Common Grace?

[Brandan Kraft]

Is the traditional reformed doctrine of common grace biblical? What do you think?

[wildboar]

It's not traditional, it's not reformed, and it's not Biblical:D The modern notion of common grace finds its roots in the teachings of Abraham Kuyper, not the reformation. The only reformed confession that mentions common grace is the Cannons of Dordt and in that case it is attributed to the Arminians.

Sola Gratia,
WildBoar

[Alan Stevens]

Hi

Is common grace biblical ?

well if by common grace you mean the grace God uses to substain the world and keep it from reeling ino chaos and anarchy, then i would have to say, yes

'God causes His sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends the rain on the righteous and the unrighteous' Matthew 5:45

'God did not leave Himself without witness, in that He did good and gave you rains from heaven and fruitful seasons, satisfying your hearts with food and gladness' Acts 14:17 ( Paul preaching to the gentiles in Lystra who had never known the true God).

'The Lord is good to all, and His mercies are over all His works' Psalm 145 :9

God it would seem from those scriptures does shower the world with common grace that NO ONE deserves.

God it would read from these scriptures does give grace to a world that in most cases does not have faith in Him.

The unmerited favour of God that makes the sun shine every morning to everyone, when because of sin all we should expect is judgement and all we can hope for is mercy, does seem to be a grace common to everyman.

Cheers

[Robert R. Higby]

Prior to the adoption of 'common grace' theology in Protestantism, Luther wrote about the proper distinction in the New Testament between 'grace' and 'gift.' This has been forgotten, along with many other lucid insights of the great reformer.

The New Testament never refers to 'grace' other than in salvific terms. It is never once used to refer to God's disposition of goodness towards the wicked and non-elect. God gives certain gifts to all persons, both elect and non-elect. But grace is always exercised in a special and exclusive dispensation toward those predestined to eternal life.

The theory of common grace, in reality, is contrary to the immutability of God. According to the 'common grace' notion, God gives all mankind a bare second of gracious pleasure prior to eternal torture! How can this 'moment' of showering temporal gifts be termed 'grace'? The biblical fact is that God is always consistent in his desire to manifest both his attributes of kindness and severity. This never changes in this life and will not change in eternity either.

[wildboar]

Alan:

Grace is a display of God's love and favor to a person, it has to do with intent. Riches can be grace to a person while poverty can be grace to another. God provides what is necessary to draw His children closer to Him and to harden the reprobate. In Psalm 73, Asaph questions why it is that God generally gives far more riches to the wicked, he finally realizes that God does it to set them up on slippery places and bring them to destruction. If this is grace, I want no part of it. If God had any grace toward the wicked he would not create them at all. How is it a display of God's love to give good gifts to the wicked, just so they can suffer more throughout all eternity? The common grace theory creates a God with multiple personalities who really loves someone but does absolutely nothing to save them. The sun shining in the morning only hardens man in his sin.

Sola Gratia,
WildBoar

[Brandan Kraft]

I think both BillTwisse and WildBoar make sense to me! Another objection in argument for common grace that has been brought up is the biblical command that we as Christians are to love everyone - that is we are to love our enemies. The objector usually states, well how can God expect His children to extend their love to people that He is not willing to extend?

I have an answer, but I'd like to hear what others have to say first. Thanks!

Brandan

[disciple]

Originally posted by BillTwisse
Prior to the adoption of 'common grace' theology in Protestantism, Luther wrote about the proper distinction in the New Testament between 'grace' and 'gift.' This has been forgotten, along with many other lucid insights of the great reformer.
it is interesting that the word XARIS is translated by both 'grace' and 'gift' in our english versions. but this doesn't help us here.


The New Testament never refers to 'grace' other than in salvific terms. It is never once used to refer to God's disposition of goodness towards the wicked and non-elect. God gives certain gifts to all persons, both elect and non-elect. But grace is always exercised in a special and exclusive dispensation toward those predestined to eternal life.
this is a good point. but, to be fair, many who claim common grace and use only the examples as Alan Stevens did mean by it that people are getting what they don't deserve, which by common definition is grace (usually defined as unmerited favor or getting what you don't deserve). i don't think people are thinking about whether the bible actually calls this grace specifically. but as i said, to be fair, many don't mean by the application of grace here as being salvific (though perhaps many do). to imply that they are saying or meaning this is a little unfair in my opinion.

[disciple]

Originally posted by Dr. Gill
I think both BillTwisse and WildBoar make sense to me! Another objection in argument for common grace that has been brought up is the biblical command that we as Christians are to love everyone - that is we are to love our enemies. The objector usually states, well how can God expect His children to extend their love to people that He is not willing to extend?
well here is the passage under discussion i believe:

Mt 5:39 "But I say to you, do not resist an evil person; but whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also. 40 "If anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, let him have your coat also. 41 "Whoever forces you to go one mile, go with him two. 42 "Give to him who asks of you, and do not turn away from him who wants to borrow from you. 43 "You have heard that it was said, 'You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' 44 "But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45 so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven; for He causes His sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. 46 "For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? 47 "If you greet only your brothers, what more are you doing than others Do not even the Gentiles do the same?

it seems to me that the whole point here is that we are not to love and be kind only to those who love and are kind to us in return. the implication is that just as God loves (in some sense) and is kind (in some sense) to those who are His enemies (i.e., unrighteous) so should we. the word XARIS is not used here but God causing the sun to rise and sending the rain is taken as an indication that He, in a certain sense (though definitely not salvific nor in an eternal sense here), loves/is kind to both friend and foe (though by no means that it is the same kind, manner, degree, etc. of love).

[wildboar]

I think both BillTwisse and WildBoar make sense to me! Another objection in argument for common grace that has been brought up is the biblical command that we as Christians are to love everyone - that is we are to love our enemies. The objector usually states, well how can God expect His children to extend their love to people that He is not willing to extend?

This was brought up in the recent debate in Grand Rapids. The full debate can be read or listened to at http://www.prca.org/current/Articles/a%20debate%20on%20common%20grace%20-%20engelsma-mouw.htm

But in answer to this specific question Prof. Engelsma stated:


Prof. Engelsma: God does indeed command us Christians to love people whom He does not love, but hates. The Bible teaches that God hates persons. God hates some persons. Psalm Five verse five says that God hates all the workers of iniquity. In Romans Nine [ verse thirteen ] as everybody knows, [ scripture] teaches that God hated Esau. At the same time, the Bible teaches Christians that they are to love their enemies who curse them and persecute them, who may very well be these non-elect, or reprobate persons whom God hates. We are commanded to love persons, whom God, for all we know, hates. The explanation of that is the difference between us and God. We are the neighbors of these ungodly persons, linked to them by a common humanity, a common blood. Besides, we’re commanded by Christ to view these people as originally created in the image of God, and to love them in the sense that we do good to them, pray for them, and bless them. God is not the neighbor of these persons. God is the Holy Judge of these persons. They don’t appear in connection with Him as their neighbor, but they appear before Him as guilty and as depraved, and therefore as worthy objects of His hatred. There is a ground in God for our love of the ungodly, pagan, idolatrous, and, for all we know, non-elect neighbor. That ground in God is not that God loves all human beings without exception. That ground in God for our activity of loving our personal neighbors, our personal enemies perhaps, is that the love of God is so wonderful, that the love of God is a love for persons who in themselves are His enemies. Not all persons who are in themselves His enemies, but persons, nevertheless, who in themselves are His enemies. I’m one ! I know the love of God, as the love of God for someone who in himself is a personal enemy of God, by nature hate Him and curse Him. And the love of God is so wonderful that it reached me. I show that by loving my own personal enemy , and thus I show the nature of the love of God. Not necessarily for that neighbor, but nevertheless the love of God towards people who were his personal enemies.

Sola Gratia,
WildBoar

[Skeuos Eleos]

Just one small point.

Wildboar said:
The only reformed confession that mentions common grace is the Cannons of Dordt The term "common grace" also appears in a version of the London Confession of Baptist Faith (Chapter XIV Of Saving Faith #3) and the Savoy Declaration of Faith and Order. It is used in connection with "temporary believers". Although, I do not have the original version so it could have been a later addition.

Martin

[wildboar]

Martin:

That's certainly interesting. The two statements do seem to be in the orginals. I'm unsure exactly what the London Confession means by common grace though. It reads:


III. This faith, although it be different in degrees, and may be weak or strong,[11] yet it is in the least degree of it different in the kind or nature of it, as is all other saving grace, from the faith and common grace of temporary believers;[12] and therefore, though it may be many times assailed and weakened, yet it gets the victory,[13] growing up in many to the attainment of a full assurance through Christ,[14] who is both the author and finisher of our faith.[15]

The proof text doesn't help at all.

2 Peter 1:1 Simon Peter, a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ, to them that have obtained like precious faith with us through the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ:

There seems to be a belief by the authors of the London Baptist Confession that some type of common grace was given to those who expressed belief for a period of time. I don't understand how or why they believed this. The Savoy Declaration says the same thing.

Strangely, Schaff does not make note of this deviation from the Westminster Confession which reads:

WCF 14:3 WCF 14.3 This faith is different in degrees, weak or strong;(1) may be often and many ways assailed and weakened, but gets the victory;(2) growing up in many to the attainment of a full assurance through Christ,(3) who is both the author and finisher of our faith.(4)

The Savoy declaration seems to believe there are many types of faith while the Westminster seems to take the position that there is only one kind that can be weaker or stronger.

Sola Gratia,
WildBoar

[HolidayJim]

This entire discussion on Common Grace seems to "hang" on some sort of assumed connection to salvation. In other words, the word "grace" has this "linkage" to salvation which, I think, is totally unjustified. Yes, we are surely and certainly saved by grace, but every occurence of the word does not link backwards to some issue of salvation.

My point simply is this: God certainly gives to all people many things. None of these things does anyone deserve. We do not even deserve to live. Because these things are unmerited and even ill-merited, they reveal God's gracious character. I think that idea is present in Romans 1 in the phrase "...his eternal power and divine nature..." Creation reveals 1) the Power of God and 2) the Goodness of God.

"... since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse." Ro 1:19,20

The confusion seems to be that Arminians have appropriated the phrase "Common Grace" (much like homosexuals have redefined the word "gay"). For them this Common Grace is a counteracting to the depravity of man. God, in their man-centered theology, effectively neutralizes the Fall of Man so that man now has "Free Will". It is sometimes referred to as "Prevenient Grace" because it preceeds the Gospel call. So an Arminian can claim that he believes in the Fall of Man, and then say that it functionally has no impact on the ability to accept (or reject) salavation. It is this confusion between Common Grace and Prevenient Grace where all the heat has been generated.

I do not believe that anyone can biblically say that God is not good to the lost in non-salvation items (sunshine, rain, etc.). If He is good to the lost, he has given them what they do not deserve. If He has given them what they do not deserve it is a gift. If a gift, then it is a form of grace. Grace is not always oriented toward salvation. It is revelatory of God's nature.

[PILGRIM313]

well said, Jim, you have seen the confusion of those that link 'common grace' (God's goodness and mercy to all in a general sense (not salvation)) to Salvation. There is no connection in the thoughts of those that hold to common grace, it is just another revelation of God's Goodness to all His creatures and creations.
For some reason, some are not able to distinguish between talking of the attributes of God, in an honorable way, without meddling into Arminian ideology.
Pilgrim

[wildboar]

holidayjim:


In other words, the word "grace" has this "linkage" to salvation which, I think, is totally unjustified. Yes, we are surely and certainly saved by grace, but every occurence of the word does not link backwards to some issue of salvation.

If the association of grace with salvation is unjustified, could you please provide an example where the Bible explicitly says that God bestows His grace upon those who later suffer eternal punishment?


I do not believe that anyone can biblically say that God is not good to the lost in non-salvation items (sunshine, rain, etc.). If He is good to the lost, he has given them what they do not deserve. If He has given them what they do not deserve it is a gift. If a gift, then it is a form of grace.

Those who deny common grace do not deny that God gives good gifts to the reprobate. However, giving someone a good gift is not the same as bestowing grace upon a person. If I know that someone is suicidal and I give the gift of a gun to that person. That gun is a good gift which can be used for hunting or self-defense. But it is not grace. It is actually a display of hatred towards that person because I know what they will do with it. Giving someone physical life who is going to suffer eternally in hell cannot be thought of as grace unless grace is something very terrible.

It has been shown historically that those groups which adopt common grace, eventually end up on the road to universalism. Dr. Mouw has even suggested this in his book "He Shines in All That's Fair". He says that possibly all that we think of today as common grace, we might one day discover is actually saving grace.

Sola Gratia,
WildBoar

[disciple]

Originally posted by wildboar
If the association of grace with salvation is unjustified, could you please provide an example where the Bible explicitly says that God bestows His grace upon those who later suffer eternal punishment?...It has been shown historically that those groups which adopt common grace, eventually end up on the road to universalism. Dr. Mouw has even suggested this in his book "He Shines in All That's Fair". He says that possibly all that we think of today as common grace, we might one day discover is actually saving grace.
i agree with much of what you say here. it is true that the word 'grace' (CARIS) is not applied to the unbeliever in Scripture. but to be fair, there are more ways of communicating the idea of God being kind to unbelievers and giving them good gifts that they do not deserve than just one term. language is 'bigger' than that. but your point is well taken.

furthermore, in order to properly communicate and understand eachother, it must be recognized (and i think it has been) that when a calvinist uses the term "common grace" positively (referring to the goodness of God in giving unbelievers what they do not deserve while not meaning anything salvific about it) he does not mean the same thing as an arminian who uses the term (referring to some prevenient grace wherein God somehow prepares the hearts of all men to free their wills and give them all equally the ability to respond positively to the external gospel call). in order to pass through the eye of the needle of understanding, this must be recognized. only then will we not be talking past one another. it is quite true that perhaps the term shouldn't ever be used by a calvinist in order to avoid this confusion, but i believe that the one that investigates it a bit further is just trying to be fair by recognizing that God is good to unbelievers (though clearly not in any salvific sense). Mt 5 is crystal clear on this. i guess my reason for posting is to say that to ignore this distinction in meaning of usage of the term often results in calling these people hypo-calvinists and lumping them in with the arminians, as if they are on the road to universalism as well.

in conclusion, i agree with what you're saying but i also recognize the difference in usage of the term between the calvinist who uses the term positively and the arminian who uses the term. and i think this needs to happen here and we need to see that we agree and are saying the same thing and there is no reason to argue. if you believe that no calvinist should ever used the term grace in the same sentence with unbeliever and that you recognize the distinction of meanings but believe that calvinists should refrain from using the term to avoid confusion then your point is well taken. but i just want to make sure that it is understood that what HolidayJim, PILGRIM313, and I are saying is not prevenient grace but common goodness/kindness a la Mt 5. i do not understand anything salvific by using the term common grace and i am not attempting to use it in its biblical sense but in its basic meaning (at least in english) of getting something you don't deserve. hopefully this helps the discussion out a bit.

[HolidayJim]

Universalism??? Nonsense! God gives life to all human beings. Most end in Hell. Does that make him cruel? So the only people that have any goodness from God are Christians? Hardly. In your desire to prevent universalism, you circumscribe the terminology, redefining it at will. The same could be said of general revelation and special revelation. Does God not reveal Himself in general revelation only to use that on Judgment Day against a person? Yes, He does. Does that mean, then, that only Special Revelation is "real" revelation? Of course not. Let's call it "general grace" and not "common grace" and let's call it "special grace" and not "saving grace" and we have the very same parellel issue. The scriptures clearly teach "common revelation". They say that this "common revelation" reveals the "general grace" of God. That is Romans 1:19,20, et al. Is "general grace" saving grace? No. Is "general revelation" saving revelation? No. What's the big deal??

[wildboar]

holiday:


They say that this "common revelation" reveals the "general grace" of God. That is Romans 1:19,20, et al.

Romans 1:19-20 do not say that general revelation equals general grace.

19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; F6 for God hath shewed it unto them. 20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: 21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, 23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. 24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: 25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. 26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: 27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet. 28 And even as they did not like to retain F8 God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; 29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, 30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, 31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: 32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

Romans 1:20 flatly contradicts the notion that this was the purpose of the general revelation. The question is asked, Why did God reveal these things to them? And Paul answers with a purpose clause "so that they are without excuse." That is God's purpose in revealing these things to them. I see no grace here.

disciple:

I have yet to see anyone prove from Scripture that God has favor or love toward the reprobate. This is what must be shown if we are to use the term grace. Bestowal of good things is not the same as grace.

There is a distinction, between Arminian and so-called reformed common grace, Arminian common grace is consistent. Reformed common grace is the acceptance of contradiction and moves closer and closer to Arminian common grace. People complain about recent events in the CRC, but they fail to realize they are all a direct result of the adoption of the Three Points of common grace in 1924.

Sola Gratia,
WildBoar

[disciple]

Originally posted by wildboar
I have yet to see anyone prove from Scripture that God has favor or love toward the reprobate. This is what must be shown if we are to use the term grace. Bestowal of good things is not the same as grace.
i never said that He has favor or love toward the reprobate, especially in the salvific sense. i said that He is kind/good and gives good gifts to them. His action here is seen as a basis for us loving our neighbors (i.e., unbelievers and believers alike). you can't miss this connection. again, please let me remind you that no one here is using the term common grace in the arminian sense.

also, i expressed that i'm using the term grace not in the biblical salvific sense, but simply as getting something you don't deserve. i am simply recognizing that i can understand why some calvinists would be able to see that God is gracious to all in some sense. i hope you can at least understand and appreciate this.

i will refrain from using that term because of its confusion. instead i'll say common goodness/kindness. if this is all you are objecting to (using terminology which may be confused), then your point is well taken. we do need to be careful here.

[HolidayJim]

Romans 1:19-20 do not say that general revelation equals general grace.

I never said it did...the comparison is what I making. It is an analogous concept. General revelation does damn a person, yet God does reveal Himself in a general, non-saving way. Special Revelation is the vehicle for saving mankind, but General Revelation exists.

The comparison simply is this:

General Revelation is really from God...yet it does not save.

General (Common) Grace is really from God...yet it does not save.

Special Revelation is salvific.

Special (Particular, Uncommon) Grace is salvific.

Is General Revelation invalid because it does not save? Is General (Common) Grace invalid because is does not save?

I care not what the Westminster Confession says on the issue. I am not bound by a "paper pope" but only the Scriptures. The WCF is wrong in many places, not the least of which is its view of the Covenants.

Just because the Arminians abuse the term in no way precludes me from understanding it biblically. The term is offensive to some because they choose to see it that way.

Do you deny that God is good (which is underserved and therefore gracious on his part) to the lost?

[HolidayJim]

Just because man turns the grace of General Revelation into damnation does not mean that God is cruel to give it any more than giving good things to men is "cruel" of God either.

[HolidayJim]

It is only "not grace" by your definition, WildBoar. If they don't deserve it and they receive it, is it not gracious? It is not earned. If not earned it is grace.

[HolidayJim]

WildBoar Said:

Romans 1:20 flatly contradicts the notion that this was the purpose of the general revelation. The question is asked, Why did God reveal these things to them? And Paul answers with a purpose clause "so that they are without excuse." That is God's purpose in revealing these things to them. I see no grace here.

**************

The phrase, "so that they are without excuse" is NOT a purpose clause, it is a RESULT CLAUSE which is expanded upon in the very next verse which says, "Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened."

"They are without excuse because when THEY knew God, THEY did not glorify him as God, neither were THEY thankful...THEIR foolish hearts were darkened". Just because you see no POSITIVE results, does NOT mean that it was not gracious of God to reveal himself.

You then said to Disciple, "Bestowal of good things is not the same as grace." But no man deserves anything from God, not even his continued life. If it is not deserved, then it is gracious of God to give these things to the lost. On Judgment Day this goodness militates against the lost, but so does his misuse of the General Revelation he has likewise squelched.

How about Acts 14:16,17 ?"In the past, he let all nations go their own way. Yet he has not left himself without testimony: He has shown kindness by giving you rain from heaven and crops in their seasons; he provides you with plenty of food and fills your hearts with joy." This Common Grace testifies to character of God. He gives food and joy, but lost mankind turns food into gluttony and joy into the idol of self-centeredness. The misuse of His gifts is not His responsiblity nor does it detract from the nature of the gift.

WildBoar, you also said, "...giving someone a good gift is not the same as bestowing grace upon a person." Since when is giving a good gift to your enemy not a gracious act?? That is what the lost are to Him! He gives good things to his enemies. He shows love to his enemies. (Hey, guess what? That is what Jesus said we are to do too...Love our enemies!)

And regarding the CRC, I suspect that there were far more factors in that denomination's decline than accepting common grace. :eek: That "decline" would only be a decline if there were not the seeds of Arminianism in the group that would appropriate valid theology inappropriately. That would have happened whether or not the term "common grace" were used or not. I further suspect that there are in the CRC people who hold to a eschatology that is more like Hal Lindsay than what their creeds maintain through no fault of their creeds.

I also see a "tendancy" among the Protestant Reformed (which I believe Englesma is a part of) to be KJV ONLY people. This reveals a mindset that can best be described as a "seige mentality."

[Robert R. Higby]

HJ states:

I never said it did...the comparison is what I making. It is an analogous concept. General revelation does damn a person, yet God does reveal Himself in a general, non-saving way. Special Revelation is the vehicle for saving mankind, but General Revelation exists.

The comparison simply is this:

General Revelation is really from God...yet it does not save.

General (Common) Grace is really from God...yet it does not save.

Special Revelation is salvific.

Special (Particular, Uncommon) Grace is salvific.

Is General Revelation invalid because it does not save? Is General (Common) Grace invalid because is does not save?

The answer is an unqualified YES! I know that almost all in the Protestant tradition will oppose this conclusion, but after studying the issue for 25 years (viewing all aspects of the history of dogma), I'm convinced that my answer is true.

General Revelation and Common Grace deny the immutability of God. God reveals himself only to the elect and shows Grace (which in the NT is always salvific) only to the elect. He shows general goodness AND wrath to all the rest, at all times and places, for all eternity! His disposition never changes toward those whom he has not chosen. They now experience a sense of both the goodness and wrath of God and always will for eternity! The only difference in the hereafter is that the inequities of this life (some wicked prospering and others suffering) will become equities in the next. God will balance out all the accounts of justice which were left unbalanced here.

I care not what the Westminster Confession says on the issue. I am not bound by a "paper pope" but only the Scriptures. The WCF is wrong in many places, not the least of which is its view of the Covenants.

Agreed! Many amens to this!

[Brandan Kraft]

Originally posted by BillTwisse
They now experience a sense of both the goodness and wrath of God and always will for eternity! Bill, could you please elaborate on this? How will God's goodness be with the reprobate in eternity? Just curious...

Brandan

[HolidayJim]

Bill said:

"General Revelation and Common Grace deny the immutability of God." to which I disagree. Denying commong race and general revelation denies the patience and long-suffering of God. This is clearly taught in Scripture. It also denies the goodness of God. It likewise removes from the Christian the moral obligation to behave like the Heavenly Father who does good even to his enemies. I see your theology determining your exegesis here.

Then Bill said:

"They now experience a sense of both the goodness and wrath of God and always will for eternity! " How, pray, they experience the goodness of God for all eternity in hell? Your touchstone of "immutability" is forcing you to think that even in hell, God must show goodness to the lost? Theology is determing exegesis again here.

Then Bill said:

"The only difference in the hereafter is that the inequities of this life (some wicked prospering and others suffering) will become equities in the next. God will balance out all the accounts of justice which were left unbalanced here. " To me, this is obscuranta.

[PILGRIM313]

Mt. 5, holds the key to this 'common grace' understanding (in my opinion) for there we see
1. that we are not to resist evil, but turn the other cheek, as if to receive the blow again
2. if we are taken to task, (sued in court) pay double
3. compelled to go a mile, go two
4. give to him that asks, (anything to anyone, not reserved for 'brethren' only)
5. Love your enemies (are not the reprobate enemies of God? are all of us not enemies of God?)
6. bless those that curse us (a form of grace?)
7. do good to them that hate us (another form of grace?)
8. pray for those that despitefully use us (more grace and kindness)

and the KEY
vs.45 "that ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven; for he maketh his sun to rise on the eil and on the good and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust."

We ARE to be conformed to the image of Christ, would God require all these things of us? If He did not possess them?
None of these requiremets has anything to do with Salvation, but rather the living of the 'life' of and in Christ.
Pilgrim

[wildboar]

Pilgrim:


We ARE to be conformed to the image of Christ, would God require all these things of us? If He did not possess them?

We are not God and we stand in a different relationship to our fellow man than God does. We are no better than our neighbor and required to show love to them. God is much higher than our neighbor and is required to show no man love. God bestows his love upon those that hate Him. If this were not so, none would be saved, however it does not say that God bestows His love upon every individual. There are a multitude of things which would be sinful for us to do which are not sinful for God. It would be completely sinful for me to seek my own glory, yet it would be completely sinful for God not to.

HJ:


The phrase, "so that they are without excuse" is NOT a purpose clause, it is a RESULT CLAUSE which is expanded upon in the very next verse which says, "Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened."

eis to + the infinitive is used in koine Greek for both purpose and result clauses. I don't think it makes that much of a difference either way once the whole chapter is read. What is very clear in the chapter is that God actively gives these people over to commit greater sin. Hardly, an act of love.


I care not what the Westminster Confession says on the issue. I am not bound by a "paper pope" but only the Scriptures. The WCF is wrong in many places, not the least of which is its view of the Covenants.

The WCF doesn't say anything about common grace. I never appealed to it.


But no man deserves anything from God, not even his continued life. If it is not deserved, then it is gracious of God to give these things to the lost.

Grace is underserved FAVOR on the part of God. How is God showing His love by allowing these people to live longer sinning more just so they can suffer more in hell for it?


How about Acts 14:16,17 ?"In the past, he let all nations go their own way. Yet he has not left himself without testimony: He has shown kindness by giving you rain from heaven and crops in their seasons; he provides you with plenty of food and fills your hearts with joy."

These verses simply state that God gives good gifts to the reprobate, it does not say He gives them grace.


And regarding the CRC, I suspect that there were far more factors in that denomination's decline than accepting common grace. That "decline" would only be a decline if there were not the seeds of Arminianism in the group that would appropriate valid theology inappropriately. That would have happened whether or not the term "common grace" were used or not.

A close study of the matter shows otherwise. Writings at the time warned of what would eventually happen if these doctrines were adopted. Everything that they said would occur did and more so. Some of the same problems worked their way into the OPC under the teachings of Van Til and infiltrated nearly all of Presbyterianism. I noticed while in the PCA, there was a strong hesitancy to give a clear definition on what common grace was, largely I think because of what they saw occuring in the CRC.


I further suspect that there are in the CRC people who hold to a eschatology that is more like Hal Lindsay than what their creeds maintain through no fault of their creeds.

There's not a huge amount of dispensational influence in the CRC. They were once pretty strongly amillennial but are veering into postmillenialism, also a result of the common grace doctrine.


I also see a "tendancy" among the Protestant Reformed (which I believe Englesma is a part of) to be KJV ONLY people. This reveals a mindset that can best be described as a "seige mentality."

I don't know where you get your information from, but we are not KJV-onlyists. I'm currently working on my own translation of the Bible. There has been a movement among some in the denomination to adopt a newer translation. All of our churches do use the KJV but it is not because we believe the KJV to be inerrant, but to be the best current English translation. Our pastors preach on the basis of the Greek and Hebrew and mention when something is not translated as accurately as it could be. I have no idea what you mean by "seige mentality".

Sola Gratia,
WildBoar

[HolidayJim]

There is nothing more I wish to add. Yes, the PR's are wedded to the KJV and, no, it is not merely considerd the "best English translation". Those that deign to use something else are treated with distrust. I would recommend your do some in-depth study and consult Philip W Comfort's works, in particular, "The Quest for the Original Text of the New Testament" and "Early Manuscripts and Modern Translations of the New Testament". It is fine to use the KJV if you prefer, but I want better accuracy based on better manuscripts.

[wildboar]

HJ:

I have read the various arguments. I myself hold to the Byzantine priority position as advocated by Dr. Maurice Robinson. His article in defense of the position can be found here: http://rosetta.reltech.org/TC/vol06/Robinson2001.html
There is no official position on textual criticism in the PRC.


There is nothing more I wish to add. Yes, the PR's are wedded to the KJV and, no, it is not merely considerd the "best English translation". Those that deign to use something else are treated with distrust.

Could you please explain where you get your information from. You are making some very false accusations perhaps results of rumors rather than actual facts.

I still do not see how this has anything to do with common grace though.

Sola Gratia,
WildBoar

[HolidayJim]

I am not the one who first mentioned the CRC nor the PR (thorugh a mention of Engelsma) groups. I think that what happens or happened in a denomination is far bigger than one issue.

The sole isssue is whether the concept (not the exact word or phrase) is taught clearly in the NT (being a good NTC person the NT overrides the OT). I think it does, you think it does not. The implication, if not the direct remark, is that those who do hold to common grace are on slippery path to perdition like the CRC. I think that is the issue...the not so subtle intimation of impending heresy. Hence, my statement about a siege mentality in a previous posting.

[Robert R. Higby]

Brandan asks:

Bill, could you please elaborate on this? How will God's goodness be with the reprobate in eternity? Just curious...

To answer this thoroughly would require a very lengthy Bible study. I will try and introduce the subject briefly for now--by summarizing the points of my position.

1. The final and literal state of the non-elect will be 'everlasting shame and contempt' (Dan. 12:2). They will never be given the grace of salvation in Christ. The shame (worm) is internal to the souls of the wicked and the contempt (fire) is the external presence of a disapproving God and his glorified saints.

2. Election unto damnation is a positive and eternal purpose of God, the same as election unto salvation in Christ. It is something that God desired and planned outside of space and time. God has what he wants in all things at all times.

3. The exact nature of hell beyond what Dan. 12:2 describes is a mystery. We only know what God has revealed concerning it.

4. The disposition of God never changes toward anything or anyone--or he would not be immutable. So we can never say that he has a disposition of goodness toward the wicked for a short time in this life; then completely changes this attitude in eternity. Either his disposition is/was always solely wrath or it is/was always both wrath and goodness. Of course, we know from revelation that it will never be mercy or grace (toward the wicked) and never has been.

