Is there anything wrong with this explanation?
From: Shedd, William G. T.,
Commentary on Romans (1879)
Quote:
|
God is the author of salvation, because He elects; but He is not the author of perdition because He reprobates. In the first instance, He is efficiently active by His Spirit and word; in the second instance He is permissively inactive. If John Doe throw himself into the water, and is rescued by Richard Roe, the statement would be that he is saved because Richard Roe rescued him. But if John Doe throw himself into the water and is not rescued by Richard Roe, the verdict of the coroner would be suicide and not homocide: 'Drowned because he threw himself in' and not 'Drowned because Richard Roe did not pull him out.' So it is with salvation and reprobation.
|
There's something about it that doesn't seem right to me. Perhaps it's this matter of God being "permissively inactive." I'd be interested in your thoughts on this.
NOTE: If a moderator thinks this would be better in the "Wading Pool" feel free to move it. I almost put it there anyway. Thanks