The consideration of Jacob and Esau brings us to Mr. Pink’s affirmation of the Calvinistic doctrine of reprobation. It is far too important to pass over quickly, even for those who have never had to face it.
Before we take up the subject of reprobation, we should probably first state what it is, and then examine whether it has scriptural soundness or not. Reprobation is a dogma of Calvinism which can be expressed in the words of Arthur W. Pink as illustrative of its proposition; hence we quote: “God’s decree of reprobation contemplated Adam’s race as fallen, sinful, corrupt, guilty. From it God purposed to save a few as the monuments of His sovereign grace; the others He determined to destroy as the exemplification of His justice and severity” (p. 123). The case of Pharaoh is introduced [in Romans 9] to prove the doctrine of reprobation as the counterpart of the doctrine of election” (p. 111). “If God actually reprobated Pharaoh, we may justly conclude that He reprobates all others whom He did not predestinate to be conformed to the image of His Son” (p. 110).
Here it is, briefly stated; that is, it is “the counterpart of the doctrine of election.” This is a false premise based on the assumption that because God chose some in the past eternity as objects of His mercy, He necessarily thereby designed to consign all the rest to hell — He decreed before the world was that most of His creatures should go to hell. This, we say, is definitely without scriptural warrant. There is no place where there is a “Thus saith the Lord” for the doctrine of reprobation. It is arrived at by conjecture, assumption, deduction and human reasoning. To show that such is the case, let us quote just a few excerpts from Mr. Pink’s chapter on reprobation: “It would unavoidably follow. . . . Every choice, evidently and necessarily implies a refusal. . . . Then it is clear He designed and ordained that that person should be eternally lost. . . . It must be because. . . . No escape from these conclusions. . . . Now are we not obliged to conclude? . . . It must have been His will. . . . We assuredly gather that it was His everlasting determination to do so, and consequently that He reprobated some from before the foundation of the world. . . . In addition to the above conclusions” (pp. 100-103; italics ours).
No man should dare to presume to thus speak for God, for His Word plainly says, “Add thou not unto His words, lest He reprove thee, and thou be found a liar” (Prov. 30:66Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar. (Proverbs 30:6)). Where the Word of God is silent, men should forbear to speak. Years ago a faithful servant of the Lord was confronted by some persons of reasoning habits who contended that because the Word of God says of certain ones that He would not blot out their names from the “book of life,” there were others who would lose their salvation and God would blot out their names. The faithful man replied, “Never put a positive statement where God puts a negative one.” If God speaks, we can speak with assurance, but when He is silent, we should be silent also. If this simple rule had been followed, we would not have the one-sided doctrine of reprobation.