I simply do not know how this will be literally manifested in the eternal order of things. I only am convinced that the wicked will somehow always know in conscience that God is good to all of his creation--whether elect, reprobate, animate, or inanimate.

'Eternal law' philosophy states that one moment of sin deserves infinite punishment 'without measure and without end.' But the feudalistic type philosophy of Anselm is never discussed nor promoted in the Bible. I teach eternal 'judgment to come' as did all of the apostles. But they never quantified this with detailed descriptions of infinite punishment like many Roman Catholics, Protestants, and Muslims. They simply preached eternal judgment and left the details to God.

Response to HJ:

Denying commong race and general revelation denies the patience and long-suffering of God. This is clearly taught in Scripture. It also denies the goodness of God.

I have explained above why I believe the very opposite is true. To me, it is absurd to call God 'patient' and 'long-suffering' when he exercises 'grace' for a split second toward the non-elect, followed by an eternity of infinite and uncontrolled wrath.

It likewise removes from the Christian the moral obligation to behave like the Heavenly Father who does good even to his enemies.

My belief leads me to the opposite conclusion. Since God is good to all, I do good to all men, even though I know that God has a dispensation of grace only toward some.


I see your theology determining your exegesis here.

Grace is never once used in the NT except to refer to the saving disposition of God toward the elect. That is exegesis.

[HolidayJim]

Bill:

Just a few comments:
1) You have made immutability the determining character quality of God. The Scriptures do not do that. It is His holiness that the angels sing about in eternal praise. All of His other qualities are defined by this holiness. It is holy love, holy justice, holy mercy, holy patience, etc. His immutibility is also holy. If, for example, I intend to trade my vehicle in another month, it in no wise prevents me from washing and waxing it this afternoon. It is my nature to prefer clean vehicles (even ones that I will trade off in a month). Ultimate destiny does not determine intermediate actions. I know that I will die (unless the Lord returns) and that does not prevent me from eating today. It is God's holy nature to treat His enemies better than they deserve, even though their eventual destiny is hell. Immutability does not trump holiness.
2) You wrote that hell is "infinite and uncontrolled wrath". I hardly think God is ever out of control.
3) You wrote, "Since God is good to all,". Goodness to the anyone is unmerited. Anything given to any human being is gracious on God's part. As Paul stated to the Athenians, "‘For in him we live and move and have our being.’ As some of your own poets have said, ‘We are his offspring.’(Acts 17:28). Life itself is a gift from God.
4) You wrote, "Grace is never once used in the NT except to refer to the saving disposition of God toward the elect." This is not a word study, but a theological study. The concept is certainly taught, however. The suggestion that we use another term, like the suggestion to use "gifts" (via Luther's terminology) hardly helps. The word for gift in the NT is "charisma" which has its root in "charis" (grace). Unless I am mistaken, a gift is something I haven't earned. A wage is something I have earned. God owes nothing to anyone.
5) As far as your reponse to Mr. Gill is concerned, I smell human philosophy here and not biblical theology.

[wildboar]

HJ:


The sole isssue is whether the concept (not the exact word or phrase) is taught clearly in the NT (being a good NTC person the NT overrides the OT). I think it does, you think it does not. The implication, if not the direct remark, is that those who do hold to common grace are on slippery path to perdition like the CRC. I think that is the issue...the not so subtle intimation of impending heresy. Hence, my statement about a siege mentality in a previous posting.

The NT should be read in light of the NT, however this does not negate any of the teachings of the OT. It's not as if the OT and NT are contradictory. The same God wrote both the OT and the NT. Common grace if applied consistently does lead where the CRC is headed. Some have simply chosen not to be consistent.


1) You have made immutability the determining character quality of God. The Scriptures do not do that. It is His holiness that the angels sing about in eternal praise. All of His other qualities are defined by this holiness. It is holy love, holy justice, holy mercy, holy patience, etc. His immutibility is also holy. If, for example, I intend to trade my vehicle in another month, it in no wise prevents me from washing and waxing it this afternoon. It is my nature to prefer clean vehicles (even ones that I will trade off in a month). Ultimate destiny does not determine intermediate actions. I know that I will die (unless the Lord returns) and that does not prevent me from eating today. It is God's holy nature to treat His enemies better than they deserve, even though their eventual destiny is hell. Immutability does not trump holiness.

I know this wasn't adressed to me, but I'm responding anyhow. God is His attributes. We ought not to think that God is immutable, but He is also holy. We also ought not think that God is holy, but He is also immutable. God is HOLY and God is IMMUTABLE. Immutability does not have to do with the end result, but with unchangableness in God. If God has some type of general love for a person, He will always retain that love. If He does not, He is not immutable. Love and hate are mutually exclusive with God. God does not love and hate the same person.

Sola Gratia,
WildBoar

[Robert R. Higby]

I would thank WB for his comments earlier.

Responses to JH

It is God's holy nature to treat His enemies better than they deserve, even though their eventual destiny is hell.

I know of nowhere in scripture where it states that this is a part of God's holy nature. Where are we once told that God treats those whom he has predestined to hell better than they deserve? That is the 'eternal law' and justice theology of Anselm, not the scriptures.

The same reasoning would propose that God cannot allow the non-elect to breathe, sleep, eat, drink, experience happiness, etc. unless those blessings are some sort of 'temporal grace' provision resulting from the atonement. According to this reasoning, even the devil has to be included in the 'universal grace' teaching! 'Eternal law' philosophy is entirely inconsistent unless this is admitted. What allows the devil to continue his work of deception in complete comfort and happiness for many thousands of years? The ATONEMENT? Of course not. It is purely God's sovereign will and he owes an explanation to no one.

If your statement about God's holy nature is true, God treats the devil himself far better than he deserves. In fact, God gives far more 'common grace' to the devil and many of his angels than he grants toward humans. After all, they have a much longer time to pursue their devilish interests (thousands of years instead of the threescore and ten)--unhindered by bodily suffering, horrible tragedy, or any of the other temporal discomforts limiting the human race. To me, this is obvious.

Immutability does not trump holiness.

God's nature is infinitely complete in both attributes, or he would not be God. One cannot be pitted against the other.

You wrote that hell is "infinite and uncontrolled wrath". I hardly think God is ever out of control.

In context, I wrote this not to describe my own teaching and convictions, but that of historical dogmaticians. That is, the teaching of many Roman Catholics, Protestants, and Muslims. When Calvin in the Institutes states that God tortures the wicked 'without measure and without end,' that is what I mean by 'infinite and uncontrolled wrath'--wrath without measure.

My position, and I believe that of scripture, is that God's wrath is always eternal and never temporal--due to his immutability. It is controlled and 'with measure'--but without end. It abides upon a reprobate soul from the moment of the person's creation to all eternity afterward.

You wrote, "Since God is good to all,". Goodness to the anyone is unmerited.

Agreed. However, this does not mean that 'goodness' or 'gift' equals GRACE. Grace, not goodness, is the nemesis and opposite of wrath. God extends grace only through the penal substitutionary atonement of Christ, received in faith by the elect. He extends goodness purely because he is sovereign and wants/purposes to do so. It is unrelated to whether the recipient an elect soul, reprobate soul, animate creature, or inanimate object.

Anything given to any human being is gracious on God's part. As Paul stated to the Athenians, "‘For in him we live and move and have our being.’ As some of your own poets have said, ‘We are his offspring.’(Acts 17:28). Life itself is a gift from God.

I agree only if by 'gracious' you refer to God's general goodness and not his special saving Grace as opposed to wrath. Explained above. The continued life of the wicked devils (whether spirit or human) is a definite and wonderful gift from God. But his wrath abides upon them now and forever!

This is not a word study, but a theological study. The concept is certainly taught, however. The suggestion that we use another term, like the suggestion to use "gifts" (via Luther's terminology) hardly helps. The word for gift in the NT is "charisma" which has its root in "charis" (grace). Unless I am mistaken, a gift is something I haven't earned. A wage is something I have earned. God owes nothing to anyone.

Words mean things, especially as used in the Bible. I believe that we should use biblical terminology to teach biblical truth.

"Gifts" may not be the best term to describe blessings apart from grace that God grants to devils predestined to hell. We can talk about the best word for this--but it is certainly not salvific charis!

[PILGRIM313]

Bill

Where are we once told that God treats those whom he has predestined to hell better than they deserve?

how about 450,000 jews in the wilderness for 40 years. The only ones that entered the promised land were 2 in number. He (God) certainly gave them all that they needed to survive, even shoes that did not wear out. Did they deserve any of the gifts? Was it not His kindness and unmerited favor (grace) that kept them 40 years.
Pilgrim

[HolidayJim]

Bill:

You said:Where are we once told that God treats those whom he has predestined to hell better than they deserve?

Ans: Acts 17:28. No one deserves any good thing, espcially the lost. Period.

You said: God's nature is infinitely complete in both attributes, or he would not be God. One cannot be pitted against the other.

Ans: I propose that is exactly what you do. Where do you see any character quality sung by the angels in the Lord's very presence...except holiness?


You said: this does not mean that 'goodness' or 'gift' equals GRACE. Grace, not goodness, is the nemesis and opposite of wrath.

Ans: It is only your restrictive definition that causes this issue. You define grace as only God's choice in saving a person. That is precisely my point. God is gracious when He is good to those who are damned. That is all I am saying. You seem to have a real issue with me calling it grace...so let's call it "gurblunkle" and that will make you happy. But you say "I agree only if by 'gracious' you refer to God's general goodness and not his special saving Grace as opposed to wrath." So, we agree. I NEVER said that just because God give good things to lost people that he waffles on their eternal destinty. Did I ever say that, or was read into my posts? Is there a 6th Sola...."Thou must hold to reading things into other's posts."? Scoure my postings. Did I ever say that I was referring to anything else BUT God's general goodness??? I don't think so.

WildBoar:

You said: "this does not negate any of the teachings of the OT."

Ans: The Sabbath has been abrograted. I hold to the ethical teachings of the OT as passed on to me by the hands of Christ. I would refer you to this by a thorough re-reading of New Covenant Theology by Wells and Zaspel.

You said: "If God has some type of general love for a person, He will always retain that love. If He does not, He is not immutable. Love and hate are mutually exclusive with God. God does not love and hate the same person."

Ans: Then deal with Acts 17:28. Judgment Day is still future. Until then the good things God does for the lost pile up on them, awaiting judgment day.

We are getting nowhere. Apparently I am a heretic...or soon to be one! Have a nice life.

[PILGRIM313]

I had posted
quote: We ARE to be conformed to the image of Christ, would God require all these things of us? If He did not possess them?



Boar replied:" We are not God and we stand in a different relationship to our fellow man than God does. We are no better than our neighbor and required to show love to them. God is much higher than our neighbor and is required to show no man love. God bestows his love upon those that hate Him. If this were not so, none would be saved, however it does not say that God bestows His love upon every individual. There are a multitude of things which would be sinful for us to do which are not sinful for God. It would be completely sinful for me to seek my own glory, yet it would be completely sinful for God not to.

Granted we are not God, I never said we were. But Jesus Christ is God! And he had all those attributes, listed in Mt. 5. Do you not find them direct commands of our Lord and Saviour? I never said we were better than anyone. Of Course God is higher, He IS GOD!! What does that have to do with the price of eggs and the questions I asked? God shows 'love', 'kindness', 'mercy' to all His Creation, even dumb animals!!
You made a post, but I don't see that you addressed the point of my post. Why are all these commands from Christ (directly) in Mt. 5? What are we to do with them? If we strive to live them are we not striving to be like Him? That is, showing love to the unlovely, showing love, kindness, mercy to those that oppose themselves, those that are God haters. Since we 'were' God haters at one time, shouldn't we show more mercy, grace, kindness, etc. to those outside the fold, since we 'know' where they are at, and where they are headed, unless the Lord of Glory appreends them?
Pilgrim

[Robert R. Higby]

Pilgrim states:

how about 450,000 jews in the wilderness for 40 years. The only ones that entered the promised land were 2 in number. He (God) certainly gave them all that they needed to survive, even shoes that did not wear out. Did they deserve any of the gifts? Was it not His kindness and unmerited favor (grace) that kept them 40 years.

Based on all I have said, the obvious answer is 'kindness, yes; grace, no.' In the same way, God constantly shows kindness to the devil and his angels, age after age. They experience exponentially more temporal benefits than ANY non-elect human in all history. It is interesting that no one responded to this interesting but undeniable fact!

I wasin a restaurant one night years ago in the New Orleans French Quarter. The Cuban owner was also waiting on tables that night. A Castro sympathizer was patronizing the business and argued with the owner continuously. The owner graciously pointed out all of the historical revisionism and wrong facts indulged by the patron. Finally, after seeing that there was no reconciliation forthcoming, the owner simply stated: "Let me serve you, because we are not going to agree on this."

I think that we agree on this point, HJ. Let me serve you, because we are not going to agree!

[HolidayJim]

Si, I agree we will not agree. But it is called , in my country, a back-handed complement to be equated with a godless communist atheist.

[Brandan Kraft]

HolidayJim, I don't think BillTwisse was equating you with Castro! He was just using him as an example. Please, let's think the best of people before we think the worst.

If only you had taken the time to get to know Bill, you would be shocked to realize that you have MUCH in common with him. Oh if only you knew!

Yours in Christ,
Brandan

[HolidayJim]

That is exactly my point! Every manner of theological compromise is read into postings here. Assumptions and conclusions are drawn perpetually that are inaccurate. That is what I mean by a "seige mentality." It is theological paranoia. It reminds me of how the Pharisees (this is also an illustration, not a linkage) made all manner of laws as a "hedge" around the Mosaic laws. Transgressing the hedge law was equated with transgressing the Mosaic law. I see this mentality creeping in. Trangressing a hedge theological point is equated with transgressing a true theological point (in this case particular election).

I have no doubt that Bill T and I are struggling with the same issues and have similar backgrounds and have arrived at very similar positions. I understand his concern for theological and biblical accuracy. I share that very concern. This is, after all, a family discussion.

[wildboar]

HJ:


Ans: The Sabbath has been abrograted. I hold to the ethical teachings of the OT as passed on to me by the hands of Christ. I would refer you to this by a thorough re-reading of New Covenant Theology by Wells and Zaspel.

Hebrews 4:8-9 For if Joshua had given them rest, he would not have spoken afterward of another day. 9 There remaineth therefore a sabbath rest for the people of God.

The teachings and mode take different forms, but what is right has always been right and what is wrong has always been wrong.


Ans: Then deal with Acts 17:28. Judgment Day is still future. Until then the good things God does for the lost pile up on them, awaiting judgment day.

Acts 17:28 for in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain even of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring.

As far as He is the creator we are all His offspring. This does not say that He loves each one of us or speak of any change in that regard.


PILGRIM:


You made a post, but I don't see that you addressed the point of my post. Why are all these commands from Christ (directly) in Mt. 5? What are we to do with them? If we strive to live them are we not striving to be like Him? That is, showing love to the unlovely, showing love, kindness, mercy to those that oppose themselves, those that are God haters. Since we 'were' God haters at one time, shouldn't we show more mercy, grace, kindness, etc. to those outside the fold, since we 'know' where they are at, and where they are headed, unless the Lord of Glory appreends them?

I apologize for not giving a clear answer, if I don't address what you want me to this time let me know.

Matthew 5:43-45 Ye have heard that it was said, Thou shalt love thy neighbor, and hate thine enemy: 44 but I say unto you, love your enemies, and pray for them that persecute you; 45 that ye may be sons of your Father who is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sendeth rain on the just and the unjust.

The Scriptures say here that we are to love our enemies because God sends good gifts to both the just and the unjust. It does not say love your enemies because God loves both the just and the unjust. If it were, it would be rather scarry. We would have to conclude that those who received more sunshine and more rainfall were loved more by God.

I do think there is more to it however. I do think that the passage is calling us to love our enemies because God shows love to His enemies. He does not show love to all His enemies. But all, prior to conversion are the enemies of God, apart from a love of God towards His enemies none would be saved.

We stand in a different relationship to our fellow human being than God does. We share a common place. God stands over them as judge however, and does not love all of His enemies. If we are to conclude from this passage that God loves all His enemies, then He must also give some sort of common grace to the Devil and have a general love towards him as well.

Even in our own case, sometimes we are called by God to hate people.

Psalm 139:21-22 Do not I hate them, O LORD, that hate thee? and am not I grieved with those that rise up against thee? 22 I hate them with perfect hatred: I count them mine enemies.

Sola Gratia,
WildBoar

[disciple]

Originally posted by wildboar
Matthew 5:43-45 Ye have heard that it was said, Thou shalt love thy neighbor, and hate thine enemy: 44 but I say unto you, love your enemies, and pray for them that persecute you; 45 that ye may be sons of your Father who is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sendeth rain on the just and the unjust.

The Scriptures say here that we are to love our enemies because God sends good gifts to both the just and the unjust. It does not say love your enemies because God loves both the just and the unjust. If it were, it would be rather scarry. We would have to conclude that those who received more sunshine and more rainfall were loved more by God.
as was said before, this is probably something we will not agree on (or we'll have to agree to disagree). i think the reason for the 'talking past' eachother is that one side is pressing the concept of grace and the other is pressing the word CARIS. there does not seem to be a meeting of the minds here and there will therefore be little understanding until this difference in manner of communication is recognized and embraced.

furthermore, in Mt 5:44-45 there is a definite correlation in Jesus words in what God does (v. 44) to what we are to do (v. 45). the definite implication is that the reason we are to love our neighbor is because God (in some sense) loves even the unrighteous. in fact, God is love (1 John 4:8). if God absolutely hated the unrighteous in every way (without any qualifiers), then this saying would have little effect.

anyway, rather than entering into more quarreling over words, i would just direct you to two very helpful works on the subject: 1) Love of God by John MacArthur, 2) The Difficult Doctrine of the Love of God by DA Carson. you can read the first chapter to Carson's book here (http://www.antithesis.com/features/love_01.html). here is an excerpt:


At first thought, understanding the doctrine of the love of God seems simple compared to trying to fathom other doctrines like that of the Trinity or predestination. Especially since the overwhelming majority of those who believe in God view Him as a loving being.

That is precisely what makes this doctrine so difficult. The only aspect of God's character the world still believes in is His love. His holiness, His sovereignty, His wrath are often rejected as being incompatible with a "loving" God. Because pop culture has so distorted and secularized God's love, many Christians have lost a biblical understanding of it and, in turn, lost a vital means to knowing who God is...

[Robert R. Higby]

To begin with, I will confess that my illustration of the restaurant 'exchange' was poorly chosen. I should have realized that it would seem to HJ that I was comparing him to the Castro sympathizer.

From now on, if I ever tell this story again to make the same point, I will leave out the details of what the 'exchange of ideas' was about and get to the 'punch line'--which was my real point. The spontaneous 'conclusion of the matter' that the restaurant owner verbalized was one of those rare jewels that we don't encounter very often. "Let me serve you, because we are not going to agree on that." For me, that is the right--not wrong way to relate to those whom God has given very different thoughts (whatever the reasons) than myself. God wants every man and woman thinking exactly as he/she does at the present time. Recognizing that fact makes all of this a lot easier. I have to remind myself of it over and over.

What I would like to say is that I will never be able to conclude in my own thinking that the 'common grace' doctrine actually makes God out to be a 'nicer deity,' which seems to be the real motive behind the idea. When all the facts of God's sovereignty and immutability are considered, it just doesn't hang together. I believe that the truth of God's revelation is reasonable and logical. When a viewpoint seems out-of-harmony with the overall teaching of the Bible, due to its irrational conclusions, it usually is wrong.

I think that WB has given us some very good insights on the meaning of 'rain upon the just and unjust' that we need to consider. Many who today are unjust are nonetheless elect of God. This is the main motive for us doing good to our enemies: some of those enemies are God's chosen.

However, even if we reach this wonderful conclusion, it does not answer everything on the issue. God in his sovereignty does good to the non-elect. The most blessed non-elect soul prior to the final judgment, in terms of external advantage and lack of suffering, is certainly the devil. I believe that our theology must explain this somehow as God does not leave the great big issues completely in mystery. Common grace doctrine has no explanation for this; it only deals with humanity. Most evangelical teaching has historically ended up with a strange distinction between devils and non-elect humans. But no such distinction exists in the Bible. So there has to be another way.

[HolidayJim]

Bill wrote: “…makes God out to be a 'nicer deity,' which seems to be the real motive behind the idea”

Ans: No one has the right nor the ability to determine motives in these postings.

Bill wrote: “…and immutability are considered, it just doesn't hang together…”

Ans: Bill I think that your immutability emphasis is mistaken. I do not deny God’s purposes are fixed, but His methods are not. I think that is a major difference between NCT and CT. By your definition (and by WildBoar’s) immutability would prevent any progressiveness in revelation. WB postings relative to the Sabbath reveals that immutability prevents the Sabbath (as a set day of the week) as being abrogated. I will leave you to the NCT writings for development of this. Immutability would require (if God does not change how he relates to the human race, lost included) that the sacrificial system must remain intact. After all, God does not change! WB in an earlier post said that hating our enemies is imitating God. Well, I think Jesus abrogated that too. I believe that those who teach otherwise are not following the Lord’s direct instructions. It looks like mere rationalization of bad behaviors toward the lost. If WildBoar and others insist on using older revelation to override new revelation, then it may reveal a poor understanding of the progressiveness of God’s Word.

"You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbour and hate your enemy.’ 44 But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45 that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. 46 If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? 47 And if you greet only your brothers, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? 48 Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect. (Mtt 5:43-48).

God’s character is immutable. His decrees are immutable. However, He does change things (covenants, priesthoods, sacrifices and even commandments!). After all, isn’t that one of the main points of the Book of Hebrews?

Heb 8:7 For if there had been nothing wrong with that first covenant, no place would have been sought for another.

We are not good to the lost because some of them might be the elect in disguise! We are good to the lost because we are commanded to be like our Heavenly Father.

Bill wrote: “Most evangelical teaching has historically ended up with a strange distinction between devils and non-elect humans. But no such distinction exists in the Bible.”

Ans: The distinction is Biblically valid.

Heb 2:16 For surely it is not angels he helps, but Abraham’s descendants.

God has His purposes and His timing. The issue of devils and demons is not germaine to this discussion.

We are not told to feel good about our enemies. We are told to act good toward our enemies. Love here is not an emotion, but an action. God is not “loving the lost” when he gives good things to them! We are told to love our enemies. We are not told to like them, but to act well or benevolently toward them. Love is not the opposite of wrath. Positive action is opposite to positive inaction. My view of Common grace does not view God loving people he eventually sends to hell. My view simply says that God ACTS benevolently toward all. Love as an emotion is not the issue (and, consequently, neither is wrath). I am never commanded to feel “oogly googly” or have “sloppy agape” toward the lost. I am only told to act better than the OT saint. I think once that idea is implanted, the whole issue dies off since God is not waffling between loving and hating them, but consistently does good things for them and they consistently are ungrateful.

[wildboar]

HJ:

I'm not denying progressive revelation at all. I think you are misunderstanding me. Let's lay aside the Sabbath issue for a bit, since I don't think it is relevant to the current discussion. For the time being I'll assume that the sabbath is no longer to be celebrated on a specific day of the week.

Immutability has to do with God's being. If God is immutable and He loves someone, He will always love that person. If He does not, He is not immutable. Grace is a bestowal of God's love toward a person. Wrath and love are not mutually exclusive, but love and hate are. Examples are often pointed to which show that when someone is said to hate someone else in the Bible that person also has a certain love for that person which is less than it is for another person. This is true for people but not for God. In fact, the explicitly states in one passage that when God hates someone, he does not love them. God loves and hates absolutely.

Sola Gratia,
WildBoar

[HolidayJim]

WildBoar wrote:"Grace is a bestowal of God's love toward a person."

Ans: This is the nexus of the issue. I maintain that Common Grace is not God's bestowal of love. It is His kindnesses toward even the lost. For you, grace can have NO modifier. It is always Redeeming grace, always Special grace. All I am saying is that God does NOT show His love (as if he loves and hates simultaneously the same lost person) but demonstrates His kindness toward the lost. It is precisely the narrow definiton that creates the issue. I am not to love the lost as I love my Christian brother or sister, but I am to "love" that person as God "loves" that person by showing kindnesses to them and treating them better (as the Lord does) than they deserve.

[disciple]

Originally posted by HolidayJim
We are not told to feel good about our enemies. We are told to act good toward our enemies. Love here is not an emotion, but an action. God is not “loving the lost” when he gives good things to them! We are told to love our enemies. We are not told to like them, but to act well or benevolently toward them. Love is not the opposite of wrath. Positive action is opposite to positive inaction. My view of Common grace does not view God loving people he eventually sends to hell. My view simply says that God ACTS benevolently toward all. Love as an emotion is not the issue (and, consequently, neither is wrath). I am never commanded to feel “oogly googly” or have “sloppy agape” toward the lost. I am only told to act better than the OT saint. I think once that idea is implanted, the whole issue dies off since God is not waffling between loving and hating them, but consistently does good things for them and they consistently are ungrateful.
HJ, that is a very good post. i think it is crucial to define concepts here...especially love and grace. we could trip over not seeing a specific word in the text but as i said before, language and communication is much bigger than mere words. just because the term omnipresence is not in Scripture doesn't mean God is not omniscience. just because the term Trinity is not in Scripture doesn't mean God is not triune. the question is not "is the word present?" but "is the concept present?"

i also wanted to comment on BT's comment: "What I would like to say is that I will never be able to conclude in my own thinking that the 'common grace' doctrine actually makes God out to be a 'nicer deity,' which seems to be the real motive behind the idea". i think that's a bit unfair. i can tell you that's not my motive (though as i said before, i don't know that i'd choose the terminology 'common grace' since it carries so much baggage with it) and if you read macarthur's and carson's books, you'd see that clearly wasn't theirs (though they probably don't use that term either). the motive is to be faithful to Scripture and to adequately account for passages such as Mt 5:43ff allowing the texts to speak for themselves without imposing our theology on them.

so perhaps the 'common grace' view which says that God gives prevenient grace that is potentially salvific is motivated by trying to have a 'nicer deity' but i will guarantee that this is not the motive behind those that see 'common grace' as God being kind, good, gracious, etc. to all though not in a salvific way. as i said before, it is crucial to distinguish the two ways of viewing 'common grace' in a positive way if communication and understanding is to occur. if you lump them all in one group then there is no wonder the misunderstanding and namecalling occurs*. this type of logic is guilt by association and is a logical fallacy. it does nothing to promote mutual respect and understanding*.

*Note: this is not necessarily directed at WB and BT but is a general statement of what i see is the result of not seeing a distinction of the different understandings of 'common grace.' misunderstanding is the inevitable result. many of the arguments and objections proposed thus far, apply only to the prevenient grace type.

[PILGRIM313]

WB

The Scriptures say here that we are to love our enemies because God sends good gifts to both the just and the unjust. It does not say love your enemies because God loves both the just and the unjust. If it were, it would be rather scarry. We would have to conclude that those who received more sunshine and more rainfall were loved more by God. I do think there is more to it however. I do think that the passage is calling us to love our enemies because God shows love to His enemies. He does not show love to all His enemies. But all, prior to conversion are the enemies of God, apart from a love of God towards His enemies none would be saved.

With all due respect, boar, you say in the first few sentences that we are to love our enemies because God gifts all.....sorry but I don't see that. True it does say love your enemies and we know that God loves His enemies, whom and when He chooses, just as he chooses judgment at His appointed times. I see where the Scripture say 'for' God sends rain etc. I understand that to mean 'setting the example'....reading 'because' in place of 'of' just isn't there. A few verses further states 'be ye perfect as I am'....again setting the example we are to strive for.
Pilgrim

[PILGRIM313]

Boar

Grace is a bestowal of God's love toward a person

I too, think the problem lies in the 'terms' and 'definitions'. As shown above Boar defines Grace as God's love towards a person, when in fact most definitions of Grace are 'unmerited favor'. There is a huge difference if one changes the standard meaning, for it usually changes the meaning to fit the theology.
Can we atleast agree that when we holding to 'common grace' term 'grace', we mean it as unmerited favor? This is exact as to what we are terming God's kindness towards sinners (elect or non elect) It is His gracious caring and keeping of His Creation. All of it undeserved, unmerited.
Pilgrim

[Robert R. Higby]

HJ:
Bill wrote: “…makes God out to be a 'nicer deity,' which seems to be the real motive behind the idea”

Ans: No one has the right nor the ability to determine motives in these postings.

I respectfully disagree. In this instance, I would also add that I was not judging whether any person's motive was good or evil in and of itself, but whether it is based on certain historical dogma.

The 'motive' I referred to is not specifically that of any contributor to this board. In context, I was referring to the motive determining the theology of infralapsarianism and its logical and inevitable child, common grace. Of course, if one agrees with this dogma, then further explanation is needed if a different motive than the usual argument is the reason. I'm not saying that these 'common grace' teachers are deliberately deceptive. They certainly believe that their views are based on scripture. I'm just saying that I'm convinced they are very wrong. Two examples are all that I have time to give right now, but the notion expressed in these is what I have encountered in virtually every common grace theologian:

Charles Hodge (Systematic Theology, Part III--Soteriology, Chapter I, Section 2--Supralapsarianism):

It is a further objection to the supralapsarian scheme that it is not consistent with the Scriptural exhibition of the character of God. He is declared to be a God of mercy and justice. But it is not compatible with these divine attributes that men should be foreordained to misery and eternal death as innocent, that is, before they had apostatized from God. If passed by and foreordained to death for their sins, it must be that in predestination they are contemplated as guilty and fallen creatures.

Lorraine Boettner (The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination, Chapter XI--Unconditional Election, Section 6--Infralapsarianism and Supralapsarianism):

It is not in harmony with the Scripture ideas of God that innocent men, men who are not contemplated as sinners, should be foreordained to eternal misery and death. The decrees concerning the saved and the lost should not be looked upon as based merely on abstract sovereignty. God is truly sovereign, but this sovereignty is not exercised in an arbitrary way. Rather it is a sovereignty exercised in harmony with His other attributes, especially his justice, holiness, and wisdom.

