spirit (regeneration, conversation, sanctification) of the elect and the non-active intervention of God in the damnation of the reprobate.

It is true, that God is indeed "active" in regard to the reprobate, but it is to be found in His providence and not in their just condemnation. In short, God uses the reprobate for the benefit of the elect and even the world in general (common grace) by restraining the outworking of their depravity and for His own glory. But God does not take a good or "neutral" (an impossibility) individual and make them evil and then decree them reprobate.

In His grace,

WE must keep in mind that the decree of reprobation does not make one fallen. But God most certainly has the end in view, their just condemnation while forming out of the same lump. God did not just create, then decide who to elect or reprobate. Both Election/reprobation have cause, means,result.

COnfusion aruses when one equates reprobation/election with conduct. Election does not result in lack of sin, and reprobation does not result in more sin. That is why it is only because it seemed good in His sight. God purposely created out of the same lump with salvation for the elect and damnation for the reprobate. But as I mentioned earlier, reprobation is according to His sovereignty, condemnation is His just righteoussness. God actively witholds forgiveness, repentance,faith from the reprobate.

The reason the infra thinking fails is becuase once man is fallen, what would God have to d to make them more fallen? It is circular reasoning. That is why the decree took place without the fall/sin in the picture. How can one reprobate a fallen creature? There is no need to. But this makes man responsible for his reprobation. By God actively, positively/negatively decreeing reprobation prior to the fall, Man is thereby left in his sin, and condemned justly for it. AS proverbs 16:4 states.

Prov 16:4 The LORD has made everything for its own purpose,Even the wicked for the day of evil"

Thanks pilgrim for the dialogue.

The reprobate are not created unredeemable as some may suggest, they are created for a purpose, and not covered by the Atonement.

It appears the fellow here has a hard time, with a hard concept. AS soon as man says "I dont understand... or Why would God..." We must concede right then and there.

There never was a sinner half as big as Christ is as a Savior.