I radically disagree, of course, with the way both of these men characterize their opposition. But it is clear that they believe a more biblical view of the character of God is at stake in the position they espouse.

Disciple:
i think that's a bit unfair. i can tell you that's not my motive (though as i said before, i don't know that i'd choose the terminology 'common grace' since it carries so much baggage with it) and if you read macarthur's and carson's books, you'd see that clearly wasn't theirs (though they probably don't use that term either). the motive is to be faithful to Scripture and to adequately account for passages such as Mt 5:43ff allowing the texts to speak for themselves without imposing our theology on them.

I would be interested in knowing why you think Carson and MacArthur would argue differently than the two men above. I, for one, have personally listened to MacArthur preach the same above emphasis of Hodge and Boettner on a number of occassions.

It is not name-calling to point out the motive behind these views: those who teach this say that the infralapsarian view does more justice to the benevolence, fairness, and mercy of God than the supralapsarian. Even with the further explanations, so far, it all comes down to this in my mind.

These common grace theologies do state that they are trying to do justice to Mt. 5:43ff. But as I have stated before, my conculsion is that they end up teaching the opposite of what Mt. 5:43ff is really saying. WB pointed out the interpretation I would accept: We are to be merciful as God is merciful (the Lukan parallel to Matthew's 'perfect as God is perfect')--primarily because God has many elect among those who are presently unjust (unbelievers). So I believe that the common grace exegesis of this passage is wrong. We cannot show mercy that is not grounded in God's mercy (grace) toward the elect in some way.

As Paul stated, we do good to all men in order to save some (humanly speaking, of course--it is really God that does the saving). Our mercy imitates God's purposes of election and grace.

There are also biblical limits to 'doing good to all' that I might discuss, which are grounded in the principle of God's severity (not his goodness). I may get into it in a future post if this discussion goes on. Suffice it to say that God does not send rain upon all the unjust of humanity (only some). Neither does he expect us to be absolutely indiscriminate in the level of our merciful dealings with every member of humanity.

HJ:
My view of Common grace does not view God loving people he eventually sends to hell. My view simply says that God ACTS benevolently toward all. Love as an emotion is not the issue (and, consequently, neither is wrath). I am never commanded to feel “oogly googly” or have “sloppy agape” toward the lost.

I certainly agree with the point that God does not exercise agape toward all. However, I do believe that we are to exercise agape toward at least many of those who are currently unbelievers. Since God is immutable, the elect who have not yet believed are still loved by him (in the agape sense)--from eternity past until now. So we have to imitate this love in some way, although we cannot know who all of the elect are like God does.

Bill I think that your immutability emphasis is mistaken. I do not deny God’s purposes are fixed, but His methods are not. I think that is a major difference between NCT and CT. By your definition (and by WildBoar’s) immutability would prevent any progressiveness in revelation. WB postings relative to the Sabbath reveals that immutability prevents the Sabbath (as a set day of the week) as being abrogated. I will leave you to the NCT writings for development of this. Immutability would require (if God does not change how he relates to the human race, lost included) that the sacrificial system must remain intact. After all, God does not change!

This is a misunderstanding of my view of immutability (WB has already responded to this also). Immutability has to do with God's disposition, not his actions at every moment. Christ used both the grass of the field (inanimate) and the sparrow (animate) as an illustrations. Both the goodness and severity of God are illustrated in the conception, prosperity, and eventual death of all living things. God makes the grass green today, then burns it up tomorrow. But his disposition toward the grass never changes: he purposes to exercise both goodness and severity.

I am totally NCT in my view of biblical ethics (contrary, sadly, to the views of the man whose picture is on my posts!). I am also a hard supralapsarian on soteriology (in agreement with Dr. Twisse). I realize that this 'mix' of teaching is rare and will be viewed by most as spiritual whoredom. But both convictionsare based equally on a study of scripture and the history of dogma for the last 25 years.

[wildboar]

Pilgrim:

Every theologian I have ever read in support of common grace has equated it with a general non-saving love towards all mankind, so that is why I assumed you did as well, my apologies.

However, I still fail to see how favor can be bestowed apart from love and how favor can be bestowed upon someone who is absolutely hated.


With all due respect, boar, you say in the first few sentences that we are to love our enemies because God gifts all.....sorry but I don't see that. True it does say love your enemies and we know that God loves His enemies, whom and when He chooses, just as he chooses judgment at His appointed times. I see where the Scripture say 'for' God sends rain etc. I understand that to mean 'setting the example'....reading 'because' in place of 'of' just isn't there. A few verses further states 'be ye perfect as I am'....again setting the example we are to strive for.

I'm sorry, I don't understand what you are saying here.

Sola Gratia,
WildBoar

[HolidayJim]

Boar wrote in response to Pilgrim: "I still fail to see how favor can be bestowed apart from love and how favor can be bestowed upon someone who is absolutely hated."

Ans: If you are correct in assuming that common grace means love, then it is impossible to reconcile. That is what I have been harping on for people to see. Common grace is kindness. God can be kind to those who are the non-elect. He obviously is kind in that he blesses (with food, clothing, etc. as the Apostle Paul said in Acts 17). He call us to do the same exact thing...to be kind to our enemies. That is how we imitate Him. He is kind to His enemies and expects us to do the same. He is NOT saying that I am to trust, commit myself to, confide in, feel good about, or have an emotional commitment to the lost at all. I am to imitate HIM. Kindness is NOT love. Kindness is treating another person who is my ENEMY better than he deserves to be treated and SURPRISE OF SURPRISES, that is how God treats His enemies. It is only in this sense that I speak of Common Grace. Because God's kindness is hard for us to grasp...as your posts so clearly show you have a hard time grasping...only shows how amazing God is and how difficult it is to follow His command to be like Him.


Boar wrote:"Every theologian I have ever read in support of common grace has equated it with a general non-saving love towards all mankind..."

Ans: I don't think Berkhof equates it that way. But, regardless, who cares? The only issue is if the concept is biblical. Do you believe the Scriptures teach that we are to be kind to our enemies and by so doing, imitate God? Do you also believe that being kind to our enemies is not something they deserve? If it is not deserved, it is gracious. I cannot see how you can reconcile Christ's command with any other view. You quoted the Psalms a few posts ago about hating our enemies. Do you really think that is what Christ wants you to do? Who rules your ethics??

[PILGRIM313]

Seems as though some don't think the MT. verses are clear enough as to the command of Christ. Maybe the Luke verses are clearer?


Luke 6:27 ¶ But I say unto you that hear, Love your enemies, do good to them that hate you,
28 bless them that curse you, pray for them that despitefully use you.
29 To him that smiteth thee on the one cheek offer also the other; and from him that taketh away thy cloak withhold not thy coat also.
30 Give to every one that asketh thee; and of him that taketh away thy goods ask them not again.
31 And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise.
32 And if ye love them that love you, what thank have ye? for even sinners love those that love them.
33 And if ye do good to them that do good to you, what thank have ye? for even sinners do the same.
34 And if ye lend to them of whom ye hope to receive, what thank have ye? even sinners lend to sinners, to receive again as much.
35 But love your enemies, and do them good, and lend, {1} never despairing; and your reward shall be great, and ye shall be sons of the Most High: for he is kind toward the unthankful and evil. {1) Some ancient authorities read despairing of no man}
36 Be ye merciful, even as your Father is merciful.
37 ¶ And judge not, and ye shall not be judged: and condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned: release, and ye shall be released:

[wildboar]

Pilgrim and HJ:

I think you are both misunderstanding me. I'm saying we certainly must bestow mercy upon those who hate us. We do this because our Father in heaven bestows mercy upon those who hate Him. However, it does not follow from this that God bestows mercy upon every single person who ever lived.

Sola Gratia,
WildBoar

[HolidayJim]

Boar Wrote: "...it does not follow from this that God bestows mercy upon every single person who ever lived."

Ans: I refer once again to Acts 17:28 ("...for in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain even of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring.") I see no distinction in Paul's quote of a pagan poet (even a blind squirrel finds a nut every once in awhile!) of any restriction of God's mercy not going out to all. I would understand the "we" of the verse above to be "humanity" (certainly all in the group that Paul was addressing that day, and most did not accept the Gospel once they heard of the resurrection). Limited Atonement does not mean limited mercy, nor does it imply it. I am not called to imitate God if my understanding of God's mercy is that God shows mercy selectively in general blessings because he knows His people prior to their regeneration. It is not that I am to show mercy on all because some MAY be elect. I am to show mercy on all because the Father shows mercy on all. Nowhere is any restriction of God's mercy implied in either occurances of the Sermon on the Mount.

Regarding the Infra vs Supra debate, I quote from Berkhof who wrote, "Our confessional standards embody the infralapsarian position, but do not condemn Supralapsarianism. It was felt that this view was not necessarily inconsistent with Reformed theology...while it is not permissible to represent the supralapsarian view as the doctrine of the Reformed churches of the Netherlands, it is just as little permissible to molest any one who cherishes that view for himself." (page 125 Systematic Theology, New Combined Edition)

[Robert R. Higby]

As an introduction, I do apologize for my earlier statement that those who espouse the ‘common grace’ position do so because they want to defend an ideal of ‘nicer deity.’ This is due to the fact that some have viewed this statement as directed toward board contributors--plus two members of this board have stated that this is not their motive. I still am very unconvinced, due to reasons already cited, that the historic and present defense of the dogma by doctors of theology does not have this as its motive.

If any have doubts regarding this, listen to R.C. Sproul on the topic if you ever have a chance! MacArthur and others teach the same perspective. That is, the notion that supralapsarianism makes God out to be a tyrant and that only infralapsarianism honors the fairness and mercy of God. In this they are only defending 450+ years of Protestant ‘orthodoxy.’ I have already given quotes by Boettner and Hodge.

‘Nice deity’ was a poor choice of words. I am a native Missourian who likes to cut through the fine-sounding interpretations and get to the point. Common grace theologians have talked about the character of God, fairness and mercy of God, etc. being at stake in defending infralapsarianism over supralapsarianism. To me, this is the same thing as stating that common grace makes God out to be a ‘nicer’ deity.

HJ states:

Regarding the Infra vs Supra debate, I quote from Berkhof who wrote,"Our confessional standards embody the infralapsarian position, but do not condemn Supralapsarianism. It was felt that this view was not necessarily inconsistent with Reformed theology...while it is not permissible to represent the supralapsarian view as the doctrine of the Reformed churches of the Netherlands, it is just as little permissible to molest any one who cherishes that view for himself."

My conviction is that the statement of Berkhof in this regard, great and spiritual man that he was, does not face the facts honestly. Here are the reasons:

1. Truth is propositional. Opposite propositions cannot both be true; logic and mental reasoning is a gift of God. Therefore, the view of Berkhof attempts to circumvent the reasonable mind given to us by God. It would propose that an undesirable view--spurned by a confession of faith--can still be consistent with that faith, which is impossible.

2. Only infralapsarians teach that the issue separating themselves from supralapsarians is a mere definition of the ’order of divine decrees.’ In reality, it involves two different views of God’s sovereign will--plus differing perspectives on the plan of salvation in Christ. Even Karl Barth recognized this! Strangely, the universalist Barth acknowledged that supralapsarianism was closer to the truth. Contrary to scripture, he taught a ‘Calvinistic’ sort of universalism as the final solution. But he did have a far better understanding of the ‘essence’ of the difference than most teachers who call themselves ‘infralapsarian.’

3. Those of differing persuasion on this issue--who nonetheless confess the sovereignty of grace in Christ--may still worship and commune together in the same congregation. But respect for the convictions of others must certainly include a true understanding and faithful reciting of what those convictions really are. Teachers like R. C. Sproul are in no wise obeying this reasonable standard.

Lorraine Boettner stated in the “Reformed Doctine of Predestination“ (Chapter on ‘Unconditional Election‘, section 6):

Supralapsarianism goes to as great an extreme on the one side as does universalism on the other. Only the infralapsarian scheme is self-consistent or consistent with other facts.

I truly believe that 98% of Calvinists would say a hearty ’amen’ to the above statement of Boettner. One of these was Louis Berkhof. So he is not honest in his contradictory evaluation of supralapsarianism. Neither are all the other Protestants with the same view. If the doctrine of true election (as opposed to ’selection’) is as bad as universalism, as Boettner asserts, it cannot possibly be assimilated into the community of faith.

On the other hand, if true election and the unitary nature of God's will is the genuine biblical doctrine, we are accountable to it.

[HolidayJim]

Bill:

I want to plumb this subject (infra and supra) as thoroughly as you have. Really! You may indeed be right. So, you can see that I am open to modifying my thoughts (although my application may be divergent from yours). Can you suggest some clear (help my studpidity here). Do you have sources that clearly lay out the infra and supra views? Reading Berkhof doesn't help much. Do you have web links that spell it out clearly???

Isn't the biggest hurdle with supra the possible impugning of God's character? That is what Berkhof seems to be saying.

[Robert R. Higby]

HJ:

On supralapsarianism,

I will respond with further observations in the near future. As a good introduction I would recommend this website--most specifically the contributions of Dr. Willam Twisse on TULIP:

<http://members.aol.com/graceordained>

There are things lacking here on the nature of the controversy but it is at least an introduction to many of the historical writings.

Grace and peace,

[wildboar]

Although, I have a number of problems with the book, Robert Reymond gives one of the best modern defenses of the supralapsarian position in his book "A New Systematic Theology". He does also hold to some form of common grace, although he does not really spend any time defending the doctrine or stating what it is or is not.

Sola Gratia,
WildBoar

[Robert R. Higby]

Well, WB, you are introducing a bit of nostalgia for me. I well remember the days when I had the privilege of discussing issues personally with Dr. Reymond. We were once members of the same church and cell group. I immensely enjoyed his teaching and also sang in the choir led by his wife.

We (Dr. Reymond and I) have definite differences on what true supralapsarianism is, but the man was one of the most genuine Christians I have ever encountered. His systematic theology is perhaps the best of that sort in the last 8 or 9 decades. I'm sure that WB would also put Hoeksema in the same category: I do not disagree with that.

[Brandan Kraft]

Attached is a tract made by John Gill on Supralapsarianism.

Truth Defended, Being An Answer To An Anonymous Pamphlet, Entitled, 'Some Doctrines In The Supralapsarian Scheme Impartially Examined By The Word Of God.'

by John Gill

(London: Aaron Ward, 1736)

[Robert R. Higby]

In response to Holiday Jim's inquiry, I am preparing a comparison chart between the tenets of what I propose to be the 'standard' or 'typical' Reformed doctrine of 'selection' (infralapsarianism)--and true Bible predestination ('election'). When I have this document finished, I will post it immediately. It will be after Thanksgiving.

Thanks to all.

[Brandan Kraft]

That will be awesome Bob, I can't wait to see it!

[Brandan Kraft]

Billy Talks to his Pastor about God

Billy: "Pastor, does God love everybody?"

Pastor: "Yes, Billy (smile, pats him on the head).

Billy: "How come it says in Romans 9 that he hated Esau?"

Pastor: "Been reading your Bible, huh, Billy? (still smiles). Well, the Bible also says that God hates, but that only is talking about God's secret decree, and as far as we are concerned, he loves everybody."

Billy: "Pastor?".

Pastor: "Yes, Billy."

Billy: "If God tells us about his secret decree, is it still a secret?"

Pastor: "Er, well, I guess…not, Billy, but I meant that we should realize that there is a way the Bible talks about God's love for everybody, and that's what we should think about, not the one or two places where it says God hates."

Billy: "Oh. How is it that God loves everybody?"

Pastor: "Well, he gives everybody rain and sunshine, and he blesses the people of the earth with a conscience so they know right from wrong, and he has given them many gifts which they use to make the world a better and safer place to live."

Billy: "Then he sends most of them to hell?"

Pastor: "Yes, Billy."

Billy: "Pastor?"

Pastor: "Yes, Billy."

Billy: "Is it love for God to give people good things for a few years to make them feel comfortable and worthwhile, and then send them to hell?"

Pastor: "Well, I… yes, it…is, I think, because it would have been worse if, I mean it would be, um, well, it is, I guess, because he did not send them directly to hell, but he allowed them to experience his goodness and his provision for his creatures…"

Billy: "Is it love to let someone experience something good they will remember forever and always hate God for, because that good thing they loved more than forgiveness?"

Pastor: "Could we change the subject, Billy? I am not sure my answers are satisfying you."

Billy: "O.K., Pastor. Did Jesus die for everybody?"

Pastor: "Why, sure, Billy."

Billy: "Pastor"

Pastor: "Yes, Billy."

Billy: "If Jesus died for everybody, why isn't everybody going to heaven?"

Pastor: "Well Billy, its because not everybody will accept him."

Billy: "But Pastor, I thought Jesus saved us. You are telling me that we save Jesus."

Pastor: (Laughing nervously) Of course not, Billy! I believe that Jesus saves us completely! However would you get the idea that I believed we save Jesus?

Billy: "Well, Pastor, you told me that Jesus died for everybody, and that only those who accept him will be saved. So, this means Jesus' death and resurrection, what Jesus does, cannot save us of itself, but something more is needed, and that something more is what we do by accepting him. For those who do not accept Jesus, they will perish. That means that Jesus' dying for them cannot help them. In fact, it means that Jesus' work for them was a miserable failure. On the other hand, those who accept him make his work real by their acceptance—and they save his work from being a failure. Without us, Jesus, and his work of salvation—would be doomed! If Jesus cannot save us without the permission we give of our own free will, then we are the real saviors, and Jesus is the one we save! Wow! What would he ever do without us?!

Pastor: "Er… uh…that's not what I mean. I mean if, it is, I said…no, I believe Jesus is the one who does the saving, Billy, its just that… God has made it so that we… are free to acc… meaning, we are, are…Billy, the Bible is mysterious. It seems to mean certain things, but it doesn't really, like it says…you are using logic, Billy. The Bible is not logical, and the truths are not something we can fit into our own minds."

Billy: "Pastor."

Pastor: "Yes, Billy (now showing a slight frown).

Billy: "When you say the Bible is not logical, does that mean the Bible does not make sense? 'Cause you made sense when you said the Bible wasn't logical. I think it was because you used logic that you made sense."

Pastor: (Now glowering at Billy) No, Billy, I didn't mean the Bible does not make sense. It does make sense, but just not our kind of sense".

Billy: "Pastor."

Pastor: "Yes, Billy."

Billy: "Why would God give a Bible to us that did not make our kind of sense?"

Pastor: "Well, Billy, its not that… I think its…it makes sense, just does not give us the answers we like to hear, and says things that seem contradictory but really are not, to keep us from asking smart- aleck questions."

Billy: "So, God doesn't make our kind of sense to keep us humble?"

Pastor: "That's right, Billy. God wants to keep us humble, so he does not let us think we can be absolutely certain about the things some proud people are certain about."

Billy: "Pastor."

Pastor: "Yes, Billy."

Billy: "Are you certain about what you just said to me?"

Pastor: "(Showing obvious irritation) What do you think, Billy?"

Billy: "I think you just called yourself a proud person, but I don't know why, 'cause you are so smart and know so much about God, and how much he needs us."

Pastor: "Billy, why don't you go out and play, like the other children?"

Billy: "Why should I go out and play, when I can stay in here with you and learn how to save God?"

Pastor: "You need to be careful, Billy. I never said we save God. You are the one who said that, young man. I simply believe our choices are significant, and God does not treat us like robots or lifeless stones. He created us to have true human responsibility."

Billy: "Pastor"

Pastor: (Now looking quite angry at young Billy) "This will have to be the last question, young man! I have important things to do and you should be outside playing."

Billy: "When God put Abraham to sleep, was he telling him what he thought of his human responsibility?"

Pastor: (Seething with rage) I have a bad headache, Billy, and I can't answer any more of your questions, but I can tell you this. Whoever has been teaching you has been telling you things a boy your age should not even be thinking about. It sounds like you have been learning some kind of hyper-Calvinism. You better be careful, young man!

Billy: "I don't know about hyper- Calintisim, but I have been reading these things in the Bible. Thanks for straightening me out. I will try to cut these bad parts out. Can I borrow some scissors?

Pastor: (Rising from his chair) Get out of here, you, you, you…!

Billy: "That's O.K., pastor. I'll ask Joey. He was using some good scissors when we were cutting out our 'friends with Jesus' pictures for Sunday School. Good- by."

© 1997 Copyright, by John Pedersen

[wildboar]

I love that story by John Pederson, in a way it sums it up better than anything and makes me crack up every time I read it.

Sola Gratia,
WildBoar

[HolidayJim]

Billy: "Oh. How is it that God loves everybody?"

Pastor: "Well, he gives everybody rain and sunshine, and he blesses the people of the earth with a conscience so they know right from wrong, and he has given them many gifts which they use to make the world a better and safer place to live."

Ans: I find this interesting that those who post such items are blissfully ignoring my previous postings. By that I mean simply this: Common grace, in my view, is not Common love. I have never posted that God loves all people. Hence this is a straw man argument to deny what I have not posted nor implied. To link it likewise with salvation is also a straw man argument and a not-so-sublte form of guilt by association (If anyone holds to Common grace, they are essentially Arminians).

One more time: Does God not show kindnesses to even the lost?
Wil anyone out there agree with that, and if not, why not? And if not, how, pray, do you handle the Lord's injunction to be like the Father? Perhaps I should be wrathful toward my enemies? How about that I do anything kind to my neighbor? Maybe I shouldn't let him borrow the lawn mower next time. After all, he's not a Christian and makes no pretense to it.

Those who insist that Common grace is REALLY Common love twist my words completely. If not twist, then they distort.

[Brandan Kraft]

The traditional reformed understanding of common grace is "common love". If you deny common love, then you deny the doctrine of "common grace" and will be labeled by most calvinists as a hyper calvinist. Welcome to the club.

Maybe what you are talking about is "common kindness" or "common goodness"; but this understanding is completely different from the traditional understanding of common grace in comparison. This perceived "goodness" has nothing to do with God's love toward the reprobate, but with God's love toward the elect in Christ.

I believe God is in a sense good or kind to all men, but I cannot call that GRACE. Using today's definition of grace, you could call it that, but the word "grace" has been so watered down from the biblical understanding of the word that I choose to avoid it when referring to God's goodness toward the reprobate.

[HolidayJim]

My frame of reference is not theological history, nor even Reformed Theology. I try to keep it as Biblical Theology. So the phrase "...traditional reformed understanding of common grace..." is quite meaningless to me.

Again, I ask: "One more time: Does God not show kindnesses to even the lost?"

If He does, is He obligated to show kindness or not? Since He obviously is not compelled by anything in any person, then His kindness is a form of grace because no one deserves any good thing from His hand. Not a wit different than the non-saving general revelation which is sufficient to damn but insufficient to save. There is a parallel here: Common Grace is to General Revelation as Saving Grace is to Special Revelation.

Using the logic used earlier when saying that God doesn't show grace to the lost because it would be inconsistant with His hatred of them, then He shouldn't reveal Himself in general revelation either since it isn't sufficient to save! The concepts are parallel. Isn't God cruel, then, to reveal Himself in a general way when He has no intention of bring the person to saving faith using special revelation (either preached or read)?

I understand your reluctance to use the adjective "common" but it is unfounded. Have you heard that this week in Los Angeles County California (http://www.snopes.com/inboxer/outrage/master.asp) they are requesting vendors of hard drives to not use "master" and "slave" designations for the settings because some are offended? Just because others misuse a term does not limit you or me to its proper use. Those who react in a knee-jerk, red flag in front of a bull sort of way are running on emotions are not Scripture.

Sometimes I fear our discussions approach the lunacy of the Middle Ages controversy of how many angels can sit on the head of a pin or nearly a attitude of fiddling while Rome burns.

[Brandan Kraft]

Originally posted by HolidayJim
My frame of reference is not theological history, nor even Reformed Theology. I try to keep it as Biblical Theology. So the phrase "...traditional reformed understanding of common grace..." is quite meaningless to me. Well Jim, that's what we were discussing, at least that's what I was thinking when I created this topic.


Again, I ask: "One more time: Does God not show kindnesses to even the lost?"Yes, of course He does. Nobody here will deny that. But the "kindness" He shows to the reprobate in my opinion is not for their benefit, but to further damn them and to benefit His elect. So while He shows kindness to the reprobate for a time (and in reality, it's only a blink compared to eternity), it's hard to consider it as love or as grace.


If He does, is He obligated to show kindness or not? Since He obviously is not compelled by anything in any person, then His kindness is a form of grace because no one deserves any good thing from His hand. He is obligated to show kindness to the reprobate only in regard to the elect. So while you may see this as common grace, it really is particular in that the objects of His affection are His chosen people in Christ. The reprobate experiences temporary benefits for the sake of increasing His wrath upon them and for the benefit of His elect.


The concepts are parallel. Isn't God cruel, then, to reveal Himself in a general way when He has no intention of bring the person to saving faith using special revelation (either preached or read)? Well, maybe you might think of it as "cruel", but I don't. Was it "cruel" for God to raise up Pharaoh and harden his heart?

[GraceAmbassador]

Brethren:

Every time that a discussion about "common grace" appears I use this biblical illustration to bring some perspective of what we are talking about. It may not resolve the issue, but it helps to understand a bit better God's dealings with the "unelect".
(I warn you that those of you who read my stuff in other venues are sick and tired of this illustration, so please, forgive my repeativeness).

Mk 4:35-41, (KJV)
35 And the same day, when the even was come, he saith unto them, Let us pass over unto the other side.
36 And when they had sent away the multitude, they took him even as he was in the ship. And there were also with him other little ships.
37 And there arose a great storm of wind, and the waves beat into the ship, so that it was now full.
38 And he was in the hinder part of the ship, asleep on a pillow: and they awake him, and say unto him, Master, carest thou not that we perish?
39 And he arose, and rebuked the wind, and said unto the sea, Peace, be still. And the wind ceased, and there was a great calm.
40 And he said unto them, Why are ye so fearful? how is it that ye have no faith?
41 And they feared exceedingly, and said one to another, What manner of man is this, that even the wind and the sea obey him?

I preached many sermons on this verse using the "pillow" as Grace, and a few other nuances of the passage but here it is the "common grace" illustration:

When the storm hit, we can assume that there were many other boats around in the area. If not, let's assume so. When Jesus rebukes the storm not only the boat where He was travelling but also all the other boats in that vicinity enjoyed the benefits of Jesus' power in rebuking the storm and calming the sea.
However, Jesus said in verse 35 Let's pass over to the other side. All boats, including those who did not enjoy the presence of Jesus arrived safely in the other side only because the Master of the Sea wanted to get to the other side and nothing was going to stop Him and that if a storm would assail their boat he would use such a storm to lullaby His nap.
Everyone benefited from Jesus' power, but only the disciples boat arrived in the other side in the company of Jesus.

The point is the same as defended by Bill Twisse:

Although every boat arrived at the other side, only one had Jesus' presence in it. His boat had Salvific Grace. The others only temporarily benefited from His feat. He did not show direct mercy, Salvific Grace, or common grace to the other boats sailing in the area directly or intentionally. They only benefited from it. He had nothing in mind rather than getting to the other side (verse 35).

Jesus has nothing in mind but His elect. The elect's boat will get to the other side in the presence of Jesus, or carrying Jesus, as the elect "has or carries" Jesus in His heart and will safely arrive in the other side with Jesus. The others will temporarily enjoy and take advantage of the situation temporarily but they will be without Jesus when they get to the other side! No need to tell what happens to those who get to the other side "without Jesus".

Many claim that God shows His Goodness to all men. Scriputres are quoted as to God allowing the sun to shine upon the all kinds of men. That is true! But also the Bible evidences that His eyes are upon those that are His. I went to a congregation last Sunday that has a great big band. My sons play in that band. My middle son plays lead guitar and my youngest one plays percussion. The band is big! Guess who I had my eyes on? When they were little I used to pick them up at school. There were hundreds of kids coming out through a narrow door as in a stampede. Cars would fly by regardless of the signs about a school zone. Amid all the boyish screams and shouts of the others, guess whose voice I would pick up in the crowd and who I would "die" to protect against the perils of the traffic?

So is God. (He is much better than me, I guarantee you). Everything he does is for the benefit of the elect. Others take full advantage of it only for a season. I do not call this "common grace". I call this a temporary truce.

That is my simple and not so very theologized veiw.

Milt

[HolidayJim]

I'm sorry, but that particular text has no bearing in any way on this discussion. It reminds me of how the Parable of the Good Samaritan is forced to teach (for example the two coins are the two ordinances, etc.) what it is not intended to teach. Besides, the argument from silence (that there were other boats on the sea at the time) is invalid on its face.

Let's just say that God is kind even to those who will never come to Him. He expects us to do the same. You don't like to use the word "grace" with any adjective because any distinction is, to you, invalid and a step toward heresy.

How about a text that does apply? In John 6: 26-27 it reads," Jesus answered, "I tell you the truth, you are looking for me, not because you saw miraculous signs but because you ate the loaves and had your fill. Do not work for food that spoils, but for food that endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give you. On him God the Father has placed his seal of approval."

Just the previous day, Jesus had feed the 5000 (men only counted, see Jn 6:10) and the next day he addresses their crass concern of only to be fed (vs 27 above). There were undoubtedly at least 10,000 persons fed that day since women and children were not included in the count. Later on in that same chapter (verses 64-66) he said, "Yet there are some of you who do not believe." For Jesus had known from the beginning which of them did not believe and who would betray him. He went on to say, "This is why I told you that no-one can come to me unless the Father has enabled him." From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him."

Here we have a text where the Lord feed at least 10,000 (who didn't deserve anything from His hand, which I define as grace since it cannot be earned!) and yet, he knew that most would not follow Him. They benefited from the food, but they fell away (vs 66) showing that they were not of the elect. They will be held more accountable on Judgement Day for sure, but that does not diminish in any way the nature of the gift. It only reveals the character of their hearts.

[Brandan Kraft]

I agree with Jim that the passage Milt used to explain his understanding of common grace is not a prooftext against the teaching! But Milt was not basing his interpretation of common grace on this passage, but instead was using it as an example to teach what he believes. What is wrong with that?

[GraceAmbassador]

I'm sorry, but that particular text has no bearing in any way on this discussion. It reminds me of how the Parable of the Good Samaritan is forced to teach (for example the two coins are the two ordinances, etc.) what it is not intended to teach. Besides, the argument from silence (that there were other boats on the sea at the time) is invalid on its face.

I agree. Silence should not teach us. But read the text. There were other little ships in the area. It is not so much silence here.
As to this statement:

I'm sorry, but that particular text has no bearing in any way on this discussion.
Fine, I will retreat to my humble hole. Or perhaps I should stay and learn from you... :)

Read my commentary again, brother, please: It was not my intention to bring up this text as a proof text either for or against "common grace". I just said it is an illustration indicating the many wonderful gifts God bestows upon the world because of His elect. I prefer not to use or trivialize the word Grace using it to anything not related to Salvation, so I prefer not to call such a gift, the general goodness of God, Grace. I reserve this term whe if refers to unmerited Salvation in Jesus.


Here we have a text where the Lord feed at least 10,000 (who didn't deserve anything from His hand, which I define as grace since it cannot be earned!) and yet, he knew that most would not follow Him. They benefited from the food, but they fell away (vs 66) showing that they were not of the elect. They will be held more accountable on Judgement Day for sure, but that does not diminish in any way the nature of the gift. It only reveals the character of their hearts.

Here you not only reinforce my point but you answer to your own quest! The nature of the gift does not determine anything we can call Grace, unless you want to discuss "I say tomato you say tomato; I say potato you say potato" with the different pronunciation. It is an unecessary luxury (if there is any that is necessary) to be hung up in semantics.

What most of us defend, and certainly I do, is that the Goodness of God, feeding even those who did not earned, if we do not consider the lessons Jesus desired to teach here and only regard the act of multiplication itself, is something different than Salvific Grace.

In all, I have found that most people who teach and believe "common grace" are the same who say that "common grace" is our "glimmer of light" or the "preventive grace" that God gives all men to be receptive to the message of the Gospel. This is non-biblical. Many people call themselves Calvinist then they find their theology with conflict with the overall Goodness of God to all men and try to find a "middle-of-the-road" approach when there is none and use "common grace" as the non biblical inate ability of men to "accept Christ". These so called Calvinists are the same prople who cannot distinguish when the Bible says that God saved someone from an impending eminent tragedy and when He saves with the Savation provided in Jesus. I am not saying that you belong to this group.

If you want to call as "grace" small "g", the Goodness of God in feeding many people who did not deserve and later, with their bellies full, departed from Him (again, disregarding the theological implications of that text) I would say that this is a free-speech country and it is all right with me. I prefer to reserve to term Grace related to Salvation.

In all, I believe that we need to prove "common grace" as a biblical terminology with the same avid ivestigation that we used to determine whether terms such as "accepting Christ" and "free-will for Saltavion" are found together in the Bible. Otherwise it is such an irrelevant issue for me that I really feel that I might as well retreat to my humble hole and stick to biblical terminology.

Milt :o

[HolidayJim]

Dr. G:

By Milt's own statement, "EVERY TIME that a discussion about "common grace" appears I USE THIS BIBLICAL ILLUSTRATION to bring some perspective of what we are talking about. It may not resolve the issue, but it helps to understand a bit better God's dealings with the "unelect".

So, if this is used "...EVERY TIME a discussion of common grace appears..." what why use it at all since it does not apply? He says, "It helps us understand God's dealing with the 'unelect'"? How??? It does NOT apply and is based on faulty exegesis. Bad exegesis does not lead to good theology. It does NOT help us understand anything of the sort.That is what makes it WRONG. Bad exegesis does not lead to good theology.

It reminds me of how Spurgeon dealt with a discussion on infant baptism. When it came to his turn he said, "There lived a man in the land of Uz whose name was Job." (Job 1:1), to which the paedobaptist replied, "What has that got to do with infant baptism." Spurgeon retorted, "As much as the verses you quoted to support infant baptism...absolutely nothing."

The Mark 4 text has absolutely no bearing on this topic. To build an argument on Mark 4 from silence (the supposed presence of other ships on the lake at the same time) is faulty exegesis and cannot bear the weight in this discussion. It will, however, bear the weight on the deity of Christ (which is it's prime teaching).

What about John 6? No discussion about this text that does apply??

[Brandan Kraft]

HolidayJim, NOBODY on this thread has denied that God is good to the reprobate! The topic was the reformed doctrine of "common grace" that says God loves everyone in a non-salvific way. If you deny that doctrine, in most Calvinistic churches you will be branded a hyper calvinist. Do you want to be able to say you agree with "common grace" so that you can avoid this charge? It does not sound to me like you agree with the doctrine of "common grace" because you deny "common love".

I really don't understand your point at all! You are really confusing me with your argumentation. Why not just give it up and adopt the label "hyper calvinist"? http://www.gty.org/~phil/articles/hypercal.htm

[GraceAmbassador]

H.J.

I believe our posts crisscrossed, but please, I said "every time" the discussion appears I give this biblical illustration, only to show my opinion as to how we should not confuse God's goodness to the reprobate with God's Grace exclusively towards the elect. That was my only intention. Please, do not make out of my commentary something that I did not intend to make.

If my commentary caused you some inconvenience or confusion, this has been resolved by everything I explained in the following post (the one that crisscrossed with yours). You appear to be defending something as important as the influence of the garbanzo in the inca's economy. That is fine! However, brother, I was trying to present to you my view as to why I would not call God's goodness toward the reprobate "Grace". Perhaps "grace" with small "g", but that can be confusing.

If you feel that my point has nothing to do with the discussion, I beg your forgiveness for wasting your time. I certainly would not waste mine with an irrelevant insistence upon a semantical difference.

I think I explained enough. I also said that if you want to call God's goodness towards the reprobate "grace" or "common grace" it is fine with me. More power to you. I prefer not to trivialize the word Grace. That's me!
I also have the right to find the insistence upon a point or a name just an irrelevant semantical problem with a distinction without a difference. However, if you call "common grace" the act of God preparing the reprobate to somehow one day be receptive to the Grace of God, I would then say that this is relevant, since it is an error. But it is not what you are saying, I think, unless you tell me otherwise. As such, perhaps as far as I am concerned, consider youself the winner of this one. I grant the victory to you. (My own version of showing my own common grace.) Not that there is such a thing as common grace; you get the victory in this one in that I will refuse to discuss semantics and irrelevances. (Unless you tell me that you believe that common grace is "preparatory or preventive grace" as a "chance" to the reprobate. Then we need to talk, but there will be other people here to help you on that one).

Milt

[GraceAmbassador]

Originally posted by Dr. Gill
I really don't understand your point at all!
Yup! I don't either and I've been reading this thread almost since the beginning.

H.J.

Since you insist in charging me with bad theology even when I said and admitted that my commentary was "a non theologized way to approach the issue", I would like to see, then, your "good" theology about it so we can at least be given the opportunity to understand what is exactly your point. Let me help you:

Do you believe that God loves everybody equally, elect and unelect?

If yes, please prove
If not, then, what is your point?

Do you believe that God bestow Salvific Grace on everybody, elect and unelect?

If yes, please prove.
If not, then, what is your point?

Do you believe that demonstrations of God's goodness towards the ages is the same or equivalent to God's love for everybody, elect and unelect?

If yes, please prove
If not, then, what is your point?

Do you believe that God being temporarily good to the unelect but ultimately allowing him to go to hell can be called in any way shape or form "Grace"?

If yes, then what is Saving Grace to you?

If not, then, what is your point? Why call it "grace"?

To indict someone with bad theology and bad exegesis is fine and all right with me. But that pressuposes that you have the ultimate answer with good theology and exegesis. Now note that I disclaimed my point stating that I was using something "non-theological" and as an illustration. You asked


So, if this is used "...EVERY TIME a discussion of common grace appears..." what why use it at all since it does not apply? He says, "It helps us understand God's dealing with the 'unelect'"? How??? It does NOT apply and is based on faulty exegesis. Bad exegesis does not lead to good theology. It does NOT help us understand anything of the sort.That is what makes it WRONG. Bad exegesis does not lead to good theology.

It does illustrates that God bestows His goodness temporarily to the unelect but ultimately His Grace is towards His elect. As an illustration. If you like everything to be theological, please, be upfront and begin to use theology yourself.
An illustration is a matter of opinion and I posted my opinion here as to the value of the illustration and what the illustration illustrates. What is wrong with that? You may disagree without being desagreable twice! You can even rebuke me for it. Rebuke a wise man and he shall love thee! :)


The Mark 4 text has absolutely no bearing on this topic. To build an argument on Mark 4 from silence (the supposed presence of other ships on the lake at the same time) is faulty exegesis and cannot bear the weight in this discussion.

A little bit of skill would have prevented you from being so demanding: the text of Mark 4 does say that:

vs. 36 - KJV And when they had sent away the multitude, they took him even as he was in the ship. And there were also with him other little ships.

Even my assumption is not an absurd. It was made for illustratiojn purposes. It is not unreasonable neither anything that was never used before to surmise that there were other boats in the sea at that time. It is not allowed in a Theology Class, but it is perfectly allowable with the disclaimer that it is an illustration. Paul used a stump to illustrate a point on the "unknown god" issue. We are not going to worship every stump we stumble on are we? Illustrations are only to illustrate and not for us to make a doctrine out of it. Perhaps that's why illustrations starts with ill :)

I have no idea why my commentary stirred up your anger (at least it appeared to be so). Again, I think you are waddling in irrelevance desiring to make your point relevant, but if my non-challant style and non-theological approach (which, for the umpteenth time, I admitted in the first place) bothered you, I beg your forgiveness and apologize (again, and again) for wasting your time.

I will refrain from posting again here until you answered the questions above which will elucidate me as to what is your point.
Then, perhaps, I will make some theological ones, if I feel like it, of course!

(Some commentaries may have been overlooked due to the changing of the pages. Please, read the previous pages)

With Brotherly love,

Milt

[HolidayJim]

My definition of Grace is "God's unmerited (even ill-merited) favor."
Therefore, anything and everything any person receives (elect and non-elect) that is anything other than judgement or punishment, since it is unearned, is gracious on His part. The fact that a lost person's heart is even beating is an act of graciousness on God's part.

Just like common revelation doesn't save and can't save and doesn't prepare the heart for regeneration, neither does common grace save or prepare the heart for regeration. Only special grace saves, just like only special revelation is sufficient to save.

Many on this site seem to think that common grace equals the Arminians view of Prevenient Grace, which no one that I have seen here thinks at all. An Arminian may mean prevenient grace when he uses the term Common Grace, but that is not my view at all. Common grace only succeeds in additional damnation for the lost. It is not preparatory to salvation in any sense. I love my dog, but I have no desire to marry my dog! Two different kinds of love, two different kinds of grace. Two different kinds of revelation.

So......

1)Do you believe that God loves everybody equally, elect and unelect?
Ans: Obviously no.

2)Do you believe that God bestow Salvific Grace on everybody, elect and unelect?
Ans: Obviously no.

3)Do you believe that demonstrations of God's goodness towards the ages is the same or equivalent to God's love for everybody, elect and unelect?
Ans: Obviously no.

4)Do you believe that God being temporarily good to the unelect but ultimately allowing him to go to hell can be called in any way shape or form "Grace"?
Ans: Obviously YES. Based on Acts 17:28 "‘For in him we live and move and have our being.’ As some of your own poets have said, ‘We are his offspring.’" Paul's argument and validation of the pagan poet's idea is that God has shown gracious in even allowing the lost to live at all. That, and the Lord's words in Matthew 5. But if a person insists that all grace must be salvific, then, of course, the restrictive definition would demand a "No" answer. However, my direct answers to questions 1, 2 and 3 should be clear enough.

I really have no controversy with your reluctance to use grace in only one way. My controversy only revolves around the rejection of the idea that God is giving and gracious even to those whom He will eventually damn.

No one has dealt with my reference to John 6, which has far more relevance to this discussion than Mark 4. Why not? Was Jesus compelled to feed the 5000 or was that not an act of graciousness on His part, even though most abandoned Him soon afterwards. Could He have not sent them home hungry? Surely He could have but He didn't. If He was not compelled to feed them, then he was gracious to feed them.

[HolidayJim]

Dr. Gill:

I refuse the title hyper-calvinist for the same reason I deny the label "fundamentalist". The original meaning of the term fundamentalist was agreement with the fundamentals of the faith. Now, it carries with it the following baggage: uneducated, irrational, blue-eyed, Republican, Moral Marjority member, etc.

Hyper-Calvinist is also come to strongly imply a lack of love toward the lost, a harshness of tone, and an unwillingness to evangelize.

I know this reference will irritate some, but this list sums it up from Phil Johnson:

A hyper-Calvinist is someone who either:
1)Denies that the gospel call applies to all who hear, OR
2)Denies that faith is the duty of every sinner, OR
3)Denies that the gospel makes any "offer" of Christ, salvation, or mercy to the non-elect (or denies that the offer of divine mercy is free and universal), OR
4)Denies that there is such a thing as "common grace," OR
5)Denies that God has any sort of love for the non-elect

Supralapsarianism need not deny these 5 points, but most seem to. Knowing only the decreed will of God and not His secret will seems to be the issue. I do not live my life looking through the rear view mirror and say that everything that has happened in my personal life comports with the revealed will of God, although, obviously, it was the secret will of God that every event happened. I am told to love my enemies and evangelize the lost and offer then salvation by calling them to repentance but the results are not assured that they will come to saving faith by my actions. That is living my life looking through the front window of the car, not the rear view mirror. I am likely to drive into a theological or spritual ditch by looking the wrong way. I hope my illustration, defective as it is, indicates my stand.

[Brandan Kraft]

I'm supra, deny common grace, the "free offer", and God's love for the reprobate.

Yet I believe strongly in evangelism. And when I say that I mean it.. I have a love for the lost and dying and will go to the death if it means propagating the gospel. I'm not anti-missions either.

Here is my article on hyper calvinism - http://www.5solas.org/media.php?id=563

[GraceAmbassador]

I really have no controversy with your reluctance to use grace in only one way. My controversy only revolves around the rejection of the idea that God is giving and gracious even to those whom He will eventually damn.

No one has dealt with my reference to John 6, which has far more relevance to this discussion than Mark 4. Why not? Was Jesus compelled to feed the 5000 or was that not an act of graciousness on His part, even though most abandoned Him soon afterwards. Could He have not sent them home hungry? Surely He could have but He didn't. If He was not compelled to feed them, then he was gracious to feed them.

Now you are assuming from silence since we do not know how many and what percentage of the people really abandoned Jesus and whether he knew how many would really follow Him even before He fed them! :rolleyes:

But I rest my case! Jesus fed some that would follow him and some that would not received the benefits of the goodness He had reserved for the elect. My point exactly. Thanks for reinforcing it! (I am not taking into consideration the theological implication of Jesus feeding the people in preparation for His Bread of Life Sermon and compare Him as the Eternal Bread with the bread they just had eaten, which is the real point of the whole miracle)

I rest my case! It has no relevance!

Thanks for the answers. I can't see no point worthy of discussion here. It is indeed a distinction without a difference.

I quit!

Milt

[HolidayJim]

Now you are assuming from silence since we do not know how many and what percentage of the people really abandoned Jesus and whether he knew how many would really follow Him even before He fed them!

Ans: I don't know what tree you're barking at here. Percentages? How many? Who asked those questions.

John 6 does not prove your point. It shows the Lord showing grace to even those who would never come to him. But, of course, you refuse to see it.

I quit too. The harshness of the hyper-Calvinist is too much for my stomach. I'm off this board.

[Brandan Kraft]

Originally posted by HolidayJim
I quit too. The harshness of the hyper-Calvinist is too much for my stomach. I'm off this board. Awwwe, Jim :( What did we say that bothered you?

[GraceAmbassador]

Well Brandan, you know that I only quit trying to "agree" with H.J. by making it an issue of semantics and he could not even appreciate it...

When I said "I quit", I meant, "I quit" trying to make him see that all of us were not denying that the Lord had been "good" to unbelievers and reprobates but we refuse to call it "grace". I think H.J. ego took the best of him but the best of him is still there.

I fail to see where anyone here offended him!

Harshness of hyper calvinistis? He does not even know me!

I am sorry If by any word or deed I was the responsible for his anger. I said that over and over again... Who is the harsh one here?

Milt

[Brandan Kraft]

I don't think there is anything we said that was "harsh".

[wildboar]

In order for one to be a hyper-Calvinist you have to go beyond what Calvin said. The traditional standard for showing someone was a hyper-Calvinist were the reformed confessions.

Apparently now Spurgeon and Phil Johnson have become the standard of Calvinism and anyone who goes beyond them is a hyper-Calvinist. Shouldn't they be hyper-Spurgeonists? or hyper-Johnsonists instead?

Guess there's not as much shock value as there is in the term hyper-Calvinist.

Sola Gratia,
WildBoar

[GraceAmbassador]

We all know that people leave the Forum only to read the posts "pos-mortem", or, invariably sign up as a guest to to check on what people are saying after they leave. So I will oblige them by publishing here John 6, which seems to have been the "apple of disagreement". Call this my own version of personal "common grace" and if anyone can point to me where can one deduce that all those who were fed by Jesus abandoned Him and that Jesus was not intending to introduce something far above feeding the crowd with "fleshly food", please, do so as a favor to me.

Also, please, can anyone point to me where is the Sacrificial Love here demonstrated by Jesus,which is by kind of love applied in Grace?

The "love" of God for the reprobate, if we want to call it so, is always to fulfill a overiding purpose. We call this "goodness". But the Love for the Elect, in my humble opinion, is Sacrificial Love, that is why I reserve the name Grace exclusively for this kind of Love.

Here is John 6 and I will attempt to add titles to facilitate interpretation:

Jn 6:1-71, (KJV)
Five Thousand Fed

1 After these things Jesus went over the sea of Galilee, which is the sea of Tiberias.
2 And a great multitude followed him, because they saw his miracles which he did on them that were diseased.
3 And Jesus went up into a mountain, and there he sat with his disciples.
4 And the passover, a feast of the Jews, was nigh.
5 When Jesus then lifted up his eyes, and saw a great company come unto him, he saith unto Philip, Whence shall we buy bread, that these may eat?
6 And this he said to prove him: for he himself knew what he would do.
7 Philip answered him, Two hundred pennyworth of bread is not sufficient for them, that every one of them may take a little.
8 One of his disciples, Andrew, Simon Peter's brother, saith unto him,
9 There is a lad here, which hath five barley loaves, and two small fishes: but what are they among so many?
10 And Jesus said, Make the men sit down. Now there was much grass in the place. So the men sat down, in number about five thousand.
11 And Jesus took the loaves; and when he had given thanks, he distributed to the disciples, and the disciples to them that were set down; and likewise of the fishes as much as they would.
12 When they were filled, he said unto his disciples, Gather up the fragments that remain, that nothing be lost.
13 Therefore they gathered them together, and filled twelve baskets with the fragments of the five barley loaves, which remained over and above unto them that had eaten.
14 Then those men, when they had seen the miracle that Jesus did, said, This is of a truth that prophet that should come into the world.

Jesus walks on the water

15 When Jesus therefore perceived that they would come and take him by force, to make him a king, he departed again into a mountain himself alone.
16 And when even was now come, his disciples went down unto the sea,
17 And entered into a ship, and went over the sea toward Capernaum. And it was now dark, and Jesus was not come to them.
18 And the sea arose by reason of a great wind that blew.
19 So when they had rowed about five and twenty or thirty furlongs, they see Jesus walking on the sea, and drawing nigh unto the ship: and they were afraid.
20 But he saith unto them, It is I; be not afraid.
21 Then they willingly received him into the ship: and immediately the ship was at the land whither they went.
22 The day following, when the people which stood on the other side of the sea saw that there was none other boat there, save that one whereinto his disciples were entered, and that Jesus went not with his disciples into the boat, but that his disciples were gone away alone;
23 (Howbeit there came other boats from Tiberias nigh unto the place where they did eat bread, after that the Lord had given thanks)
24 When the people therefore saw that Jesus was not there, neither his disciples, they also took shipping, and came to Capernaum, seeking for Jesus.
25 And when they had found him on the other side of the sea, they said unto him, Rabbi, when camest thou hither?

Words to the people

26 Jesus answered them and said, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Ye seek me, not because ye saw the miracles, but because ye did eat of the loaves, and were filled.
27 Labour not for the meat which perisheth, but for that meat which endureth unto everlasting life, which the Son of man shall give unto you: for him hath God the Father sealed.
28 Then said they unto him, What shall we do, that we might work the works of God?
29 Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.
30 They said therefore unto him, What sign shewest thou then, that we may see, and believe thee? what dost thou work?
31 Our fathers did eat manna in the desert; as it is written, He gave them bread from heaven to eat.
32 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Moses gave you not that bread from heaven; but my Father giveth you the true bread from heaven.
33 For the bread of God is he which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world.
34 Then said they unto him, Lord, evermore give us this bread.
35 And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.
36 But I said unto you, That ye also have seen me, and believe not.
37 All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.
38 For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me.
39 And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day.
40 And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.

Words to the Jews

41 The Jews then murmured at him, because he said, I am the bread which came down from heaven.
42 And they said, Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? how is it then that he saith, I came down from heaven?
43 Jesus therefore answered and said unto them, Murmur not among yourselves.
44 No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.
45 It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me.
46 Not that any man hath seen the Father, save he which is of God, he hath seen the Father.
47 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life.
48 I am that bread of life.
49 Your fathers did eat manna in the wilderness, and are dead.
50 This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die.
51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.
52 The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat?
53 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.
54 Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.
55 For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.
56 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.
57 As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me.
58 This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever.

Words to the Disciples

59 These things said he in the synagogue, as he taught in Capernaum.
60 Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard this, said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it?
61 When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend you?
62 What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before?
63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.
64 But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him.
65 And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father.

Peter's Confession

66 From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him.
67 Then said Jesus unto the twelve, Will ye also go away?
68 Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life.
69 And we believe and are sure that thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God.
70 Jesus answered them, Have not I chosen you twelve, and one of you is a devil?
71 He spake of Judas Iscariot the son of Simon: for he it was that should betray him, being one of the twelve.

If anyone sees here in this text any teaching of "common grace", or that Jesus showed Grace to unbelievers, please, point it out to me. I must be sleeping!

Anyway, reading this post after requesting to be removed from the list will not help anyone to teach nor to learn. I am sad that people ask to leave with charges against others that are not only untrue, but also have no foundation on anything that has been recorded in this thread.

Milt

[Brandan Kraft]

John Reisinger said this on hyper calvinism, and I think it's great!
I was taught that Spurgeon considered John Gill a "hyper-Calvinist." Using my computer, I checked every reference that Spurgeon ever made in print about John Gill. There is not a single inference by Spurgeon that Gill was a hyper-Calvinist. One of the things that was always used to prove Gill's guilt was his view of "eternal justification." The following quote from Spurgeon is not meant to convince you of eternal justification. At this point I am not convinced that either Spurgeon or Gill was correct. I am concerned that some men who love their creeds more than Christ Himself are far too quick to stick an odious label on anyone who dares to challenge their understanding of truth. A man with an inflexible man-made creed cannot hear or honestly look at anyone that does not "fit into his mold." Spurgeon never quit learning even as he never moved an inch from the essentials of true sovereign grace.

JGR—Editor

[Robert R. Higby]

The errors of Phil Johnson certainly imitate those of the senior pastor where he is an associate pastor. Most contributors probably know who I am referring to. I love Phil's website and a huge number of his insights, but his defense of churchianity as opposed to all nonconformity is nauseating.

HJ states:
this list sums it up from Phil Johnson:

A hyper-Calvinist is someone who either:
1)Denies that the gospel call applies to all who hear, OR
2)Denies that faith is the duty of every sinner, OR
3)Denies that the gospel makes any "offer" of Christ, salvation, or mercy to the non-elect (or denies that the offer of divine mercy is free and universal), OR
4)Denies that there is such a thing as "common grace," OR
5)Denies that God has any sort of love for the non-elect.

Supralapsarianism need not deny these 5 points, but most seem to.

Phil is absolotuely wrong on virtually every count. Both GA and myself have interacted with hyper-Calvinists till we are blue in the face. Here is the truth relative to the first 3 of the above 5 points:

A hyper Calvinist is someone who:
1. Denies that the gospel is to be proclaimed to all. The element of 'hearing' is entirely irrelevant--since hypers deny that all even need to hear or should hear.
2. Denies that faith is even preached as an obligation to the sinner. Duty is entirely irrelevant when there is no message proclaimed even to bring accountability.
3. Denies that grace or mercy is even proclaimed to the non-elect. There can be no 'offer' of any kind without proclamation.

All supralapsarians affirm these points, which all hyper-Calvinists deny:
1. The gospel is to be proclaimed to all mankind without distinction.
2. All mankind will be judged by the gospel and are accountable to it. Personal faith in the gospel will divide the elect from the non-elect for eternity.
3. The gospel of grace is to be preached to all, though it is questionable whether it is to be 'offered' in the sense that a salesman offers his wares. Christ is not to be offered as one whom men may conveniently reject--but preached as the sovereign to whom all are accountable.

On points #4 and #5:
4. It is true that supralapsarianism denies common grace. However, it does not deny the goodness of God to all creatures. The denial of the common grace doctrine does not constitute one to be a hyper-Calvinist.
5. The debate over whether God has any type of 'love' toward the non-elect is a worthy question, but has no relevance to the distinction between supralapsarian and hyper-Calvinist. The important love of God in scripture is his steadfast love (chesed) and grace toward the elect planned from eternity.

Additional heresies of hyper-Calvinism:

1. One cannot have assurance of being among the elect, only 'hope' of being so. The 'faith of Christ' is what Paul refers to in justification (Christ's personal faith), not the faith of believers. God will save whom he wants to save and damn whom he wants to damn, we cannot have personal assurance that we are either. There is no personal faith unto justification.

2. The word of the gospel does not create personal faith unto salvation in the elect. Therefore, why preach it to all men? The word only gives some hope that they MIGHT be elect--but God is sovereign and may damn those who had assurance through personal faith in the gospel.

3. God saves apart from all means (the Word, the gospel, faith). He simply saves many and damns many others. Human faith and experience is irrelevant in this regard.

This accusation of Phil Johnson: Supralapsarianism often overlaps with hyper-Calvinism; is a lie and a deception. The two have nothing to do with each other. Of course, he is only teaching the same thing as most today who call themselves Calvinists. I can only assume that he hates supralapsarianism and hopes to defeat it by advancing falsehoods and deceiving people. I hope that I am wrong and indeed may be so, but his teaching demonstrates nothing else thus far.

[GraceAmbassador]

Additional heresies of hyper-Calvinism:

1. One cannot have assurance of being among the elect, only 'hope' of being so. The 'faith of Christ' is what Paul refers to in justification (Christ's personal faith), not the faith of believers. God will save whom he wants to save and damn whom he wants to damn, we cannot have personal assurance that we are either. There is no personal faith unto justification.

2. The word of the gospel does not create personal faith unto salvation in the elect. Therefore, why preach it to all men? The word only gives some hope that they MIGHT be elect--but God is sovereign and may damn those who had assurance through personal faith in the gospel.

3. God saves apart from all means (the Word, the gospel, faith). He simply saves many and damns many others. Human faith and experience is irrelevant in this regard.

Great answer Bill.

Here is what I think is number 4 and I heard this recently from a couple of reformed preachers (I called them "deformed" preachers from the "malformed" theology):

4 - God can change His mind as to His recorded word. There is no guarantee that God will keep His promises. He might change His mind to any of His promises and we as creatures have to subject to His Sorvereignty and only hope that He will count this as "unshakable saving faith".

Milt

[Robert R. Higby]

Thanks so much for your last post, Milt.

At a point in time that now seems very 'long ago' in relation to the number of posts that have since ensued, I made this statement:

In response to Holiday Jim's inquiry, I am preparing a comparison chart between the tenets of what I propose to be the 'standard' or 'typical' Reformed doctrine of 'selection' (infralapsarianism)--and true Bible predestination ('election'). When I have this document finished, I will post it immediately. It will be after Thanksgiving.

Thanks to all.

Dr. Gill expressed interest in this comparison. I have not had time to completely work it into a 'chart' but have completed initial arguments.

I am going to post this in a different thread: 'Infra vs. Supra' as the subject matter is really not primarily common grace.

[Brandan Kraft]

Recently I was involved in a short conversation with Gene Cook (pastor of unchained christian church in San Diego) on common grace, and he referred me to a paper that briefly asserts his opinion.


From: http://www.unchainedradio.com/otlove.htm (http://www.unchainedradio.com/otlove.htm)

Deut 10:17-19
17 "For the LORD your God is the God of gods and the Lord of lords, the great, the mighty, and the awesome God who does not show partiality nor take a bribe.
18 "He executes justice for the orphan and the widow, and shows His love for the alien by giving him food and clothing. 19 "So show your love for the alien, for you were aliens in the land of Egypt. NASB

This verse confirms my observations that were mentioned above. How does God show “love” in this verse? By giving clothing and food to those who are not God’s covenant people. Therefore God’s graciousness towards His enemies becomes a model for us even though they do not cease to be God’s enemies!

With this understanding in mind we can easily understand the next verse.

Jer 16:5
5 For thus says the LORD, "Do not enter a house of mourning, or go to lament or to console them; for I have withdrawn My peace from this people," declares the LORD, "My loving kindness and compassion. NASB

Once again the passage is very clear concerning the nature of this “love”. It is God’s compassion and kindness. God even anticipates that these people will ask “Why?” and so he answers in verse 10-13

Jer 16:10-13
10 "Now when you tell this people all these words, they will say to you, "For what reason has the LORD declared all this great calamity against us? And what is our iniquity, or what is our sin which we have committed against the LORD our God?'
11 "Then you are to say to them, "It is because your forefathers have forsaken Me,' declares the LORD, "and have followed other gods and served them and bowed down to them; but Me they have forsaken and have not kept My law.
12 "You too have done evil, even more than your forefathers; for behold, you are each one walking according to the stubbornness of his own evil heart, without listening to Me.

Hos 9:15
15 All their evil is at Gilgal;
Indeed, I came to hate them there!
Because of the wickedness of their deeds
will drive them out of My house!
I will love them no more;
All their princes are rebels. NASB

If someone who is Reformed were to reject this understanding of scripture they would create more difficulties. For example if someone were to reject that the love that is mentioned in these passages is none other than a common grace then they would have to explain on what basis God’s love is dispensed. The only conclusion would be that it was based on obedience. Obedience is not an option for the serious bible student because all men everywhere have fallen short and even the best of Christians continue to fall short of perfect obedience.I'd like your opinions... Thanks!

[GraceAmbassador]

Brandan:

Many other reformed people when confronted with the N.T. definition of Grace will tell you what they call "common grace" is actually God's providence. What else they will say? That this love is "saving Grace?" The dividers are the ones who will lurk and stock you from a wall of separation and they will hit you with name calling. The question, however, has been asked and I will attempt to answer:


If someone who is Reformed were to reject this understanding of scripture they would create more difficulties. For example if someone were to reject that the love that is mentioned in these passages is none other than a common grace then they would have to explain on what basis God’s love is dispensed. The only conclusion would be that it was based on obedience. Obedience is not an option for the serious bible student because all men everywhere have fallen short and even the best of Christians continue to fall short of perfect obedience.I don't see the importance of responding the the question proposed:
"On what basis God's love is dispensed" to determine whether this kind of love can be called "common grace". Rather, I would reverse the "mode" and ask the question "Does God base His Grace in any other event apart from the work of Christ in the cross?". Any serious bible student cannot answer this question pointing to anything other than Christ's work. As such, then, we must question: Then, what kind of grace is "common grace" and what is it based upon?

If I may for just an instant use the term "common grace" as if I was an user of it myself, allow me to answer on what the "common grace" type of love is based upon: God's eternal purpose in revealing himself and making sure that the people and elements whereby He would carry His purpose to its proposed end would be perfectly in place. This kind of providencial love (and I dare say "temporary" love) is, then, based solely upon God Himself and His Glory.

Many times, throughout the O.T. God does things, good and bad, to "good and bad people" and declares that He did "For His name sake". We can't separate any kind of favor or love demonstrated to the elect or the un-elect from God's own plan or design. Since His own plan and design ultimately will "damn the reprobate" I prefer not to use the term "common grace" for this "temporary love" and reserve any mention of Grace to the sacrificial love God shows the elect.

I will maintain my point of view that this should not a big dividing issue among Calvinist or Sovereign Grace believers. I do recognize that it has been made into a dividing issue by men whose motivation only God can judge, and perhaps only the devil can inspire. I will avoid and reject any notion that this issue should divide us, and I wll continue to enjoy the fellowship as brothers and sisters of those who use the term "common grace". However, that's because I do not have to prove that such a term "common grace" is the most adequate term to indicate God's providence to the reprobates. I do not expect, however, the same unifying and kind spirit from those who do defend such a term as adequate to indicate God's providence to the reprobates and use it to exhibit their desire to stake a claim in some theological exclusive and superior terrain. These will do all they can to shun me, separate me from them, call me names and place labels on me that surpass the imagination of the devil himself...

Milt

[Tumbleweed]

This has been, to me, a very helpful discussion. I particularly appreciate Luther's distinction between Grace and Gifts which Bill pointed out.

As is often the case in these questions, I was reminded of Voltaire, lost man though he was, who wisely said, "If you wish to discuss anything with me, let us first define our terms!"

[PILGRIM313]

Common Grace being defined as 'unmeritted favor shown to sinners' is shown in vs. 11 And Jesus took the loaves; and when he had given thanks, he distributed to the disciples, and the disciples to them that were set down; and likewise of the fishes as much as they would. (Christ did NOT have to feed them, nor care about their hunger, but He did)

Pilgrim313

[Brandan Kraft]

Many times, throughout the O.T. God does things, good and bad, to "good and bad people" and declares that He did "For His name sake". We can't separate any kind of favor or love demonstrated to the elect or the un-elect from God's own plan or design. Since His own plan and design ultimately will "damn the reprobate" I prefer not to use the term "common grace" for this "temporary love" and reserve any mention of Grace to the sacrificial love God shows the elect.Milt I agree with you. I was hoping that someone who was a good exegete deal with these passages that seem to imply "love" to the non-elect...

Jer 16:5, (MKJV) For so says Jehovah, Do not enter into the house of mourning; do not go to weep nor moan over them. For I have taken away My peace from this people, says Jehovah, even loving-kindness and mercies.

Deu 10:17-19, (MKJV) For Jehovah your God is God of gods, and Lord of lords, a great God, the mighty, and a terrible God, who does not respect persons nor take a bribe. He executes justice for the fatherless and widow, and loves the stranger in giving him food and clothing. Therefore love the stranger, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt.

I cannot reconcile in my mind the concept of a rational God who hates and loves a person at the same time. So far these are the only two passages I've seen that if allowed to stand on their own seem to allow for God's love toward the reprobate. The whole of Scripture in my opinion speaks of God's hatred toward the reprobate, so that's why I'm not in the common grace camp. I want to know how these passages can "fit" my system of thought so that I don't adopt a paradox hehe.

BillTwisse, WildBoar, are you up to the challenge brothers?

- Brandan

[GraceAmbassador]

I cannot reconcile in my mind the concept of a rational God who hates and loves a person at the same time. So far these are the only two passages I've seen that if allowed to stand on their own seem to allow for God's love toward the reprobate. The whole of Scripture in my opinion speaks of God's hatred toward the reprobate, so that's why I'm not in the common grace camp. I want to know how these passages can "fit" my system of thought so that I don't adopt a paradox hehe.
Brandan:

You are correct if thse two scriptures stand alone. My position, however, stems from a closer consideration of what "kind" of love we are talking about, hence my commentary above, and also, how I reject the way this "kind" of love is often referred to as "unmerited favor", i.e. "grace" to the non-elect.

Let's ponder on the two verses, again, according to my style, allowing them to speak for themselves first:

Jer 16:5, (MKJV) For so says Jehovah, Do not enter into the house of mourning; do not go to weep nor moan over them. For I have taken away My peace from this people, says Jehovah, even loving-kindness and mercies.

Deu 10:17-19, (MKJV) For Jehovah your God is God of gods, and Lord of lords, a great God, the mighty, and a terrible God, who does not respect persons nor take a bribe. He executes justice for the fatherless and widow, and loves the stranger in giving him food and clothing. Therefore love the stranger, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt.

In the first scripture God says that he has removed His peace from "this people" - the contrast between the terms "this people" and the term "my people" reinforces the "common grace" apologists - but note that God is saying that he removed His peace. That's a kind of love (that's my point) very similar to the love humans have for each other. We waiver, falter and stumble in our love for others every day. We cannot compare our kind of love with the love God has for the elect. But, certainly in this scripture it seems to me that this is not the same kind of love God has for the elect, as this love, if we want to be biblical, is eternal and the elect's peace even when not perceived because of sin, is not removed. The parable of the prodigal son shows the Father leaving the field up to his older son and standing by the wayside waiting for the return of his "elect" son. There is no waivering, faltering nor hesitation or removal in this kind of love.

In the second, again, is a very common kind of human love that God wants us to love the stranger. It is different than the love He has for the elect. We are to love the stranger and alien (I am an alien myself, according to my green card). I cannot fathom the love that God has for the elect, but even in societies where God is not the center of their lives, people still love the strangers, aliens, help and feed the poor, and that is easily noticed and measureable.

On the text presented by brother Pilgrim, is the same thing. The question is not whether those people deserved or not to be fed. It is a matter of "humane" kindness to feed those who had been following you for a long period of time. Jesus demonstrates this kind of love to them. Without being irreverent and offensive if we claim that this is the love of Jesus then His love is no better than the love humans have. We feed people who do not deserve every day. In jaihouses, in shelters for the drug addicted, in half way homes, when they knock on our doors... Also this love is no better than the love the government displays since it feeds each day millions of people who do not "deserve" to be fed, if they refuse to work, with programs like in the welfare, food stamps and others (I don't want to turn this into a political debate). So, if we call that the love of Jesus then we make it to be at the same level of humans in general and the goverment.
Now, can we call what the goverment does and what people do to others "common grace"?

In addition, Jesus had a purpose in feeding those people that is totally of His own... Jesus had in mind the context, going into the sermon where He declares Himself to be the Bread of Life. His purpose here is His overriding motivation, not love alone!

In fact, Jesus said that God's love is far above this kind of love, so I am not too off the biblical view. Let us confer:

Matthew 7:9-11 (NAS)

9 - Or what man is there among you, when your son shall ask him for a loaf will give him a stone?
10 - Or if he shall ask for a fish he will not give him a snake, will he?
If you then, being evil know how to give good gifts to your children how much more shall your Father who is in heaven give you what is good to those who ask Him?
Jesus here places the love of God above the love of mere humans, who are inherently evil but do good every now and then to their own children: How much more shall your Father.... Begin to read this discourse from the beginning and you will place the elegible people for the "how much more of God" within the elect.

I prefer to call this kind of love shown in the scriptures above and the Loaves and Fishes passage, "providence" which is defined by a "temporary love" or a "love dependent upon contigencies". When I speak of love as being the agent or a synonimous for Grace, I am thinking about a love that is superior to human love and to the goverment.

I know that I am raising more questions than answers, but I like to separate the love of God for the elect, from the love of God for everyone else. I cannot also call this love anything that includes the word "grace" because Grace is unmerited favor dedicated to the elect, unless of course, we are going to use Webster to define biblical words, rather than the biblical context itself...

Again, brevity is not a requirement for salvation... Brevity at the expense of understanding is useless.

Well, please, love me anyway...

Milt

[GraceAmbassador]

Brandan, I hope this helps... (Your questions prompt me to hit the books again... for that I will love you forever...)

Jeremiah 16:5
lovingkindness


חסדStrong’s No:2617


Transliterated:checed; Pronounced:kheh’-sed


from 02616, Greek 964 βηψεσδα; 698a, 699a; n (http://www.predestinarian.net/newreply.php?do=newreply&noquote=1&p=21479#_ftn1) m (http://www.predestinarian.net/newreply.php?do=newreply&noquote=1&p=21479#_ftn2)


Trans. (http://www.predestinarian.net/newreply.php?do=newreply&noquote=1&p=21479#_ftn3) & freq. (http://www.predestinarian.net/newreply.php?do=newreply&noquote=1&p=21479#_ftn4) in the AV (http://www.predestinarian.net/newreply.php?do=newreply&noquote=1&p=21479#_ftn5)— mercy 149 times, kindness 40 times, lovingkindness 30 times, goodness 12 times, kindly 5 times, merciful 4 times, favour 3 times, good 1 time, goodliness 1 time, pity 1 time, reproach 1 time, wicked thing 1 time; 248 occurrences of Hebrew word in AV


1. goodness, kindness, faithfulness


2. a reproach, shame

n (http://www.predestinarian.net/newreply.php?do=newreply&noquote=1&p=21479#_ftnref1)noun or neuter

m (http://www.predestinarian.net/newreply.php?do=newreply&noquote=1&p=21479#_ftnref2)masculine

Trans. (http://www.predestinarian.net/newreply.php?do=newreply&noquote=1&p=21479#_ftnref3)Different Translation(s) of this Greek word in the Authorized Version.

freq. (http://www.predestinarian.net/newreply.php?do=newreply&noquote=1&p=21479#_ftnref4)frequency

AV (http://www.predestinarian.net/newreply.php?do=newreply&noquote=1&p=21479#_ftnref5)Authorized Version

none. Hebrew Dictionary (electronic ed.). ,: :

and mercies
רחםStrong’s No:7356


Transliterated:racham; Pronounced:rakh’-am


from 07355; TWOT (http://www.predestinarian.net/newreply.php?do=newreply&noquote=1&p=21479#_ftn1) 2146a


Trans. (http://www.predestinarian.net/newreply.php?do=newreply&noquote=1&p=21479#_ftn2) & freq. (http://www.predestinarian.net/newreply.php?do=newreply&noquote=1&p=21479#_ftn3) in the AV (http://www.predestinarian.net/newreply.php?do=newreply&noquote=1&p=21479#_ftn4)— mercy 30 times, compassion 4 times, womb 4 times, bowels 2 times, pity 2 times, damsel 1 time, tender love 1 time; 44 occurrences of Hebrew word in AV


n m (http://www.predestinarian.net/newreply.php?do=newreply&noquote=1&p=21479#_ftn5)


1. womb


n (http://www.predestinarian.net/newreply.php?do=newreply&noquote=1&p=21479#_ftn6) m abs (http://www.predestinarian.net/newreply.php?do=newreply&noquote=1&p=21479#_ftn7) pl (http://www.predestinarian.net/newreply.php?do=newreply&noquote=1&p=21479#_ftn8) intens


2. compassion

TWOT (http://www.predestinarian.net/newreply.php?do=newreply&noquote=1&p=21479#_ftnref1)Theological Word Book of the Old Testament

Trans. (http://www.predestinarian.net/newreply.php?do=newreply&noquote=1&p=21479#_ftnref2)Different Translation(s) of this Greek word in the Authorized Version.

freq. (http://www.predestinarian.net/newreply.php?do=newreply&noquote=1&p=21479#_ftnref3)frequency

AV (http://www.predestinarian.net/newreply.php?do=newreply&noquote=1&p=21479#_ftnref4)Authorized Version

m (http://www.predestinarian.net/newreply.php?do=newreply&noquote=1&p=21479#_ftnref5)masculine

n (http://www.predestinarian.net/newreply.php?do=newreply&noquote=1&p=21479#_ftnref6)noun or neuter

abs (http://www.predestinarian.net/newreply.php?do=newreply&noquote=1&p=21479#_ftnref7)absolute

pl (http://www.predestinarian.net/newreply.php?do=newreply&noquote=1&p=21479#_ftnref8)plural

none. Hebrew Dictionary (electronic ed.). ,: :

Source: Libronix Library E4 Group (Ephesians 4) www.freebiblesoftware.com (http://www.freebiblesoftware.com/)

Call me hardheaded, but I think none of these two words refer to the Love that God bestows upon the elect...

The question remains: Does God at the same time love and hate the unelect? I'd say that God shows his providence to the unelect as He wills to maitain His eternal purpose, but love that causes Him to bestow Grace to the point of sacrifice is dedicated to the elect alone. I sumbit that any "love" on the part of God that is not conducive (that does not lead to) the final redemption by the work of Jesus Christ, and is only a temporary remedy, is in fact, in comparison to that love, hate.

I will quit on that one, I think... :-)

[PILGRIM313]

fellas, I seem to be 'hearing' in your posts that you only think God has 'one' kind of love. Why would He be so limited. Don't we humans show more than one kind of love? Love of a spouse is not the same as love for a child, or love for the same sex friend....there are different kinds....I wonder why you can't separate 'Grace' from Salvation? If Grace = unmerited favor, there are all types of favor that God bestows on the unsaved, (life, marriage, family, children, wordly success, health etc.) it is all unmerited, and all gracious....
Pilgrim313 (female :p )

[wildboar]

Brandan:

None of the verses provided speak of any kind of love for the reprobate. The fact that God showed love to those outside of the nation of Israel in the OT is certainly true, but that was because although God generally only saved people out of the line of Abraham, he also saved others.

Hosea 9:15 All their wickedness is in Gilgal: for there I hated them: for the wickedness of their doings I will drive them out of mine house, I will love them no more: all their princes are revolters.

This verse contradicts the teachings of those who teach a common grace. It says that by God hating these people he no longer loves them. In the common grace model, hatred and love exist side by side for the same individual.

Hosea speaks not of individuals in particular, but of the line of generations. We see the same thing occur today. Families grow further and further into apostacy until they have no appearance of Christianity at all and God ceases to save His people out of the line of their generations. It has nothing to do with conditional salvation but the organic development of sin and grace as it is played out in history.

PILGRIM:

The problem is that the Bible presents us with no such picture of God's love and it would mighty strange to think of those suffering the eternal wrath of God in hell as being loved by Him.

Sola Gratia,
WildBoar

[PILGRIM313]

From one Dr. Gill to another (Dr. Gill)

Jer. For I have taken away my peace from this people, saith the Lord; all peace or prosperity is of God, and therefore called his, and which he can take away from a people when he pleases; and having determined to take it away from this people because of their sins, he is said to have done it, it being as certain as if it was done:

even lovingkindness and mercies; all benefits, which flowed from his favour, love, and mercy, as the whole of their prosperity did.


Ver. 18. He doth execute the judgment of the fatherless and widow, &c.] Who have none to help them, and whose patron and defender he is, and will do them justice himself, and take care that it is done them by others, or avenge their injuries, for he is a Father of the fatherless, and a judge of the widow, in his holy habitation; #Ps 68:5

and loveth the stranger, in giving him food and raiment; one that is in a foreign country, at a distance from his native land, and destitute of friends; such God in his providence takes care of, and expresses his love and kindness to, by giving them the necessaries of life, food, and raiment.

From Gill's commentary
Pilgrim313

[Brandan Kraft]

Hi Pilgrim,

I already looked at Gill's commentary..

Thanks for the post though :D

[Skeuos Eleos]

Well Brandan, I certainly am not a good exegete, but you did originally ask for our "opinions" and I do have a few of those. :D

I don't see a paradox here. (or maybe I don't want to see one?) ;)

First of all, as Milt says, these verses speak of a very different kind of love to eternal saving love. Notice that Deut 10 defines love only as giving food and clothing and I believe that this is the same as the "loving-kindness" spoken of in Jer 16:5.

Secondly, since God has made all things for Himself, even the wicked for the day of disaster (Pr 16:4), and, since God desires to make the full riches of His Glory known to his chosen vessels of mercy (Rom 9:23) and a part of His glory is that He is compassionate, slow to anger, patient, kind, merciful and abounding in love, then doesn't extending His (temporal) provision, loving-kindness and so on to His enemies demonstrate those attributes of His character better than if they were just extended to the elect alone? As Jesus said, "even sinners love those who love them" (Luke 6:32).

Thirdly, as regards the command to "love the stranger" (Deut 10:19), well, it seems to be a part of God's plan that we can't tell the wheat apart from the tares (or the goats from the sheep) and so we are called to love everyone. However, the question is, if we do love our enemies, as we are commanded to do, what kind of love is God showing them through this since it would only seem to serve to increase their suffering?:

If your enemy is hungry, give him bread to eat, and if he is thirsty, give him water to drink, for you will heap burning coals on his head, and the LORD will reward you.
(Pr 25:21-22 / Rom 12:20)Likewise, in refusing to acknowledge the "riches of his kindness and forbearance and patience" are not the wicked "storing up wrath" for themselves? (Rom 2:4-5)

How then can God be said to love such as these?

[Brandan Kraft]

Ok, here's another thought.. Charles, I thank you tremendously for your viewpoint.

Jer 16:5
5 For thus says the LORD, "Do not enter a house of mourning, or go to lament or to console them; for I have withdrawn My peace from this people," declares the LORD, "My loving kindness and compassion. NASB

This verse actually contradicts common grace teaching for sure as well. If God has withdrawn loving kindness from these people, then they have no love at all bestowed upon them and then the "grace" would no longer be common but particular.

God is certainly good to reprobates in that He feeds them and provides them with shelter, gives them the stability of marriage, and other good things. But I think this is not motivated by any sort of "love" for them as the common grace people teach, but that He does it because He has set His love on the elect. The reprobates are sort of temporary beneficiaries... But are by no means the object of God's love. In Jer. 16:5 when God pulled His "loving kindess" from these people, He is basically stating there are no longer any of His elect within this group of people to love. That's my understanding of this passage.

Thanks again to all who have contributed to this thread - both pro and con.

[GraceAmbassador]

Dear Gents and LADY!

Sorry, Pilgrim... I know the feeling... I am often addressed to as a female because of the word Grace in the beginning of my screen name... I will be more careful and look at the "profile" before I respond to anyone from now on.

Based on your argument on the last post I can say without fear of error that we "have a distinction without a difference", which I often find in the end of the discussion about "common grace" with reasonable people. Thanks!

W.B.

Thank you for bringing up your point... I think it brings a perspective that I did not have before. It also reinforces my argument.

Brandan:

Thank you for bringing this subject up. Now, we have more ammunition at the Paltalk. Except that the apologists opposed to our point of view tend to "disappear" when we begin to defend it (either that or they begin to stick unfair labels on us).

Milt

[Skeuos Eleos]

Brandan,

You originally asked for opinions on the article by Gene Cook. Well, in my opinion it is a very bad one! Aside from my previous post I would make the following observations:

1. He says "In the following three examples we will see, from the context, God’s common grace described as a form of “love” that is withdrawn." yet the first example does not show love being withdrawn at all!

2. When he says "we will see, from the context" he neither provides the context nor comments upon it!

3. He says "Given the foundation of the above conclusions it is easy to see that God’s withdrawal of love is none other than his common grace." The foundation of the above conclusions was, of course, a faulty concept of "common grace" so this is like saying "given that there is common grace this must prove that there is common grace"! Secondly, although it is no doubt not what he intended, yet it actually says, in effect, that withdrawl of love = common grace - er, shouldn't that be the other way around??

4. Regarding the last paragraph: "If someone who is Reformed were to reject this understanding of scripture they would create more difficulties.". Unfortunately, it does not define what these difficulties are but only gives us one example. Personally, I think the article is so poor that it is not even entirely clear what "this understanding" that he refers to actually is but, the disputed phrase "common grace" apart, then I don't reject his other comments it is just that his treatment of the subject is inadequate and incomplete.

I think the last paragraph is particularly poorly expressed. I struggled to understand what it was trying to say. Then I wondered if it is not meant to be a defence of common grace against those of us who prefer to use different terms to speak of God's brief kindness towards the wicked that is followed by eternal wrath (even this brief kindness contributing to that wrath, etc) - but rather, it was perhaps intended as a defence against hypo-calvinists (i.e. the opposite of hyper) who want to show that God loves everyone the same. Of course, I could be wrong here but that at least proves that it is unclear (unless I'm being a bit thick which is definitely also possible!) and it seemed to be the only way I could half make sense of the suggestion that if we don't call it common grace then we have to say that God's love is contingent upon good behaviour! (Now that's a different question probably worth another thread! ... "If God is as sovereign as the supralapsarian says then how is that man is responsible for his sins", etc :D )

Like I said, that's my opinion. I'm usually too quick to offer my opinions - they come cheap - which of course means its of no value!

I'm no "serious bible student" but I expect better quality from someone with a public ministry.

[Tumbleweed]

I would welcome your opinions on what has for some time been my own understanding of this matter of God's love.

NT Gr. itself uses (providentially) different words to represent love, depending upon the basis for that love, rangeing from the unconditional thru to family, friendship, etc.

Therefore, is it not possible that God loves both the elect and the reprobate, but for different reasons? And moreover, is it not also possible that He may love the reprobate upon one basis, but hate that same person upon another? The basis upon which He hates is obvious, whilst the basis upon which He loves is surely that this unrepentant sinner is nevertheless beautifully made in God's own image.
I cannot see any other sense in Jn.3:16. IE: That God so loved the kosmos - this most beautiful work of His own hands crowned with this creature that He formed in His likeness, that He determined to redeem a remnant unto Himself.

Subjectively, I am driven to this also because as I mature in the Lord, I find that I cannot but love mankind more and more. Humans, though corrupted, are nevertheless the most beautiful thing on earth, and when I plead with men to be saved, you better believe my whole heart is in it! Is it possible that God who made these wondrous creatures could love them less than I do?

I am new here, and so I suppose I should assure you that for me, "Calvinism IS the Gospel" to quote CHS. Yet I cannot see how God could not love the reprobate because of their constitutional likeness to Himself.

[Brandan Kraft]

Well Martin,

I certainly agree with you that the article was "poor"; but in defense of Gene, I don't think he would intend for it to stand alone apart from his other works involving the doctrine of common grace. I think Gene mean for it to serve primarily as a very brief addendum to a conversation he had with an alleged hyper calvinist. I know Gene well enough to know that his other stuff is usually quite superb. You should hear the man preach against the errors of hyper preterism. He is in my opinion, one of the few leading opponents of this heresy.

Yours in Him,
Brandan :cool:

[GraceAmbassador]

Happy Birthday, Tumbleweed!

At least there is another 52 in the Forum...

Milt

[Robert R. Higby]

I can sympathize with those who believe that God somehow loves the reprobate. This was my position for many years, even after firmly rejecting the doctrine of common grace. As I look at an article that I wrote in 1993, which firmly rejected the doctrine of common grace, I see this affirmation of mine: God both loves and hates those created unto damnation.

Why did I say this? The ideas that prompted such a notion have not departed from my mind. However, I have come to a better understanding of the meaning of love in the Bible as it applies to God. It is very important that we use the language of revelation to describe its meaning. That is what I failed to do in the article mentioned above.

If we propose that God loves the reprobate, what type of love is it?

1. Agape? Obviously not. This can only apply to the elect. From eternity, God purposed to create a people unto whom he would devote his unconditional love and saving grace. This love is distinguishing and holy; it is a perversion to speak of it as applying in any way to the non-elect.

2. Filial? Obviously not. Jesus made it perfectly clear that we are his friends only if we do what he has commanded of us.

3. Erotic? Obviously not. There are no varying emotions in God; he is immutable. Temporal sentiment does not guide his actions and disposition; only what he has purposed to do from eternity.

So God does not love the wicked, period.

However, God purposed to create each non-elect human and angel as an eternal soul. In this act, he radically distinguished those made in his image from the rest of creation. God created devils with infinitely more regard than plants, animals, stars, planets, etc. They will exist forever. The fact that God has such regard for beings devoted wholly to evil is something that we should not consider lightly. There are great consequences, infinite consequences, attached to the privilege of being created with eternal existence.

[Tumbleweed]

Bill -
The common Gr words indicating love certainly point to the fact that love is based on various different relationships, but surely they cannot be put into such neat boxes as to demonstrate the impossibility of God having some basis for loving the reprobate.

If, for example, it were true that Agape is a genre of loving reserved for the elect, then you would be compelled to say that the Rich Young Ruler was elect, for

"Jesus beholding him loved (agapesen) him, and said unto him, One thing thou lackest: go thy way, sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, take up the cross, and follow me. And he was sad at that saying, and went away grieved: for he had great possessions." (Mk.10:21-22)

There are few Calvinists who would not choke on the idea that this man was elect! Therefore, does not this verse itself explicitly set forth God's love for one not elect to eternal life? The only way around this would be to circle-reason that the young man must have later come to faith because Christ said He loved him.

Distressingly, I will separated from my computer for the next 5 days (Family Camp - I'ts mid-summer her in New Zealand), but be sure I shall head straight for this thread when I return!

[tomas1]

Tumbleweed
Good point about the rich young ruler. Another relevant passage to this discussion is the 9th chapter of Nehemiah. The subject of the passage is reprobate Israel yet God is portrayed as having great compassion on them even “Grace” in verse 31


31 "Nevertheless, in Your great compassion You did not make an end of them or forsake them, For You are a gracious and compassionate God.

Also what about Jesus asking for the forgiveness of the very people who had rejected him and put him on the cross?

[Brandan Kraft]

I believe the rich young ruler as well as the people at the foot of the cross that Jesus asked forgiveness for were His elect.

[GraceAmbassador]

Dr. Gill:

I totally agree!

I believe the rich young ruler as well as the people at the foot of the cross that Jesus asked forgiveness for were His elect.We, that believe Salvation by justification by faith alone could not add the works of selling everything to the poor as a condition for Salvation.

Plus there is indication in the N.T., and I intend to deal with this later, that God has given Jesus "those whom Jesus loved". That's my problem with saying that God loves the unelect the same way he loves the elect.


There is a category of people, five of them, I think, in the Bible that were saved exclusively by the declaration of Jesus that they were saved and the "church" today will tell you that they were not because of the condition it imposes on salvation. Both the rich young ruler and the people forgiven at the cross were Jesus elect, if we are to understand some declarations of Jesus... I am preparing for a celebration in my son's "church", but I will come back to this issue as soon as possible and show through scripture that the word "salvation" needs not to be attached to a person for us to call him/her saved.

Milt

[GraceAmbassador]

Okay, brethren, you have to read my reply to Dr. Gil's post above to understand what I am talking about. I am just going to touch this subject and depending on the responses and interest I will continue, lest I complicate even more something that we were, in my view, about to come to terms with...

Were those "forgiven by Christ" at the foot of the cross saved, thus presenting an evidence of their election?

One scriputre may be instrumental in answering this question:

John 11: 41-42 (NAS)


41 - And so they removed the stone. And Jesus raised His eyes, and said: Father, I thank Thee that Thou heardest Me.
42 - And I know that Thou hearest Me always; ;but because of the people standing around I said it, that they may believe that Thou didst send Me.
If we are to understand what Jesus is saying here with the verb "to hear" is is declaring that God always "hears His prayer with a keen interest and responds positevely for the request made". Jesus is not implying that God has "heard" him because he has the "sense of hearing" alone, but clearly this implies that God heard him with the intent to respond positively.

Jesus declares that this type of "hearing" on the part of God happens always, meaning, "without exception". (There might be a debate here about the prayer in the garden, but there is another explanation for the way God responded to Jesus' prayer that in my view was also "positive". But this is another debate)

Now compare with Jesus' prayer while on the Cross:

Luke 23:34 - NAS

34 - But Jesus was saying, Father, forgive them; for they do not know what they are doing.
As we read this prayer of Jesus directly to the Father on the Cross, our attention should be directed to the fact that Jesus said that the Father always hears Him.

There is no "common grace" in this text. There is, however, the forgiveness of Jesus to whom he elected to save.
This is not reading into the text. It is simply not using the selective application of hemeneutics, which is full of biases, so common today in evangelical circles.

I will come back to the rich young ruler later. Unless anyone wants to do this for me, since, in my view, it is so obvious.

Milt

[wildboar]

The basis upon which He hates is obvious, whilst the basis upon which He loves is surely that this unrepentant sinner is nevertheless beautifully made in God's own image.
This is a very common statement made by those who hold to the idea of common grace. However, both the Scriptures and the the Reformed confessions state that although man was created in God's own image, the image was corrupted by the fall and man began to bear the image of his father the devil. It is only by regeneration that we once again begin to be image bearers of God.


I cannot see any other sense in Jn.3:16. IE: That God so loved the kosmos - this most beautiful work of His own hands crowned with this creature that He formed in His likeness, that He determined to redeem a remnant unto Himself.
The question is what is the kosmos? Is the kosmos every living thing that ever lived or ever will live? Then we must denounce Calvinism since John the Baptist said that Jesus was the lamb who came to take away the sin of the kosmos and there can certainly be no definite atonement in such a case.

However, I believe that God is speaking of the kosmos organically. Someone may say they love their garden, but this love does not carry over to all the weeds. Yet they can say they love their garden.


NT Gr. itself uses (providentially) different words to represent love, depending upon the basis for that love, rangeing from the unconditional thru to family, friendship, etc.
Please provide examples that make it clear that the agape love of God is different from the philos love of God and toward different people. There may be a distinction between the two words, but there is more similarity than difference between the two.


Subjectively, I am driven to this also because as I mature in the Lord, I find that I cannot but love mankind more and more. Humans, though corrupted, are nevertheless the most beautiful thing on earth, and when I plead with men to be saved, you better believe my whole heart is in it! Is it possible that God who made these wondrous creatures could love them less than I do?
This seems to be at the very core of all arguments for common grace. "I love this person, therefore God must love this person", "I love this person's actions, therefore God must love this person's actions". By doing this we seek to create a god in our own image.

Sola Gratia,
WildBoar

[tomas1]

Matt: 19:21Jesus said to him, "If you want to be perfect, go, sell what you have, and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me." 19:22But when the young man heard the saying, he went away sad, for he was one who had great possessions.
(He did not follow)
19:28Jesus said to them, "Most assuredly I tell you that you who have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of Man will sit on the throne of his glory, you also will sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. 19:29Everyone who has left houses, or brothers, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my name's sake, will receive one hundred times, and will inherit eternal life..
(He did not leave anything)



Luke 23:33When they came to the place that is called The Skull, they crucified him there with the criminals, one on the right and the other on the left.
23:34Jesus said, "Father, forgive them, for they don't know what they are doing."
Dividing his garments among them, they cast lots. 23:35The people stood watching. The rulers with them also scoffed at him, saying, "He saved others..."
(notice they don’t say us).

If you can from these passages in context reach the conclusion that the people at the foot of the cross and the rich young ruler were the elect then words have no meaning. You might be forced to say that because of prior constraints i.e. that Christ could not possibly have compassion on the reprobate but is not that the point you are trying to prove?
I am not saying that works or even faith are required for salvation only that the truly elect will not reject Christ. Which is exactly what happened here. As far as we know

[GraceAmbassador]

This seems to be at the very core of all arguments for common grace. "I love this person, therefore God must love this person", "I love this person's actions, therefore God must love this person's actions". By doing this we seek to create a god in our own image.

W.B.

You got it! In my view, most beliefs that in some way conflict with the bible have the tendency of "negotiating" the following with God:

"God, I will let you be more like me if you would let be me more like you. Except that I will only be like you after you become more like me."

Then, my love, my slack towards sin, my acceptance of other person's actions and my self-obligation to tolerate, accept and love everybody will then be God's obligation to tolerate, accept and love everybody.
In such a scenario, not only "grace" will be common... but pretty much every thing else will be common. Common as "common between man and God", one and the same between man and God.

I don't charge every "common grace" believer of the above. But certainly in using their love as the standard to love others as a yardstick to measure God's love, and stretching it to a love that is beyond the love that God revealed in and by Jesus, at least they are in the beginning stages of practicing the above.

In the Law it was required that we love our neighbors as we love ourselves. The love that I have for myself is the standard for this kind of love. This is perfectly understandable if we are to live in this world in peace with everybody, and not making distinction between who we should love, and because we do not know whom the elect are to distinguish them from the un-elect.

In the N.T. however, Jesus, in the restriction of the circle of His followers, His most closed ones, in private commanded something superior to what the Law commands, within a more narrow and restricted scope:

A new command I give you: Love one another as I have loved you.

The love that God wants us to have for our brothers and sisters, disciples of Christ by Grace, the elect, is superior in standard than the love we have for our neighbors... My own love for myself is no longer the standard for this kind of love. The sacrificial love Jesus has for me is the standard.

Paul teaches the same thing when he places the "household of faith" as a priority for the assistance given by the ek-klesia.

I hope this does not incite more controversy... But at least let's agree that there is a different standard of the love I have for people and for peoples actions and the love Jesus wants us to have for our fellow "elect". He can be our standard because He, Jesus Christ, is the love with which God loves the elect.

There is nothing "common" here, neither in love or in Grace.

Milt

[tomas1]

Graceambassador
We do agree that there are two standards of love for us. It seems to me however you don’t allow for God to also have two levels of love.
If I can love my hound dog a cheeseburger and Jesus each in different ways. I can even love the taste and hate the calories of cheeseburgers at the same time. It seems awfully limiting to say that God’s compassion (a better term than love I think) must result in salvation to all its recipients. Maybe he just doesn’t will the same things to all his creation. Surely we can give him as much freedom as he gives us.

[PILGRIM313]

Boar posted:

The problem is that the Bible presents us with no such picture of God's love and it would mighty strange to think of those suffering the eternal wrath of God in hell as being loved by Him.

I disagree, for many verses have been shown to tell of God's love (kindness, mercy, providential care etc.) to the non elect....Those suffering the eternal wrath of God have their just reward for non belief.....remember, the wages of sin is death! (eternal) that is judicial righteousness, God's of course, man simply is reaping what he sowed. It really has nothing to do with His love and loving His creation. Those that are to be extinguished (death row) are fed a last meal of what ever they desire, that is very 'kind' and could be considered 'loving'.....but they will still be in eternity shortly there after.....justice for their deeds. It is really quite simple.
Perhaps in life you have never 'loved' anyone that truly hated you. It might make you understand better.
Pilgrim

[GraceAmbassador]

Tomas1


Graceambassador
We do agree that there are two standards of love for us. It seems to me however you don’t allow for God to also have two levels of love.
If I can love my hound dog a cheeseburger and Jesus each in different ways. I can even love the taste and hate the calories of cheeseburgers at the same time. It seems awfully limiting to say that God’s compassion (a better term than love I think) must result in salvation to all its recipients. Maybe he just doesn’t will the same things to all his creation. Surely we can give him as much freedom as he gives us.
I did and I do. Read all the above posts. The question, however, should not be whether I do "give God the right to have two kinds of love or not". The question is "does He tells us about it in the Bible?".

As to the rest of your commentaries, you are making the same mistake W.B. pointed out in his previous post--the one that prompted my answer: You are using your love as a standard to define and determine God's love.

I maintain that God is overall compassionate to the unelect, (as I pointed in all my posts several times), but He does it to fulfill His overall eternal purpose and that such love is different than the love He has for the elect. Thus, I prefer not to call it Grace as I prefer to define Grace by N.T. standards and not by the Webster Dictionary.

Again, read the entirety of the thread and you will see for yourself what has been said so far.

Thanks anyway for reading my posts!

[Robert R. Higby]

Tomas states:

We do agree that there are two standards of love for us. It seems to me however you don’t allow for God to also have two levels of love.
If I can love my hound dog a cheeseburger and Jesus each in different ways. I can even love the taste and hate the calories of cheeseburgers at the same time. It seems awfully limiting to say that God’s compassion (a better term than love I think) must result in salvation to all its recipients. Maybe he just doesn’t will the same things to all his creation. Surely we can give him as much freedom as he gives us.

We cannot possibly interpret the love of God, who is infinitely above us, in terms of our human experience in relation to cheeseburgers. By the way--I love cheeseburgers, whether they are good for me or not!

God is not free in this sense. He acts out of the compulsion of his own nature--and cannot do otherwise. It is not right to assert that God can do anything he chooses--if by that proposition we mean that God can turn to any act at any time that contradicts his former acts or purposes. God always keeps his Word that he has purposed and promised from eternal ages. He has bound himself to his own declaration.

I will repeat what I said before. If God loves the reprobate, is this love agape, phileo, or eros? I do not believe any of these three notions of God loving the reprobate can be substantiated from scripture. If we apply chesed to the reprobate, we certainly pervert God's revelation.

I agree with WB and Milt that if Christ loved the rich young ruler, he was purposed by God to be redeemed by Christ at some point in his experience. The 'when' is irrelevant; it may have been 75 years later when he was an old man for all we know.

[Brandan Kraft]

We cannot possibly interpret the love of God, who is infinitely above us, in terms of our human experience in relation to cheeseburgers. By the way--I love cheeseburgers, whether they are good for me or not!I love cheeseburgers too, and you know what? I eat them! So should we say that God eats reprobates also? hehe

I've really enjoyed this conversation. Bob, Milt, and Boar, your insights have been superb! I will use this thread for a long time as reference in discussion of this topic. As Boar said over at bible fellowship, he has never seen an in-depth conversation on the topic of common grace online until he's seen this one.

As a person who has been convinced that God's grace is not "common", I'm quite perplexed why people would be angry at someone like me because of my stance on this issue. The charge of hyper-calvinism is flung quite liberally, even this thread is an example, without thought of the damage it does. I believe this is indeed unfortunate.

Thanks go out to all who participated in this conversation. I'm looking to see where God continues to take this topic.

Yours in Christ,
Brandan :D

[Robert R. Higby]

Tomas states:

I maintain that God is overall compassionate to the unelect, (as I pointed in all my posts several times), but He does it to fulfill His overall eternal purpose and that such love is different than the love He has for the elect. Thus, I prefer not to call it Grace as I prefer to define Grace by N.T. standards and not by the Webster Dictionary.

In your thinking, you are exactly where I was only a few years ago.

What is compassion in this context? Is it emotion, action, or unchanging disposition? These questions are certainly pertinent.

We certainly agree that whatever disposition God has toward the non-elect, it cannot be properly termed grace! To me, that is the most important point. If you presently believe that calling it 'love' is appropriate, I will not be upset. However, I do challenge even this notion today.

[tomas1]

I agree with Dr Gill the wisdom on these forums blows me away !!
because of Graceambassador's advice I am going to read this thread from the begining. I will comment then
Peace

[GraceAmbassador]

Bill:

In all fairness, the quote you use in blue in your last post is actually how I responded to all those who limit to define the word "grace" via dictionary when discussing biblical Grace, (which is inadequate in my view) so it is actually my words responding to Tomas, who seems to define "grace" via dictionary and using man's standards and not solely via the Bible revelatory context.

Here is the quote:

I maintain that God is overall compassionate to the unelect, (as I pointed in all my posts several times), but He does it to fulfill His overall eternal purpose and that such love is different than the love He has for the elect. Thus, I prefer not to call it Grace as I prefer to define Grace by N.T. standards and not by the Webster Dictionary.


Those are my words. I hope this clarifies...

Thanks Bob!

Milt

[Skeuos Eleos]

Perhaps the way to respond to someone who is too quick to throw out the charge of hyper-calvinist is to accuse them of the more serious charge of hypo-calvinist. :p

Actually, I'm half serious about that. In some cases it may be the only way that the accuser will see how unhelpful it is.

Something that this thread has shown me is the human tendencies to want to see something as black and white rather than as shades of grey and to try to summarise our understanding of something with "labels". The trouble is that the labels rarely accurately summarise what the bible says - the dictionary definition of 'grace' being a case in point. If we could all strive to stick only with the biblical usage of words I'm sure there'd be less disagreement. :)

In Christ Jesus,

[PILGRIM313]

posters, I personally think one of our 'hang-ups' on this thread is our puny human minds trying to figure out how God functions. Even at our best, our minds and thoughts are selfish, prideful, shameful before Him. We will never know or understand His LOVE (to us, all, or any) until we see Him as He is. It seems we are agreed that He provides, cares for, allows mercy, kindness, and grace(iousness) towards the unsaved, and most of the difficulty comes from the word 'common'. Possibly we would all understand better, by leaving the words 'common' unattached to 'grace' and explaining out what we mean....ie, God providentially cares for all His creation.....without using the word 'common'.....
I realize more each day how faulty and selfish my thinking can be and that is not the direction I wish to go in.
Some good points have been brought out, but at the same time I see a lot of human reasoning racing over Bible passages.

Eph.3:17 that Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith; to the end that ye, being rooted and grounded in love,
18 may be strong to apprehend with all the saints what is the breadth and length and height and depth,
19 and to know the love of Christ which passeth knowledge, that ye may be filled unto all the fulness of God.

Pilgrim

[Brandan Kraft]

Perhaps the way to respond to someone who is too quick to throw out the charge of hyper-calvinist is to accuse them of the more serious charge of hypo-calvinist. :p I think both charges are serious. Hyper-calvinism is deadly. There are TRUE GENUINE cases of hyper-calvinism, and it is disturbing that those who call us such are so quick to lump us in with true hyper-calvinists and antinomians. The charge of "antinomian" is flung too liberally from those over in the CT camp toward those in the NCT camp as well.

As far as "hypo-calvinism" goes, it is a relatively new term that was actually created to combat the charge of hyper-calvinism. I actually would call amyraldianism hypo-calvinism. Those who write over at the banner of truth are definitely our brothers in Christ and have more truth than error. I appreciate their zeal for evangelism and gospel preaching, but I believe they rely too much on their methods instead of the spirit of God in conversion. For some reason, they equate, "God loves everyone" with true gospel preaching. I think a lot of it has to do with the fact that most Calvinists have been brought out of Arminianism, and they bring a lot of baggage with them. It takes sometimes years for many of these brothers to see their errors. My advice is to be be patient with people, strive to live in unity in spite of our disagreements over topics such as "common grace" and the "well-meant offer", and go out of our way to show these people that we genuinely care for the lost and dying world.

There is little more that I enjoy more than genuine biblical gospel preaching! It warms my soul to hear a man preach the gospel of grace to sinners. I think we as Christians need to be ready to preach the gospel at all times, and we should not be discriminate to who we preach. We cannot know who the elect and reprobate are, and God in His wisdom has left it that way! What is the gospel? Well it's simple! God before the foundation of the world determined to glorify Himself by demonstrating mercy as well as justice. He decided to do this by redeeming some men, a remnant of people from all nations, and judge the rest in their sins. Christ the representative of His chosen people had the sins of His people imputed unto Him on the cross at Calvary, and He paid the penalty due unto their sins, and their sins alone. In turn, Christ's life of obedience and His atoning death attained for His people a perfect righteosness. In time, Christ's people will be brought to understand the truth of this gospel message! God has not only predestined their salvation, but the means of their salvation which includes the hearing of the gospel. These people are regenerated by the Holy Spirit and are brought by God to believe this wonderful gospel message. Salvation is worked by God alone. That is the gospel message, and it's one I love to repeat.

Do I need to say to the lost, "Christ wants ALL MEN to be saved?" Spurgeon seemed to think that was equated with gospel preaching. So do most Calvinists today. When people like me come along and say no, we do not need to depend on this to convey truth, their response is, "Oh, you must be a hyper-calvinist." I find that charge amazing because I have not once denied the responsibility of the sinner to repent and embrace the gospel message. I have not restricted my preaching of this gospel to men; but have proclaimed it far and wide and to all that I am priveleged to speak. I LOVE to see Christ call His people out of their life of sin and into the glorious gospel of Supreme Grace!

I think these men are confused as to what the gospel message is. I think those brothers at the banner of truth are in agreement with what we think is the gospel, except they have seemed to have added to it's presentation. Common Grace and well-meant offer doctrines in my mind are nothing more than extra-biblical teachings that have been created as garnish for the Gospel. It appears to me that these dear brothers feel the need to spruce up the gospel message so that it is more appealing to the masses. People don't like to hear about God's absolute sovereignty in election and that God has set His love on His elect. All Calvinists would agree with us on this point.

Martin, I think we need to be careful with the charge of hypo-calvinism. I think the labels of Calvinism and Arminianism are sufficient. I think all of us hold to a little bit of error, and to call each other names because of it is pretty low and unloving. We should be as fierce as pit bulls when it comes to defending the gospel of Sovereign Grace Alone and Justification by Faith Alone; but when it comes to the varying degrees of Calvinism, we need to be careful to slap labels on people.

Yours in Christ,
Brandan

[Skeuos Eleos]

I just 'happened' to be reading Psalm 92 and found another couple of verses that I think are relevant to this discussion:


6 A senseless man has no knowledge, Nor does a stupid man understand this: 7 That when the wicked sprouted up like grass And all who did iniquity flourished, It was only that they might be destroyed forevermore.

[wildboar]

Because of their doctrinal errors, Banner of Truth has already anathematized all those who embrace true Calvinism. It becomes impossible to embrace them because of this. It would be different if Banner of Truth were simply proclaiming their own understanding of the gospel apart from the slanderous remarks made against others but this is not the case. They even mutilated Pink's book to fit their own agenda. I suppose it's no big thing to mutilate Pink however, when one has already mutilated God's Word.

They respond much more kindly to Arminians like Wesley and promote the writings of John Murray teaching that Christ's death merrited blessings for the non-elect.
Sola Gratia,

WildBoar

[Brandan Kraft]

I’m reading through Spurgeon v. Hyper-Calvinism by Ian Murray. Here is what they wrote on the love of God.
Hyper-Calvinism and the Love of God

Spurgeon saw that behind the distortion of predestination, and the unwillingness to believe the gospel invitations are to be addressed freely to all men, lay a failure to understand what Scripture reveals about the character of God himself. If God has chosen an elect people, then, Hyper-Calvinism argued, he can have no desire for the salvation of any others and to speak as though he had, is to deny the particularity of grace. Of course, Hyper-Calvinists accepted that the gospel be preached to all, but they denied that such preaching was intended to demonstrate any love on the part of God for all, or any invitation to all to receive mercy. On the contrary, they taught that no man has any right to trust in a loving God until he has first some personal evidence that he is one of the chosen.

A sermon of 1858 which Spurgeon preached on ‘Sovereign Grace and Man’s Responsibility’ identified this crucial difference with Hyper-Calvinism. He took for his text the words of God quoted by Paul in Romans 10:20-21, ‘I was found of them that sought me not; I was made manifest unto them that asked not after me. But to Israel he saith, all day long I have stretched forth my hands unto a disobedient and gainsaying people.’ In such words Spurgeon saw the proof that God can be said to desire the salvation even of those who persist in rejecting him:

‘Lost sinners who sit under the sound of the gospel are not lost for the want of the most affectionate invitation. God says he stretches out his hands … What did he wish them to come for? Why, to be saved. “No,” says one, “it was for temporal mercies.” Not so, my friend; the verse before is concerning spiritual mercies, and so is this one, for they refer to the same thing. Now, was God sincere in his offer? God forgive the man who dares to say he was not. God is undoubtedly sincere in every act he did. He sent his prophets, he entreated the people of Israel to lay hold on spiritual things, but they would not, and though he stretched out his hands all the day long, yet they were “a disobedient and gainsaying people” and would not have his love.’

Spurgeon regarded the denial of God’s desire for the salvation of all men as no mere theoretical mistake. For it converged with one of the greatest obstacles to faith on the part of the unconverted, that is to say, a wrong view of the character of God. Men ‘imagine that God is a severe being, angry and fierce, very easily moved to wrath, but not so easily to be induced to love’. The truth of divine love is the last to enter men’s heads. Because Hyper-Calvinism is wrong here it fails to disabuse the minds of fallen men of this error. It does not give men the warning to be found in such evangelical Calvinists as John Owen who counseled, ‘Let us not entangle our own spirits by limiting his grace … We are apt to think that we are very willing to have forgiveness, but that God is unwilling to bestow it.’ Scripture, Owen continued, sets forth the contrary in order ‘to root out all the secret reserves of unbelief concerning God’s willingness to give mercy, grace, and pardon unto sinners… Therefore, the tendency of our former argument is, not merely to prove that there is forgiveness with God, which we may believe and not be mistaken, but which we ought to believe; it is our duty to do so. We are expressly commanded to believe, and that upon the highest promises and under the greates penalties.’

Referring to the same truth, Spurgeon says: ‘ We think that ultra-calvinism, which goes vastly beyond the teaching of Christ, or the enlightened ministry of Calvin could warrant, gets some of its support from a wrong view of God. To the ultra-calvinist his absolute sovereignty is delightfully conspicuous. He is awe-stricken with the great and glorious attributes of the Most High. His omnipotence appals him, and his sovereignty astonishes him, and he at once submits as by as a stern necessity to the will of God. He, however, too much forgets that God is love. He does not make prominent enough the benevolent character of the Divine Being … To see the holiness, the love, the justice, the faithfulness, the immutability, the omnipotence, and the sovereignty of God, all shining like a bright corona of eternal and ineffable light, this has never been given perfectly to any human being, and inasmuch as we have not seen all these, as we hope yet to see them, our faulty vision has been the ground of divers mistakes.’

If it were not that ‘God is love’ his presence could never have been desirable to sinners. The gospel presents love as the attraction. ‘God so loved.’ ‘How excellent is they loving kindness, O God! Therefore the children of men put their trust under the shadow of thy wings’ (Psa. 36:7). In the words of John Duncan: ‘Love is the great attraction. Without the sternness of holiness and justice it would be the love of an unholy and unjust God; yet the holiness and justice of God repel the sinner.’ It is love that draws, as the record of the four Gospels makes abundantly plain. The voice of Christ among men was the voice of love. What was it that moved him as he saw the multitude but a compassion for all? (Matt. 9:36). What but love brought him to weep over lost Jerusalem? (Luke 19:41) and to say, ‘How often would I have gathered thy children .. and ye would not!’ (Matt. 23:37). What is clearer in Scripture than the evidence that love can be despised? (Mark 10:21-22). The preaching of Christ contained a promise of welcome for all and his whole life revealed him longing for the salvation of men and women. ‘None of us,’ says Spurgeon, ‘loves men as Christ loves them; and if the love of all the tender hearted in the world could run together, they would make but a drop compared with the ocean of the compassion of Jesus.’ ‘We say, “Sinner, only trust in Christ.” Ah, ye do not know what a great “only” that is. It is a work so great that no man can do it unaided by God … But if anything can call faith into exercise,’ he goes on, it is the knowledge ‘that Christ is willing to receive thee.’ Preaching Christ, for Spurgeon, had to include the urging of this knowledge upon all:

‘”If any man thirst, let him come unto me and drink.” He invites men to come; he pleads with them to come; and when they will not come he gently upbraids them with such words as these, “Ye will not come unto me that ye might have life” … All our Lord’s sermons were so many loving calls to poor aching hearts to come and find what they need in him.’ ‘Beloved, there is nothing that so delights Jesus Christ as to save sinners … You misjudge him if you think he wants to be argued with and persuaded to have mercy; he gives it as freely as the sun pours forth light.’ ‘Paul had no stinted Saviour to present toa few, no narrow-hearted Christ to be the head of a clique, but he preached a great Saviour to great masses, a great Saviour to great sinners … My Lord Jesus, by his death, has become immensely rich in pardoning grace – so rich indeed that no guiltiness can possible transcend the efficacy of his precious blood.’

But it is more knowledge of the love of God as taught in Scripture which preachers need. They must themselves be possessed by the love of which they speak. Invitations to trust in Christ preached without love are no invitations at all. And a preacher who calls men to faith, uncertain about Christ’s desire to save his hearers, will never make an evangelist. Present fellowship with Christ is needed to end such doubt. It is Christ’s love, known and felt, which creates the spirit seen in such men as Robber Murray M’Cheyne whose hearers believed that he was ‘dying to have them converted.’ ‘We win by love,’ says Spurgeon. ‘We win hearts for Jesus by love, by sympathy with their sorrows, by anxiety lest they should perish, by pleading with God for them with all our hearts that they would not be left to die unsaved, by pleading with them for God that, for their own sake, they would seek mercy and find grace.’

Such earnestness sin calling men to Christ, as John Owens writes, is but a faint representation of the source whence the call comes: ‘It is God himself who … invites, exhorts, and persuades you to accept … And excuse us if we are a little in earnest with you inj this matter. Alas! Our utmost that we can, by zeal for his glory or compassion unto your souls, raise our thoughts, minds, spirits, words unto, comes infinitely short of is own pressing earnestness herein.’ (Murray, Spurgeon v. Hyper-Calvinism [Banner of Truth, 1995] pp. 88-93)See what we're up against?

[wildboar]

Following is a review of "Calvin v. Hyper-Spurgeonism" taken from http://www.prca.org/standard_bearer/volume73/1997jul01.html#BookReview




"Calvin v. Hyper-Spurgeonism: The Battle for the Preaching of the One Scriptural and Reformation Gospel," by John Calvin and others. Lewes, E. Sussex, England: Berith Publications, 1997. 35 pp. $4 (surface mail)/$6 (airmail) (paper). [Reviewed by the editor.]


This booklet is genuine Calvinism's response to the recent Banner of Truth's publication, Spurgeon v. Hyper-Calvinism: The Battle for Gospel Preaching. In the 1995 Banner of Truth book, Iain H. Murray wheeled out the English Baptist preacher, Charles H. Spurgeon, to defend Murray and the Banner's doctrine that God in Christ loves and desires to save every human without exception. With astounding disregard for Calvin's own writing in the Institutes, 3.21-24 and in "A Treatise of the Eternal Predestination of God" (to say nothing of Dordt and Westminster), Murray charged the teaching of particular saving love and a discriminating will to save with hyper-Calvinism. The Standard Bearer examined Murray's Spurgeon v. Hyper-Calvinism in the editorial of the April 15, 1996 issue ("Hyper-Calvinism and Arminianism: the Alternatives?").

The English response to Murray's book consists of a significant evaluation of Spurgeon by a contemporary, A. J. Baxter; the reprint of a critique of Murray's Spurgeon v. Hyper-Calvinism by the editor of the British Reformed Journal, Hugh L. Williams; and John Calvin's sermon on I Timothy 2:3, 4 (http://bible.gospelcom.net/bible?version=KJV&passage=I+Timothy+2:3,4).

The sermon by Calvin is the heart of the brief rebuttal of Murray's universal, ineffectual love and will to save, just as Spurgeon's sermon on the same text was the centerpiece of Murray's work. Murray entitled the chapter in which he reprinted Spurgeon on I Timothy 2:3, 4 (http://bible.gospelcom.net/bible?version=KJV&passage=I+Timothy+2:3,4), "A Crucial Text." Murray approved Spurgeon's interpretation of "all men" in I Timothy 2:3, 4 (http://bible.gospelcom.net/bible?version=KJV&passage=I+Timothy+2:3,4) ("God … will have all men to be saved") as every human without exception. This is the "crucial" basis in Scripture for Murray's universalism. According to Iain Murray and the Banner of Truth, the doctrine that God wills to save every human without exception is Calvinism. Denial of this doctrine brands one as a hyper-Calvinist.

But John Calvin himself rejected Spurgeon and Murray's interpretation of the "crucial text." Calvin denied that "all men" means every human without exception. Calvin taught that "all men" means elect persons from all classes of humans.

We must mark that Saint Paul speaks not here of every particular man, but of all sorts, and of all people. Therefore, when he says that God will have all men to be saved, we must not think that he speaks here of Peter, or John, but his meaning is this, that whereas in times past he chose out one certain people for himself, he means now to show mercy to all the world, yea to them that were, as it were, shut out from the hope of salvation. … Therefore, Saint Paul's meaning is not that God will save every particular man, but he says that the promises which were given to one only people, are now stretched out through all the world. … As Saint Paul speaks now of all nations, so he speaks also of all estates, as if he should say, that God will save kings and magistrates, as well as the least and baser sort. … True it is, that at the first blush, they think they have fair show, and some good resemblance (for explaining "all men" as every human without exception-DJE). … You say well, if we knew not Saint Paul's meaning: but the very asses may have a bit there, as we say in common proverbs. If a man will read but three lines, he shall easily perceive, that Saint Paul speaks not here of every particular man; … but he speaks of all people, and of all states, and shows the case stands not as it did before the coming of Christ, when as there was but one chosen people; but now God shows himself a Saviour of all the world ("Calvin v. Hyper-Spurgeonism," pp. 13-15).


Calvin also pointed out, in the blunt language that our compromising age desperately needs to recover, what the real issue is in the controversy, whether God wills every human without exception to be saved. Those who explain "all men" in I Timothy 2:3 (http://bible.gospelcom.net/bible?version=KJV&passage=I+Timothy+2:3), 4 as every human without exception oppose God's election of grace:

It is good to beat down the folly, or rather the beastliness of them that abuse this place of Paul, to make the election of our God, a thing of nought, and utterly take it away. For see what they say: if God will have all men to be saved, it follows that he has not chosen a certain number of mankind, and cast away the rest, but that his will remains indifferent. So then, these beasts which are nothing exercised in holy writ, and will, notwithstanding, play the Doctors, pretend that it stands in the choice of men to save themselves, and that God leaves us alone, and waits to see whether we will come to him or not, and so receives them that come unto him (pp. 14, 15).


Truly, ours is an odd age. Men of scholarly and theological renown embrace and propound a doctrine that Calvin attributed to asses, beastliness, and enmity against the gospel, and call it Calvinism. Calvin's own doctrine, they condemn as hyper-Calvinism. Virtually the entire Reformed and Presbyterian church-world vigorously assent. The reviews of Murray's Spurgeon v. Hyper-Calvinism in the Reformed and Presbyterian periodicals have been glowing.

Who can understand this? "Calvin v. Hyper-Spurgeonism" can be ordered from Berith Publications, 6 Orchard Road, Lewes, East Sussex BN7 2HB, UK. The phone/fax is 01273 472279.

[Brandan Kraft]

Charles,

Thanks for the info. Attached to this post is Calvin vs. Hyper-Spurgeonism.

- Brandan

[GraceAmbassador]

Brethren:

This is such a crucial debate that I thank God for the honor of allowing me to participate on it! I think the answer to these questions and the positions we take on these issues will determine the beginning of the "reform of the reformation" that I have been praying for and we all here are a part in it!

The article posted by Brandan speaks louder for what is silent about than for what it actually states. Today it is not only what people believe that can hurt the Gospel, but what they deny and do not reveal. In the article the author comes so close to defending "universalism" that it is almost encripted in its underlines. But he does not declare it, so we cannot call him a proponent that "God in His love not only calls every man to Salvation, but will ultimately save everyone by His love" type of doctrine.

Certain boarders should not be crossed. No servant of God should be sharpenning his sword by the enemies' camp, lest some voluptous chick tempts him to cross the forbidden limit. These brethren are closer to that frontier than any of us can think. Even the interpretation of Spurgeon could be questioned. The vixen is there beckoning them to her delight, and their drool is about to hit their knees! Ultimately it will be she who will turn them over to their enemies who will reveal their secrets and lead the emenies to pierce their already blinded eyes.

I am speaking about the tempting of "universalism"! As a beautiful lady, it shows off its attraction as a glass of wine, whose sweat drips and drips as an invitation to succumb to its inebriating effects, the kind of effect that drives men off their own ability to reason and tell apart truth from lies!

In the days of Sampson, many people were killed by the jaw bone of an ass. It is in the Bible. Today, as I hear some of the speakers, moving their own jaw uttering words of deceit, defending the things contained in the article Brandan posted, I see that many more are being killed spiritually with the same weapon...

Milt

[Brandan Kraft]

posters, I personally think one of our 'hang-ups' on this thread is our puny human minds trying to figure out how God functions. Even at our best, our minds and thoughts are selfish, prideful, shameful before Him. We will never know or understand His LOVE (to us, all, or any) until we see Him as He is. It seems we are agreed that He provides, cares for, allows mercy, kindness, and grace(iousness) towards the unsaved, and most of the difficulty comes from the word 'common'. Possibly we would all understand better, by leaving the words 'common' unattached to 'grace' and explaining out what we mean....ie, God providentially cares for all His creation.....without using the word 'common'.....


PilgrimCarole,

I definitely agree with you that we all agree that God is good, provides for, and is good to the reprobate. The question is does God LOVE all men in the sense that He wants all men to be saved? That really is the question that Common Grace teaching brings to the table. Spurgeon, Banner of Truth, Piper, MacArthur, all the big name Calvinists today say, "Yes!!!! God loves EVERYONE, and wants to SAVE everyone!" Now I don't know about you, but to me that paints a picture of a God who is impotent; one who is unable to get what He wants. Apparently he wants to save some poor person who never heard the gospel, and is powerless to do so. Common grace teaching robs God of His sovereignty and joins hands with Arminians in proclamation of theoretical universalism. That really is the issue here; and Milt is correct - how we answer this question is vital.

What's even more insidious behind these proponents of common grace is they have the nerve to say that we aren't preaching the true gospel message unless we can plead and beg people to believe the gospel because "Jesus loves you.." Apparently if we as Preachers of Gospel Truth cannot say this, then we're a bunch of unloving antinomial hyper-calvinists who hate God and will suck the life out of churches. Now I readily admit that there is a breed of hyper-calvinism that is indeed terrible, it's the type that seeks to make sure we are TRULY convicted of our sin before we can hear the gospel... It's the type that refuses to preach the gospel to people unless we can be sure they are of the elect. It is the type that says it does not matter how you live since God is so sovereign that He will save you even if you have not repented and have no faith... Even if you have faith, you could still be a reprobate according to thes hyper-calvinists. But you see, these people rarely exist. The champions of common grace calvinism have taken that bone to pick and broadened it to include those of us who disagree with their hypothetical universalism.

Friends, we need to make sure we get this right. We can not brush this controversy off so quickly and leave it to the men in the white lab coats. No, how we answer this question will affect much of our theology and will affect the practical implications of our theology such as the preaching of the gospel. What gospel message will we present? Much of it depends on your answer to the common grace question. Dependin' on your answer, you may be able to join hands with the Arminian and say, "Jesus loves you... He's sincerely inviting you this very moment to believe because He wants you to be saved."

Brandan

[Brandan Kraft]

Spurgeon saw that behind the distortion of predestination, and the unwillingness to believe the gospel invitations are to be addressed freely to all men, lay a failure to understand what Scripture reveals about the character of God himself. No, Spurgeon understood that unless you believed God loved everyone, then you cannot understand the character of God. This has nothing to do with preaching the gospel to all people.
If God has chosen an elect people, then, Hyper-Calvinism argued, he can have no desire for the salvation of any others and to speak as though he had, is to deny the particularity of grace.Exactly, although I wouldn’t call that Hyper-Calvinism! Give me a break!
Of course, Hyper-Calvinists accepted that the gospel be preached to all,Ian, can you repeat that? Earlier in the book you defined hyper-calvinism as a doctrine that refused to preach the gospel to all…
but they denied that such preaching was intended to demonstrate any love on the part of God for all, or any invitation to all to receive mercy.This is NOT hyper-calvinism. Men who are not His elect won’t WANT to receive mercy from the Holy God whom they’ve offended. They’ll reject and spit upon His gospel of truth. Those who hear the gospel message will recognize the “invitation” and embrace this glorious message.
On the contrary, they taught that no man has any right to trust in a loving God until he has first some personal evidence that he is one of the chosen. Now THAT is Hyper-Calvinism… See how cleverly Murray is mixing truth with error and calling all of it error?
A sermon of 1858 which Spurgeon preached on ‘Sovereign Grace and Man’s Responsibility’ identified this crucial difference with Hyper-Calvinism. He took for his text the words of God quoted by Paul in Romans 10:20-21, ‘I was found of them that sought me not; I was made manifest unto them that asked not after me. But to Israel he saith, all day long I have stretched forth my hands unto a disobedient and gainsaying people.’ In such words Spurgeon saw the proof that God can be said to desire the salvation even of those who persist in rejecting him:

‘Lost sinners who sit under the sound of the gospel are not lost for the want of the most affectionate invitation. God says he stretches out his hands … What did he wish them to come for? Why, to be saved. “No,” says one, “it was for temporal mercies.” Not so, my friend; the verse before is concerning spiritual mercies, and so is this one, for they refer to the same thing. Now, was God sincere in his offer? God forgive the man who dares to say he was not. God is undoubtedly sincere in every act he did. He sent his prophets, he entreated the people of Israel to lay hold on spiritual things, but they would not, and though he stretched out his hands all the day long, yet they were “a disobedient and gainsaying people” and would not have his love.’ Spurgeon, I admire you greatly but you are soooo wrong here. Paul is saying God brought salvation to the Gentiles (who did not see His earthly works), but to Israel he revealed the kingdom to them (through the prophets) but they could not see. God purposely blinded Israel, shown to them the prophets, the promise of the Messiah, and even Christ Himself, and they still could not see. This is a demonstration of God’s sovereignty in salvation AND reprobation.
Spurgeon regarded the denial of God’s desire for the salvation of all men as no mere theoretical mistake. For it converged with one of the greatest obstacles to faith on the part of the unconverted, that is to say, a wrong view of the character of God. See what Murray is doing here? If you don’t think God loves everyone, you’ve a wrong view of the character of God. I love to glory in God’s pristine perfect love for His people. God IS love, He is full of it. But we rightly limit it to His people rather than to the reprobates and the devils.
Men ‘imagine that God is a severe being, angry and fierce, very easily moved to wrath, but not so easily to be induced to love’. The truth of divine love is the last to enter men’s heads. WRONG!!!! This is so false, I cannot believe Murray and Spurgeon would write something like this. Sadly today, most people have a FALSE understanding that God loves them. God’s wrath, anger, and fierceness is the LAST thing that enters men’s heads. Sadly, “evangelical” christianity has given everyone the impression that God loves them in their sins. Instead of championing God’s wrath and hatred for sin, they’ve mischaracterized God and taught that it’s ok to be a sinner, because “Jesus loves you too.”
Because Hyper-Calvinism is wrong here it fails to disabuse the minds of fallen men of this error. It does not give men the warning to be found in such evangelical Calvinists as John Owen who counseled, ‘Let us not entangle our own spirits by limiting his grace …Well what is the doctrine of Limited Atonement if not a limitation of His Grace?
We are apt to think that we are very willing to have forgiveness, but that God is unwilling to bestow it.’ Scripture, Owen continued, sets forth the contrary in order ‘to root out all the secret reserves of unbelief concerning God’s willingness to give mercy, grace, and pardon unto sinners… Therefore, the tendency of our former argument is, not merely to prove that there is forgiveness with God, which we may believe and not be mistaken, but which we ought to believe; it is our duty to do so. We are expressly commanded to believe, and that upon the highest promises and under the greatest penalties.’ God is definitely willing to give mercy to all that come to Him, but that does not mean He’s willing to give mercy to the reprobate.. the reason? Well, they will not come to Him. We can definitely preach that whoever comes to God, He in no way will cast them out. Jesus is a loving Savior that will not turn away anyone who comes to Him. We should preach this. But to suppose that God wants those who are not His to be saved is ludicrous. I’m told that if I do not preach this, I’m a hyper-calvinist. I disagree and believe we can preach God’s love to His people without extending it to all men universally.
Referring to the same truth, Spurgeon says: ‘ We think that ultra-calvinism, which goes vastly beyond the teaching of Christ, or the enlightened ministry of Calvin could warrant, gets some of its support from a wrong view of God.Actually, Calvin didn’t teach that God loves all men and wants all men to be saved. Just read through his commentaries. 1 Tim 2:3-5 might be a shocker to you Mr. Murray.
To the ultra-calvinist his absolute sovereignty is delightfully conspicuous. He is awe-stricken with the great and glorious attributes of the Most High. His omnipotence appals him, and his sovereignty astonishes him, and he at once submits as by as a stern necessity to the will of God. He, however, too much forgets that God is love. Not at all… I cannot help but dwell on God’s perfect love for His people. I love to bask in His love every day. Dear Ian, why would you suppose that since I don’t believe God loves everyone that I would deny that God is love?
He does not make prominent enough the benevolent character of the Divine Being … I say you do not make prominent enough the GLORY of God. God is being glorified in the salvation of some and is being glorified in the damnation of the wicked… Soli Deo Gloria.
To see the holiness, the love, the justice, the faithfulness, the immutability, the omnipotence, and the sovereignty of God, all shining like a bright corona of eternal and ineffable light, this has never been given perfectly to any human being, and inasmuch as we have not seen all these, as we hope yet to see them, our faulty vision has been the ground of divers mistakes.’

If it were not that ‘God is love’ his presence could never have been desirable to sinners. No, if it were not for God’s regenerating grace in the heart of the believer, God’s presence could never been desirable to them. Love is an important and amazing attribute of God, but to champion it above and beyond his other attributes is misleading.
The gospel presents love as the attraction. ‘God so loved.’ ‘How excellent is they loving kindness, O God! Therefore the children of men put their trust under the shadow of thy wings’ (Psa. 36:7). In the words of John Duncan: ‘Love is the great attraction. Without the sternness of holiness and justice it would be the love of an unholy and unjust God; yet the holiness and justice of God repel the sinner.’ It is love that draws, as the record of the four Gospels makes abundantly plain. The voice of Christ among men was the voice of love. What was it that moved him as he saw the multitude but a compassion for all? (Matt. 9:36). What but love brought him to weep over lost Jerusalem? (Luke 19:41) and to say, ‘How often would I have gathered thy children .. and ye would not!’ (Matt. 23:37). What is clearer in Scripture than the evidence that love can be despised? (Mark 10:21-22). The preaching of Christ contained a promise of welcome for all and his whole life revealed him longing for the salvation of men and women. ‘None of us,’ says Spurgeon, ‘loves men as Christ loves them; and if the love of all the tender hearted in the world could run together, they would make but a drop compared with the ocean of the compassion of Jesus.’ ‘We say, “Sinner, only trust in Christ.” Ah, ye do not know what a great “only” that is. It is a work so great that no man can do it unaided by God … But if anything can call faith into exercise,’ he goes on, it is the knowledge ‘that Christ is willing to receive thee.’ Preaching Christ, for Spurgeon, had to include the urging of this knowledge upon all:Again, we don’t need to preach God’s love to everyone, elect and reprobate, to preach that God is a loving God.
‘”If any man thirst, let him come unto me and drink.” He invites men to come; he pleads with them to come; and when they will not come he gently upbraids them with such words as these, “Ye will not come unto me that ye might have life” … All our Lord’s sermons were so many loving calls to poor aching hearts to come and find what they need in him.’ ‘Beloved, there is nothing that so delights Jesus Christ as to save sinners … You misjudge him if you think he wants to be argued with and persuaded to have mercy; he gives it as freely as the sun pours forth light.’ ‘Paul had no stinted Saviour to present toa few, no narrow-hearted Christ to be the head of a clique, but he preached a great Saviour to great masses, a great Saviour to great sinners … My Lord Jesus, by his death, has become immensely rich in pardoning grace – so rich indeed that no guiltiness can possible transcend the efficacy of his precious blood.’See how Spurgeon uses truth to manipulate his listeners to disbelieve another truth?
But it is more knowledge of the love of God as taught in Scripture which preachers need. They must themselves be possessed by the love of which they speak. Invitations to trust in Christ preached without love are no invitations at all. And a preacher who calls men to faith, uncertain about Christ’s desire to save his hearers, will never make an evangelist. Present fellowship with Christ is needed to end such doubt. It is Christ’s love, known and felt, which creates the spirit seen in such men as Robber Murray M’Cheyne whose hearers believed that he was ‘dying to have them converted.’ ‘We win by love,’ says Spurgeon. ‘We win hearts for Jesus by love, by sympathy with their sorrows, by anxiety lest they should perish, by pleading with God for them with all our hearts that they would not be left to die unsaved, by pleading with them for God that, for their own sake, they would seek mercy and find grace.’Such earnestness sin calling men to Christ, as John Owens writes, is but a faint representation of the source whence the call comes: ‘It is God himself who … invites, exhorts, and persuades you to accept … And excuse us if we are a little in earnest with you in this matter. Alas! Our utmost that we can, by zeal for his glory or compassion unto your souls, raise our thoughts, minds, spirits, words unto, comes infinitely short of is own pressing earnestness herein.’ (Murray, Spurgeon v. Hyper-Calvinism [Banner of Truth, 1995] pp. 88-93)This sounds like the lie of universal atonement spoken of by Arminians.

[GraceAmbassador]

Great Job Brandan!

I just want, for now, to comment in a couple of points:


- Brandan comments on the book at issue:
No, if it were not for God’s regenerating grace in the heart of the believer, God’s presence could never been desirable to them. Love is an important and amazing attribute of God, but to champion it above and beyond his other attributes is misleading.Correct! Arminians and other universalists believe that God is an "out-of-balance" being. They humanize God and deify humans. God works perfectly in balance with His attributes of Love and Justice. There is nothing in the bible that teaches that God "has many attibudes but LOVE is the commanding one and the standard upon which he makes His decisions." As a matter of fact, the expressions in the O.T. "for my name sake" indicate that LOVE is not His commanding attribute upon which He makes His decisions, but, rather, His Glory, which includes all His attributes in perfect balance, is. We cannot comprehend and try to separate an attibute from God from another. We just have to trust Him and His Glory that His attributes work in perfect balance.


Comment taken from book by Iain Murray
Men ‘imagine that God is a severe being, angry and fierce, very easily moved to wrath, but not so easily to be induced to love’. The truth of divine love is the last to enter men’s heads.
I say:
That's because the unelect do not know (and will not) and cannot comprehend (and will not) the work of Christ. Christ satisfied God in every sense of the word. He is the sacrificial Lamb whose blood was shed in complete satisfaction of what God wanted. A "severe being, angry and fierce" would not provide such a perfect plan. I would reverse this and say that any preacher who thinks that anyone would imagine God as being angry and fierce has failed in understanding the work of Christ, thus being woefully uncapable of presenting it to sinners, therefore, bringing to them in ignorance the notion that God is a "sever being, angry and fierce". Go look at the cross preacher! Learn about it. Meditate about it. Then come on and preach with the full understanding or it! The unelect will not understand since it is not given to him to understand. But the elect will fall to His knees in praise, adoration and contrition that God loved Him so much that provided such a perfect plan!

The use the term "men" (as in the above quote) globally is a fallacy at best and an exaggeration at worse, at least a gross generalization of the term "men", since "men" even when God shows them temporary and providencial goodness continue to turn their backs on Him and reject Him. Not all men see God as a "severe being, angry and fierce". Some of "us" by His Grace know God to be one that dispenses sacrificial love. (One of these days I will publish here my study on how the Apostles used the terms "us" and "them" to distinguish the elect from the unelect).

Milt

[Brandan Kraft]

Here is my brief review of Spurgeon v. Hyper-Calvinism.

I believe Spurgeon v. Hyper-Calvinism by Ian Murray is good in that it correctly addresses the problems of genuine hyper-calvinism. I can commend Murray for taking on this fight. I appreciate the book because it’s filled with a lot of historical facts that I would have never realized. But even though it is good in the sense that it is an insight into the mind of a hyper-calvinist, it is sad that an organization such as the Banner of Truth Trust has published it because of the many errors it contains.

My main problems with the book are as follows:

1. Murray exalts Spugeon as the end-all and be-all of Calvinism. I get the impression that if you dare go further than Spurgeon in your understanding of Scripture you are out of line with historical “orthodox” Calvinism. I can see how the errors of Van-Til became prevalent in the 20th century when someone as Spurgeon is exalted as the greatest theologian who ever lived! Throughout much of Spurgeon’s sermons he contradicts himself and then claims we have to “swallow” these contradictions “through faith.” Spurgeon whom I admire and consider a genuine brother had many flaws including his hermeneutical methods.

2. I think it’s sad that the Banner of Truth speaks more highly of Wesley than they do of John Gill. John Gill ferociously fought the free will blasphemies of John Wesley and wrote a book that in my opinion is the greatest exegetical book on the doctrines of Sovereign Grace ever written. To sneer and call this book the “keystone” of hyper-calvinism is to bring reproach to this man who I believe did more to influence British Particular Baptist theology than any other man. If there was not a Gill, I wonder if there would have been a Spurgeon. Sadly, most Calvinistic Baptists today esteem Bunyan, SKIP GILL, and then proclaim Andrew Fuller and Charles Spurgeon as the greatest Calvinists of all time! I think it’s interesting that this very thing is being repeated in this day with the history of Gordon Clark and Cornelius Van Til. John Gill was misunderstood, and those hyper-calvinists of Spurgeon’s day unfortunately tarnished this man’s reputation. I have been definitely helped by Gill’s writings, and I do agree with Murray that there are problems with Gill and his understanding of men’s responsibility. But to trash this man’s reputation is not appropriate.

3. Murray, and I quote, states that “the denial of any love in God except love to the elect (p. 99)” is Hyper-Calvinism. Murray, along with Spurgeon seem to think that if you deny that God loves all men, both elect and reprobate, then you have no gospel worth bringing before sinners. Spurgeon and Murray both affirm that unless you can say, “God wants you to be saved”, then you cannot speak the gospel of “love.” Murray exalts God’s love as His chief attribute, and I don’t think he has any authority in Scripture to do that. I believe God’s chief end to everything is to glorify Himself, and all of His attributes work in harmony to bring about that result.

In conclusion I must confess that the errors of Hyper-Calvinism are indeed dangerous, and we would do well to avoid falling into the lifeless hole of introspectionism, denial of gospel preaching, and lawless living. Just because I don’t believe God loves the reprobate or desires that the reprobate turns from his sins to life in Christ does not mean I cannot preach the gospel of Supreme Grace. Just because those of us who do not believe God loves all men and that the gospel is not an “offer” that God sincerely desires the reprobate to “accept” does not mean that we cannot keep from proclaiming Christ’s death and resurrection to all men. We do not know who God’s elect are in their unregenerate state, and therefore we must be faithful to preach the love of Christ for His people, His life of obedience, His atoning sacrifice, and God’s imputation of Christ’s righteousness which is received through faith alone. We must be faithful to be indiscriminate with the presentation of the gospel to all men. We must yearn and zealously pray and labor in the gospel for the salvation of those who are lost and dead in their sins. We must show forth our love and genuine concern for all men of all races and nationalities to believe unto life in Christ.

- Brandan Kraft

[Brandan Kraft]

Friends,

Tonight I sat down in my easy chair to read while my wife watched the television. I opened up my recent purchase of the trinity review archive in this fabulously large hardcover book and looked for an article that might catch my interest. Providentially, I was led to an excellent article titled, The Myth of Common Grace. I spent the next hour slowly going through the article and I enjoyed it immensely. I'm attaching the pdf version of this document for your edification.

- Brandan :cool:

[PILGRIM313]

Dr. Gill posted " definitely agree with you that we all agree that God is good, provides for, and is good to the reprobate. The question is does God LOVE all men in the sense that He wants all men to be saved? That really is the question that Common Grace teaching brings to the table."

I for one have not stated, your attachment (The question is does God LOVE all men in the sense that He wants all men to be saved?) and it is NOT to be assumed that I agree to this statement.

Again, in my understanding Common Grace = unmerited favor to unsaved sinners, period! Sometimes we get so hung up in our reasoning and thinking and use of words, we cannot see the horse before the cart.

Electing Grace=special Grace to the elect in the realm of salvation. The two are separate.
Pilgrim

[Brandan Kraft]

I for one have not stated, your attachment (The question is does God LOVE all men in the sense that He wants all men to be saved?) and it is NOT to be assumed that I agree to this statement. I understand sister. What I'm concerned about is the hypothetical universalism which is derived from common grace. Kuyper when developing this doctrine never intended for it to be taken this far, but unfortunately it has.


Again, in my understanding Common Grace = unmerited favor to unsaved sinners, period! Sometimes we get so hung up in our reasoning and thinking and use of words, we cannot see the horse before the cart.unmerited favor and goodness are two different things. God is good to the reprobate but does not "favor" or "love" the reprobate. It is my opinion the only reason He is good to the reprobate is because He has set his love and grace on His elect, and they are sort of temporary beneficiaries. Also, God's goodness and their rejection of it will be used to further damn the reprobate at the great judgment.

[disciple]

...we cannot see the horse before the cart.or the forest through the trees...

[Brandan Kraft]

or the forest through the trees...Tell me, brother, what are your thoughts concerning this conversation to this date?

[disciple]

Tell me, brother, what are your thoughts concerning this conversation to this date?i'm just sort of watching and mulling it all over. my main reason for not getting involved here is because i see both sides and feel that name-calling and labeling commences before anyone probes deeper to see what the other person is actually saying. in other words, i don't see demonstrated in this discussion a desire to understand one another but more what seems to be a demonstrating of the rightness of one's position.

as i said before, i can see (or at least can understand) using the concept of grace as unmerited favor that God is gracious to all--elect and reprobate--though not in the same way or in the same measure. but i would think it unwise to use such a term (i.e., common grace) because it carries so much baggage with it. perhaps it is just safer for those who see that God gives the reprobate undeserved favor to use other terms such as benevolent, provident, compassionate, kind, etc.

also i can see that God's disposition toward His creation organically (including the reprobate) is one of love and don't find as much objection to saying that God providentially loves all of His creation. He obviously has a very special and unique love for His elect that He does not have for the rest of His creation just the Father has a very special and unique love for His Son. here as well we should be careful with terminology though it is not as simple as dissecting the Greek words (e.g., AGAPE means this, PHILEW means this, etc.). but what i see happening is a very knee jerk reaction to whatever does not sound like their particular brand of calvinism. i see a need to be more understanding here as i don't see anyone here as saying that God decretively wants every single person in the world to be saved but just can't. it is my opinion that we should seek to understand one another more, and just give one another the benefit of the doubt. we need to remember that love looks for the best in others and not for the worst.

those are my random ramblings as of late...

[Skeuos Eleos]

Brandan,

I think “The myth of Common Grace” article is good.

Some comments on previous posts.

Quote by Dr. Gill:
Now I readily admit that there is a breed of hyper-calvinism that is indeed terrible, it's the type that seeks to make sure we are TRULY convicted of our sin before we can hear the gospel … But, as you rightly go on to comment, this is not a common problem in our day as “these people rarely exist”. Rather I think the problem we face today is that, at best, sin gets a quick mention before the preacher races ahead to preach Jesus. Surely, if there is a message that is needed in our day it is this:
GOD IS HOLY AND HE CALLS HIS PEOPLE TO BE HOLY.
Nowhere in scripture are we taught to withhold the gospel until we see evidence of repentance. Nevertheless, the preaching of repentance from sin and the calling of sinners to obedience are necessary parts of the gospel message.



Friends, we need to make sure we get this right. We cannot brush this controversy off so quickly and leave it to the men in the white lab coats. No, how we answer this question will affect much of our theology and will affect the practical implications of our theology such as the preaching of the gospel. What gospel message will we present?Absolutely! Preach a universal atonement or love of God to save and you can almost imagine the reprobates in hell complaining “but I was told that Christ loved me/died for me!”. Notice the similarity with the Arminian gospel here.

From Spurgeon v. Hyper-Calvinism by Ian Murray:
Because Hyper-Calvinism is wrong here it fails to disabuse the minds of fallen men of this error. It does not give men the warning to be found in such evangelical Calvinists as John Owen who counseled, ‘Let us not entangle our own spirits by limiting his grace … We are apt to think that we are very willing to have forgiveness, but that God is unwilling to bestow it.’THIS IS INCREDIBLE! Not only is Murray demonstrating an ignorance of Owen’s works and his position on 2 Peter 3:9 as the article by Garrett P. Johnson from The Trinity Review shows but he is also quoting Owen out of context since the quote has been taken from his comments on verse 4 of Psalm 130 in which Owen also says:
This, I say, is an encouragement in general unto believers

(see “A PRACTICAL EXPOSITION UPON PSALM CXXX” http://www.reformed.org/books/owen/vol6/owen_v6_ps130_v4_04.html)
Finally, a question:
although I don’t recall where, I have come across the view amongst Calvinists that the gospel is to be preached to all men without distinction not so much because we don’t know who the elect are but rather because the same gospel which saves the elect also condemns the reprobate. Now I'm not sure I agree with this since Romans 1:20 gives other reasons as to why men are "without excuse". Whilst thinking about what scriptural support there may be for that view I thought about Acts 17:
30 The times of ignorance God overlooked, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent, 31 because he has fixed a day on which he will judge the world in righteousness by a man whom he has appointed; and of this he has given assurance to all by raising him from the dead." Now, a recurrent aspect of this debate has been about the validity of paradoxical or "irrational" views of God - that he wills something on the one hand that he does not decree on the other - and, of course, Acts 17:30 raises a similar question: “does God really command to repent those whom he has decreed will not repent”? I'm interested to know what others think about that.

Yours in Christ,

[Skeuos Eleos]

Brandan,

Martin, I think we need to be careful with the charge of hypo-calvinism. I think the labels of Calvinism and Arminianism are sufficient. I think all of us hold to a little bit of error, and to call each other names because of it is pretty low and unloving. We should be as fierce as pit bulls when it comes to defending the gospel of Sovereign Grace Alone and Justification by Faith Alone; but when it comes to the varying degrees of Calvinism, we need to be careful to slap labels on people.I agree and I am sorry if I have caused any offence with this suggestion, I was not really suggesting that we should do this! It was a very poor attempt at humour - blame it on me being English!
I suppose what I had in mind as the only context where I might say such a thing would be in light-hearted banter with a friend who might accuse me of being a hyper-Calvinist. I do have friends who subscribe to "common grace" and they are still friends!

I agree with Disciple. It is very easy to get entrenched in a particular mindset and side with those with whom we see commonality and rise against those with whom we differ. A timely reminder to caution for us all.

[wildboar]

GA: [edit by Dr. Gill - you mean "Skeuos Eleos"]


although I don’t recall where, I have come across the view amongst Calvinists that the gospel is to be preached to all men without distinction not so much because we don’t know who the elect are but rather because the same gospel which saves the elect also condemns the reprobate. Now I'm not sure I agree with this since Romans 1:20 gives other reasons as to why men are "without excuse". Whilst thinking about what scriptural support there may be for that view I thought about Acts 17: I certainly fall into this camp. The primary purpose for the preaching of the Gospel is to bring the elect unto repentance, but secondarily the Gospel is also used to harden the reprobate in their sins. The general revelation provided by nature is certainly more than enough to leave man without excuse, but the Gospel further condemns them and causes sin to increase.

2 Corinthians 2:14-16 Now thanks be unto God, which always causeth us to triumph in Christ, and maketh manifest the savour of his knowledge by us in every place. 15 For we are unto God a sweet savour of Christ, in them that are saved, and in them that perish: 16 To the one we are the savour of death unto death; and to the other the savour of life unto life. And who is sufficient for these things?

I certainly have a problem with anyone who raises reprobation to the same level as election in the preaching. There are some who do this. More often however, reprobation is avoided altogether. I found the following article very helpful: http://www.prca.org/pamphlets/pamphlet_50.html

The article makes mention of the purpose of the reprobate as they are spoken of in Scripture in a way I do not yet fully understand and I may never.

Disciple:

There is certainly a very close tie between the doctrines of the well-meant offer in which God desires the salvation of all who hear the Gospel and common grace in which is why I believe the statements were made. Do you believe that the idea of the Gospel as a sincere offer of God to all is erroneous?

Sola Gratia,
WildBoar

[PILGRIM313]

Brandon Posted: "unmerited favor and goodness are two different things. God is good to the reprobate but does not "favor" or "love" the reprobate. It is my opinion the only reason He is good to the reprobate is because He has set his love and grace on His elect, and they are sort of temporary beneficiaries. Also, God's goodness and their rejection of it will be used to further damn the reprobate at the great judgment."

I don't quite understand how you can separate 'unmerited favor' (grace) and goodness....for if God is 'good' to anyone, they certainly don't deserve it! Saved or unsaved, we are all sinners, not seeking God's Glory.

I also find your thinking of " the only reason He is good to the reprobate is because He has set his love and grace on His elect,".
If we apply this 'thinking' to OT Truth, we would see that millions of 'jews' entered the promised land, where God was exceptionally good to them for 40 years, providing their food, shelter, guidance, etc. Even their shoes didn't wear out! This is exceptional 'good'. (I would assume you would agree) Now if this were done to all these millions of people, it was for the benefit of only two persons, Caleb and Joshua! For they were the only two of the original millions that entered into the promised land. I am aware that there were 'others' that entered, but they were ones born in the way, not of the original mass that entered. So we have God being 'good' to millions of people, for the benefit of two? Doesn't this seem a little faulty to you?

I have to agree with disciple that it is not proper to castigate one such as Spurgeon when you only use one article about him to tell us that he was wrong in his thinking. Such a great man of God, used so mightly to reach millions, and we sit here thinking we are 'above' him?? Pride may be taking over common sense. No man, used by God is perfect, as we are all short of what we should be, but to castigate this one or that one because they don't line up with our thinking, especially when they are dead and gone, is really quite pridefull. Are we to set ourselves in the position of judging dead saints? Or to grow in the knowledge and Grace of God?
Pilgrim

[Brandan Kraft]

If you read my comments, you will see that I admire Spurgeon and consider him to have been a great man of God. If you click on the library archive, you will see HIS PICTURE ALONE is the picture I use as an honor to Spurgeon. So even though I have criticized Spurgeon here does not mean that I do not consider him a "lesser" brother, or that I am "above" him.

[wildboar]

I don't quite understand how you can separate 'unmerited favor' (grace) and goodness....for if God is 'good' to anyone, they certainly don't deserve it! Saved or unsaved, we are all sinners, not seeking God's Glory.

This was written to Brandan, but I would like to respond anyhow. It seems the dispute is over the issue of "favor". Grace is unmerited favor, it is not simply some ambiguous thing which is unmerited. The problem with common grace is not that it merely teaches that God gave good gifts to people which they didn't deserve, it teaches that God displayed his favor upon the reprobate. In the theory of common grace, God looked lovingly upon the reprobate and that is the reason for him giving them these good gifts. Passages which have been mentioned by myself and others show that the reason why God gave these good gifts was not love.



I also find your thinking of " the only reason He is good to the reprobate is because He has set his love and grace on His elect,".
If we apply this 'thinking' to OT Truth, we would see that millions of 'jews' entered the promised land, where God was exceptionally good to them for 40 years, providing their food, shelter, guidance, etc. Even their shoes didn't wear out! This is exceptional 'good'. (I would assume you would agree) Now if this were done to all these millions of people, it was for the benefit of only two persons, Caleb and Joshua! For they were the only two of the original millions that entered into the promised land. I am aware that there were 'others' that entered, but they were ones born in the way, not of the original mass that entered. So we have God being 'good' to millions of people, for the benefit of two? Doesn't this seem a little faulty to you?

I don't think we need to conclude from the events that Caleb and Joshua were the only elect within Israel. I'm certain we can include Moses and others not mentioned as well. However, let's suppose that you are correct in your assumptions. Is it our place to decide the proper manner for God to carry out his plan? Wouldn't we have to raise similar objections against other activities of God? Wouldn't we have to say it was a waste of God's time to create all those people just before the flood knowing full well that he was going to destroy all but Noah and his family?

All things are done for the sake of God's glory and for God's church.

Romans 8:28 And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose.

Sola Gratia,
WildBoar

[GraceAmbassador]

I find it interesting that the more I read any debate with the "common grace" apologists in this Forum, the more I perceive that they differ in their understanding with the understanding of the theologians themselves on what they intended to convey when they coined the term and concluded the notion of "common grace". (I said differ. I am not in any way shape or form implying "lack of understanding".)

With that in mind, allow me to step back for a moment and declare the following:


I see no defender of the "common grace" doctrine here stating that God leaves somehow a streak of the "narrow gate" open so some reprobates can still enter it, thus, commonly allowing boh elect and reprobates do come in. In other words, I see no member of this Forum and this discussion proposing or supposing that God will save everybody because of "common grace".
I the other hand, I see no apologist against the doctrine of "common grace" stating that God has ever been mean, all the time, with no exception, to the reprobate and that there is no example in the Bible that God has even done anything humanly "good" to the reprobate.
Considering the two points above, I will maitain that the "common grace" camp within this forum use this term loosely, and at variance with what its "theorics" state, according to the evidences presented in the article published here from the Trinity Foundation. As such, they use the "common grace" terms differently from any of the our past "heroes" have ever defended. I can live with that! Without saying that those who defend "common grace" as a term only do not know whereof they speak, and how dangerous this doctrine is, I beg permission to downgrade our differences to the field of semantics; simple usage of words that can mean "pebbles" to them, but to me, strong opponent of the doctrine of "common grace" mean a tremendously big bolder falling upon good doctrine with all its dead weight. That's okay! I say potato, you say potatoe, I say tomato, you say tomatoe... We are both talking abou the same degustable.

I will, however, reject, preach and teach against everything the theoogians who defend the "theological" version of "common grace", mentioned in the article posted here from the Trinity Foundation (which I read before since I am in their mailing list) and do not want to leave any room for negotiation on the issue.

Now a request that I hope is not too much to ask:
The proponents of the "common grace", even in its downgraded and non-theological version, would you please read the debates presented in the article of the Trinity Foundation, that Brandan posted here and tell me, by posting in this thread, whether you agree with those who defend its theology or those who oppose it?

I believe that is the only way we can debate with the real issues proposed by both sides. I believe this request to be reasonable, on behalf of our own understanding, however late it may appear at this point in this thread.

Thanks in advance!

Milt

[tomas1]

Resolved: When talking to my fellow Calvinists I promise to never again use the term “Common Grace” to refer to God’s compassionate providence for those that are not elect. Grace is too special a word to use when not referring to those that are saved. However I can continue to use it when speaking with freewillers. To them grace and salvation have nothing to do with each other. :rolleyes:

[Tumbleweed]

I believe the rich young ruler as well as the people at the foot of the cross that Jesus asked forgiveness for were His elect.

Hi Brandon -

Surely everything scripture reveals concerning these individuals is calculated to show that behaviour which is characteristic of the unregenerate, and our last view of them sees them heading for the abyss. What possible evidence can there be for assuming that they were elect, unless we take the unreasonable step of using our wiewpoint to prove our viewpoint (IE: God only loves the elect, therefore they were elect)?

Are there other instances where God's word gives a final view of someone as a radical sinner, yet simultaneously giving us grounds to believe they were elect of God?

(I just got back, & the thread has grown considerably whilst I was away, so forgive me if I missed something.)

[Brandan Kraft]

Arthur Pink in his book the Sovereignty of God in the footnotes wrote:
Concerning the rich young ruler of whom it is said Christ “loved him” (Mark 10:21), we fully believe that he was one of God’s elect, and was “saved” sometime after his interview with our Lord. Should it be said this is an arbitrary assumption and assertion which lacks anything in the Gospel record to substantiate it, we reply, It is written, “Him that cometh to Me I will in no wise cast out,” and this man certainly did “come” to Him. Compare the case of Nicodemus. He, too, came to Christ, yet there is nothing in John 3 which intimates he was a saved man when the interview closed; nevertheless, we know from his later life that he was not “cast out.”

[PILGRIM313]

Boar posted: "I don't think we need to conclude from the events that Caleb and Joshua were the only elect within Israel. I'm certain we can include Moses and others not mentioned as well."

You may well conclude that Caleb and Joshua were the only two from the original multitues of Jews that entered the promised land...Moses was not allowed in, for his disobedience...Num.14:27-35

[wildboar]

You may well conclude that Caleb and Joshua were the only two from the original multitues of Jews that entered the promised land...Moses was not allowed in, for his disobedience...Num.14:27-35Yes, but I do not think we can conclude that not entering the earthly promised land = reprobate. Surely, Moses has entered into the true promised land of which the earthly was only a picture and looks forward to the day when he shall more fully experience it. God often sent the Israelites to slaughter those around them, hardly an example of kindness on the part of God to those outside the church. While in captivity he would also in his providence provide for the captors in order to protect the church. But none of this really has anything to do with grace, only providence.

What needs to be shown is that [if] God displayed his favor upon these reprobate people, that God looked approvingly upon them and loved them.

Sola Gratia,
WildBoar

[edited by Dr. Gill]

[Tumbleweed]

Brandan -

Sorry if I seem like a dog with a bone over this, but it seems to me that Pink's arguement here is thin to say the least:

" . . . we fully believe that [the Rich Young Ruler] was one of God’s elect, and was “saved” sometime after his interview with our Lord. Should it be said this is an arbitrary assumption and assertion which lacks anything in the Gospel record to substantiate it, we reply, It is written, “Him that cometh to Me I will in no wise cast out,” and this man certainly did “come” to Him."

In Jn.6:37 Christ was obviously referring to those who came to Him in faith, which the Rich Young Ruler certainly did not. This man counted his earthly wealth of greater importance than the kingdom of God, which can only mean that being in an unregenerate state, he was blind to it (Jn.3:3).

I certainly hope he was elect of God and saved in due course, but unless there is a better argument than Pink's, it seems like eisegesis to teach that he was.

[Brandan Kraft]

Tumbleweed, I just can't imagine a God who loves someone and then that person is sent to hell. No, the text clearly says that Jesus LOVED that rich young ruler. If that's the case, there is NOTHING, I repeat... NOTHING that can separate that man from the love of God. Jesus didn't love him for a moment in time, but He loved Him with all His divine being.

Brandan

[Brandan Kraft]

Resolved: When talking to my fellow Calvinists I promise to never again use the term “Common Grace” to refer to God’s compassionate providence for those that are not elect. Grace is too special a word to use when not referring to those that are saved. However I can continue to use it when speaking with freewillers. To them grace and salvation have nothing to do with each other. :rolleyes:Amen Tomas! There is nothing "common" about GRACE.

[PILGRIM313]

Tumbleweed, I just can't imagine a God who loves someone and then that person is sent to hell. No, the text clearly says that Jesus LOVED that rich young ruler. If that's the case, there is NOTHING, I repeat... NOTHING that can separate that man from the love of God. Jesus didn't love him for a moment in time, but He loved Him with all His divine being.

Brandon, you are right at the spot that I posed a statement on a few pages ago in this discussion. 'Have you ever 'loved' someone that hated you?'....There is nothing in this verse to talk of an 'eternal' love, but rather a pity type of love to one so stuck on himself and his self righteousness.
Read the other Dr. Gill on this verse.
Pink, as with all other theologians, didn't have it 'all' correct, as none of us do. But it is going to the extreme to assume that verse means the self centered ruler had eternal life.
Pilgrim

[tomas1]

I agree with tumbleweed on the rich young ruler. If he was saved later in life why does not the Bible say so? It seems to want to leave the impression that he was not. I’m always suspicious when we have to go chasing all over the Bible to explain away what seems to be the plain meaning of the text.

[PILGRIM313]

brandon, also check the corresponding verses in Mt.19:16, and Lk.18:18 there you will see no mention of 'love', and possibly come up with the notion that this 'love' is pity for the rich man that cannot pass thru the eye of the needle...remember some 'hear' the word, and the cares of this world tear them away. Matthew Henry also has a good coverage of the verses in his commentary.
Pilgrim

[wildboar]

Actually Gill says that Christ loved him not as God, but out of his human nature. Gill also notes that Lightfoot takes this to mean that Jesus kissed the man on the head. I think both of these are possibilities as well as Pink's explanation. I'd have to study it more to come to a conclusion. However, with this variety of possibilities it would seem foolish to dogmatically proclaim that God loves the reprobate in a non-saving way because of this passage. The passage does not say that the man converted later on in life, but it also does not state that the man never converted. When multiple interpretations are possible we must adopt an interpretation that agrees with the rest of the testimony of Scripture, not invent new doctrines.

This passage also poses problems for the claim that was made by someone earlier that different Greek words are used for different types of love God has. Agapao is the word being used, which would be considered by most who see a distinction to be the highest form of God's love. Those who believe this distinction is valid would also have to conclude that this man was one of God's elect.

Sola Gratia,
WildBoar

[Brandan Kraft]

When multiple interpretations are possible we must adopt an interpretation that agrees with the rest of the testimony of Scripture, not invent new doctrines.Amen, and that is the problem with most theologians today. Men have abandoned the analogy of faith or the idea that Scripture should be used to interpret Scripture. Modern theologians prefer to allow texts to stand alone in contradiction to each other and "swallow" these contradictions by faith and say that although it does not appear that these teachings harmonize in the minds of men but they harmonize in the mind of God. Their unbiblical hermeneutic is an attack on the authority of Scripture itself as well as the use of logic. They have adopted irrational thought and justify it by proclaiming it as "faith". This form of interpreting Scripture is in my mind the most dangerous system as it allows true heresy to creep into one's theological system no matter what truths that might believe. It allows individuals to say that God loves and hates a person at the same time. It allows an individual to proclaim that men are justified by faith alone and justified by works. It allows individuals to say that Christ is the only way to salvation, but all other religions are valid too.

- Brandan

[Tumbleweed]

Tumbleweed, I just can't imagine a God who loves someone and then that person is sent to hell. No, the text clearly says that Jesus LOVED that rich young ruler. If that's the case, there is NOTHING, I repeat... NOTHING that can separate that man from the love of God. Jesus didn't love him for a moment in time, but He loved Him with all His divine being.

Brandan

I have read your last post, yet neverttheless, here is the crux of many a theological discussion between good men: The fact that we as humans are unable to comprehend the ways of the Lord.

For example, I believe and teach the doctrines of grace unashamedly because they are principles clearly declared in the word of God. Moreover, their logic is plain enough on a superficial level, but I frankly admit that there are many questions that arise out of their infinite depths that are very mysterious to my human reason, and I am not ashamed to say so.

Is this not the root cause of Arminianism - that men like Wesley, for all their godliness, are unable to get past the obstacle presented by their own thought processes? (Let us, like Whitefield, be men enough not to solve our theological differences by declaring them all unregenerate!) How many such people have we spoken to whose reason rebels so violently against the concept of "vessels prepared for destruction" that they simply must find another explanation? Is this not an ever present problem for us also, albeit concerning different Biblical statements?

When we read Matt.5:44f for example, ought we not to receive it's plain argument that if we are God's children, we must loving our enemies in imitation of our Father? Nothing is said here about saving grace or anything else that is unique to the elect. Merely that Almighty God has a form of love toward His enemies which finds a practical expression in the temporal mercies He bestows.
It can hardly be said that this is some isolated text upon which we are attempting to build a new doctrine!

If we insist that all Biblical truth must be conformable to the limitations of our human understanding, it is surely inevitable that we will distort the character of God in the process.

(NB: Despite John Gill's comment on Mk.10:21, his Body of Divinity makes it plain that he accepted the principle that God does love all men on the basis of them being the work of His hands, as distinct from that "great love" (Eph.2:4) He has toward His elect. [ch.12 - p.79 in my edition])

[tomas1]

A wile back I discovered in a book by Hugh Ross a list of eight tools that scientists use when presented with data from two sources that seem to contradict each other. Although these rules are written in mathematical language I feel they are helpful when dealing with apparent paradoxes from the Bible as well. Here they are
1. Establish the correct frame(s) of reference or points of view for measuring or observing the phenomena in question.
2. Establish the correct definition(s) and context(s) of the system under investigation.
3. Identify correctly and completely the initial and final conditions of the phenomena in question.
4. Gather more information about the circumstances in which the phenomena occur
5. Make more precise measurements.
6. Make measurements over a larger or smaller range. (e.g. over a longer or shorter time span or distance).
7. Make measurements over different dimensions.
8. Calculate or discern the effects of dimensions or realms in which human measurements cannot yet be made.
If we start with number 1 and work are way through the first 7 before jumping to number 8 almost all Bible paradoxes disappear. Sometimes however we are left with no other option than number 8. I think were only at number 2 or 3 on this question.

[Brandan Kraft]

Here is a good article by Gary Crampton addressing the idea that bible contradicts itself in the form of "paradoxes". It's a good read! :rolleyes:

[Tumbleweed]

Thank you Brandan - Crampton's article is very good. This kind of common sense needs to be insisted upon by us all. The vast majortiy of Christendom lives with this "two railway lines that meet in infinity" nonsense, and it is an outrage against God's written revelation. My Systematic Theology class will certainly get to read this!

Crampton makes a couple of mentions of John H Gerstner (I believe he is with the Lord now), who helped me more than anyone else to see we don't need to put our brains on a shelf in order to live with everything the Bible declares.

Personally speaking, (& I think someone already alluded to this) I don't see this question of God having a certain love for the non-elect as a paradox, but as, in fact a logical and scriptural necessity. For me, the paradox would lie in God having no love of any kind for this creature made in His own image.

As I mentioned earlier, if God were to love and hate the same person and upon the same basis, that would be a paradox. But to love man on the basis of his created likeness to Himself, and hate him on the basis of his rebellion is logically consistant. Is this not something akin to the emotional experience of a woman who discovers her husband's adultery? Does she not love him on the basis of relationship and hate him on the basis of his treachery?

[Brandan Kraft]

For me, the paradox would lie in God having no love of any kind for this creature made in His own image. Hmmm, would you please continue with this thought. Why does God have to love a creature made in His own image? The creatures made in His image are sent to hell, does He love these people in hell too?


As I mentioned earlier, if God were to love and hate the same person and upon the same basis, that would be a paradox.God loves and hates people based on His good pleasure and will. That is His basis for everything. If we have that as the basis for everything, then indeed, love and hate for an object are paradoxical. If we however take our eyes off of God's sovereign will for a moment, then yes, I can see how you might think that God loves and hates at the same time due to different bases. But you are supposing that God's basis for love is the same as man's and that is a critical mistake as the Bible never gives us a reason for His love other than it's His desire. If God loves the reprobate as you say because the reprobate has the image of God, where does the Bible say that God is duty bound to love this man for this reason?


Is this not something akin to the emotional experience of a woman who discovers her husband's adultery? Does she not love him on the basis of relationship and hate him on the basis of his treachery?Again, you're applying human emotions to God. If you want to stick to this analogy, allow me to point out the critical error in your thinking. God does not see the reprobate as being in any particular relationship with Himself. So therefore He does not love him. And if God did indeed love the reprobate, since He is immutable, He will always have to love the reprobate. However, He never has and never will. God's emotions toward people have never changed - since before the creation of the world - as He is immutable. He set His love on the elect in eternity and set His hatred on the reprobate in eternity. Why? Because it "was/is/will be" His will.

Thanks for your post Paul! Are you a professor too?

Brandan :p

[tomas1]

Dr Gill Wrote. "God does not see the reprobate as being in any particular relationship with Himself."

What about the relationship of creator to his creation? God definitely has an affinity for his creation he called it good as a whole even though it included ticks and lice and the devil. Notice he did not say only the elect part was good.

[Brandan Kraft]

tomas1, are you suggesting that God has a relationship with everything? Does God have a relationship with the tree in my front yard?

[wildboar]

There seems to be some confusion as to man's condition before the fall as God's image bearer and after the fall. The following article may be helpful. http://www.prca.org/pamphlets/pamphlet_54.html

[Brandan Kraft]

It has been proposed that God loves the reprobate because all men were made in the image of God.

I have a series of questions I'd like to ask..

1. If God loves the reprobate does He still love the reprobate when He sends that person to hell?

2. If "YES", then what did God mean when He says, "I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity? (Mat 7:23)"

3. If "NO", then how is God immutable if His will can be changed? Has not God purposed everything from eternity? Do His affections change in time?

[GraceAmbassador]

It has been proposed that God loves the reprobate because all men were made in the image of God.

I have a series of questions I'd like to ask..

1. If God loves the reprobate does He still love the reprobate when He sends that person to hell?

2. If "YES", then what did God mean when He says, "I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity? (Mat 7:23)"

3. If "NO", then how is God immutable if His will can be changed? Has not God purposed everything from eternity? Do His affections change in time?Dr. Gill:

On number 2 I can tell you that it has been established that the verb "to know" in Biblical terms means much more than "to have knowledge of". It means a very close relationship, even the physical relationship between a man and his wife (sexually). Thus, when Jesus tells anyone "I never knew you" He is saying "I never had any relationship with you, close or otherwise". Also, we can interpret "to know" in Biblical term as "acceptance". Compare Matthew 7:23 with 1 Cor. 8:3. If those who "love God" are "known of Him, or by Him", then he will not know those whom he does not love, which is the case in point on number 2 above.

How would Jesus, in the position of Judge, at the judgment seat, the Almighty God Himself declare that He did not know anyone if we render "to know" as "to have knowledge of"? Is it Jesus not the ALL KNOWING God?

So, the assumption attached to your question, especially in number 2, that God does not "love" the reprobate is correct!

Milt

[Brandan Kraft]

Another question I have for those who propose that God is in a relationship with all men is this...

How can God have a relationship with anyone unless they are perfectly righteous and holy? :D

[disciple]

There is certainly a very close tie between the doctrines of the well-meant offer in which God desires the salvation of all who hear the Gospel and common grace in which is why I believe the statements were made. Do you believe that the idea of the Gospel as a sincere offer of God to all is erroneous?i'm not sure what you're responding to here. but to answer your question, yes and no, depending on what you mean. i understand that what people who believe that the gospel is a sincere offer of God to all are trying to honestly deal with is a particular reading/interpretation of such passages as Lk 14:23, John 3:15-17, 2 Co 5:17-19, 1 Tim 2:4, Titus 2:11, and 2 Peter 3:9 (and yes, i am aware of both interpretations of the verses and can see the basis for both). they are simply not convinced that the aforementioned verses can be limited to a select bunch and so must deal with the verses accordingly. the charge of paradox theology or of holding to a logical contradiction is laid and the people are viewed as idiots and pseudo-arminians. to me this is entirely unfair and doesn't seem to fully grasp what the position is actually trying to say.

i honestly doubt any of those people being ridiculed here (e.g., piper, murray, spurgeon, macarthur, etc.) would ever say that God is trying to save people but is helpless to do so. but these are the words that are often put into their mouths. this is why i believe that it seems that many are not caring to actually listen and understand what is being said (or why their particular explanation is given), but instead are more interested in being right and vindicating their own particular view of calvinism. i simply want to be more even-handed in my treatment of the issues and seek to understand both sides. i'm not interested in ridiculing others and portraying them as bumbling idiots (even if it is only in one particular area in some cases). in some of the posts i've been reading here, this is what it appears is being done.

[Brandan Kraft]

i'm not sure what you're responding to here. but to answer your question, yes and no, depending on what you mean. i understand that what people who believe that the gospel is a sincere offer of God to all are trying to honestly deal with is a particular reading/interpretation of such passages as Lk 14:23, John 3:15-17, 2 Co 5:17-19, 1 Tim 2:4, Titus 2:11, and 2 Peter 3:9 (and yes, i am aware of both interpretations of the verses and can see the basis for both). they are simply not convinced that the aforementioned verses can be limited to a select bunch and so must deal with the verses accordingly. the charge of paradox theology or of holding to a logical contradiction is laidBut that is exactly what these teachers are doing. They are saying that God wants all men to be saved and on the other hand they are saying that God's wills only some men to be saved. Ask them! I have. I've talked to many people and they have told me flat out that God wants two things that contradict each other. Second, read what they have written, they will openly admit these things contradict each other and they embrace these things by faith. Now I know nobody here gone so far as to say God wants to save the reprobate, but the modern day common grace teachers have.


and the people are viewed as idiots and pseudo-arminians. to me this is entirely unfair and doesn't seem to fully grasp what the position is actually trying to say.Well maybe it's not unfair... What do you think their position is trying to say since you say this is entirely unfair? After all, if you believe this is unfair, then you should be able to explain to us exactly what these people believe. :p

Murray has gone so far as to write in his book that if you don't believe God wants the reprobate to be saved then you're a hyper-calvinist. Don't believe me? Go read it for yourself.


honestly doubt any of those people being ridiculed here (e.g., piper, murray, spurgeon, macarthur, etc.) would ever say that God is trying to save people but is helpless to do so.They are saying that God wants to save everyone but won't. They are saying that God's will is for all men to be saved but he is constrained by His "other" will. That to me sounds like a restriction by God placed on God.


but these are the words that are often put into their mouths. this is why i believe that it seems that many are not caring to actually listen and understand what is being said (or why their particular explanation is given), but instead are more interested in being right and vindicating their own particular view of calvinism. i simply want to be more even-handed in my treatment of the issues and seek to understand both sides.So far, this conversation has been pretty lopsided. I have objectively observed "the other side's" (modern day common grace teachers) view, and find it to be ridiculously unbiblical. If I could honestly present it as a viable alternative to my understanding I would. Since I can't, I'm dependent on someone else to bring a more objective understanding of their view to the table.


i'm not interested in ridiculing others and portraying them as bumbling idiots (even if it is only in one particular area in some cases). in some of the posts i've been reading here, this is what it appears is being done.I'm not interested in that either Doug :) , and I don't think anyone here is ridiculing anyone. However, I have to call it like I see it. If someone says something stupid, well, I gotta point it out ;). If I say something stupid, I would hope someone here would point that out as well. Do I think Ian Murray is a bumbling idiot :rolleyes:? Nope. But he has said some pretty stupid stuff as we all have! :D

Brandan

[disciple]

Actually Gill says that Christ loved him not as God, but out of his human nature. Gill also notes that Lightfoot takes this to mean that Jesus kissed the man on the head. I think both of these are possibilities as well as Pink's explanation. I'd have to study it more to come to a conclusion. However, with this variety of possibilities it would seem foolish to dogmatically proclaim that God loves the reprobate in a non-saving way because of this passage. The passage does not say that the man converted later on in life, but it also does not state that the man never converted. When multiple interpretations are possible we must adopt an interpretation that agrees with the rest of the testimony of Scripture, not invent new doctrines.

This passage also poses problems for the claim that was made by someone earlier that different Greek words are used for different types of love God has. Agapao is the word being used, which would be considered by most who see a distinction to be the highest form of God's love. Those who believe this distinction is valid would also have to conclude that this man was one of God's elect.i would rather ere on this passage on understanding the love here as NOT an eternal electing and saving love. neither side needs to see AGAPAW in this sense. to me, this whole approach to the text is based upon a misunderstanding as to how language works. words have semantic ranges that are broader than just a one-word theological equivalent. for example, this word AGAPAW is used in 2 Sam 13:15 in the LXX to refer to Amnon's rape of Tamar.

see http://www.ibiblio.org/bgreek/test-archives/html4/1998-04/subject.html#24994 for a discussion of the synonyms for AGAPAW/AGAPH.

search for AGAPAW here http://www.ibiblio.org/bgreek/archives/97-02/

the point being that AGAPAW being used here of Jesus to the yout' need not mean that He elected him to salvation. it need not mean a self-sacrificial covenant love.

an important element of the text is that it says that "...looking at him, He [Jesus] loved him." the fact that He looked at him probably has some exegetical significance as to how we should read this. i think this means no more than that Jesus had compassion for the man. He was saddened by His rejection of Jesus' message considering the man seemed desirous to at least come to Jesus and inquire as to what he must do to be saved. we definitely do not need to conclude that it was indeed certain that this young man was later saved just because our theology demands that it be so. as said by another, this definitely smacks of eisogesis. we cannot properly make this conclusion (either with this or with Jesus' prayer for forgiveness on the cross) without any evidence to support it other than our theology. it is better to not comment on the issue or to admit ignorance than it is to dogmatically state something which has no basis whatsoever beyond our theology.

[tomas1]

tomas1, are you suggesting that God has a relationship with everything? Does God have a relationship with the tree in my front yard?

I think to some extent yes. I see every part of creation as having a unique purpose and God as Creator having satisfaction that each part (even the reprobate) fulfills it's purpose well. This is however speculation on my part and I hate it when people speculate.
I do think that Scripture is plain that God cares for all of his creation even trees

[Skeuos Eleos]

Posted by Disciple:
an important element of the text is that it says that "...looking at him, He [Jesus] loved him." the fact that He looked at him probably has some exegetical significance as to how we should read this. i think this means no more than that Jesus had compassion for the man. He was saddened by His rejection of Jesus' message considering the man seemed desirous to at least come to Jesus and inquire as to what he must do to be saved. we definitely do not need to conclude that it was indeed certain that this young man was later saved just because our theology demands that it be so. as said by another, this definitely smacks of eisogesis. we cannot properly make this conclusion (either with this or with Jesus' prayer for forgiveness on the cross) without any evidence to support it other than our theology. it is better to not comment on the issue or to admit ignorance than it is to dogmatically state something which has no basis whatsoever beyond our theology.Surely it is also eisogesis to say that Jesus "was saddened by His rejection"?

Just as you say that those who deny that God loves the reprobate are interpreting this verse this way based on their "theology", surely this could be true the other way around? Doesn't implying that Jesus' love of the rich young man is proof of God's love to the reprobate also have "no basis whatsoever beyond (the) theology" of those who favor that view? I trust you can see that I could equally argue that the phrase "looking at him" emphasise Jesus' (elected) love for Him?

Actually, if I recall correctly, this verse was originally offered as proof of (some kind of) love of God for the reprobate, so if we can agree that it can be interpreted two ways and so does not resolve the issue then we will need to look elsewhere for evidence of this love.

(earnestly trying to be sure his motive is only) Soli Deo Gloria,
Martin

[disciple]

Surely it is also eisogesis to say that Jesus "was saddened by His rejection"?

Just as you say that those who deny that God loves the reprobate are interpreting this verse this way based on their "theology", surely this could be true the other way around? Doesn't implying that Jesus' love of the rich young man is proof of God's love to the reprobate also have "no basis whatsoever beyond (the) theology" of those who favor that view? I trust you can see that I could equally argue that the phrase "looking at him" emphasise Jesus' (elected) love for Him?

Actually, if I recall correctly, this verse was originally offered as proof of (some kind of) love of God for the reprobate, so if we can agree that it can be interpreted two ways and so does not resolve the issue then we will need to look elsewhere for evidence of this love.

(earnestly trying to be sure his motive is only) Soli Deo Gloria,
Martinmy point was that the love spoken of here had something to do with Christ looking at him. my suggestion is that exegetically what it is referring to is something Christ saw--i.e., it was something about the rich young ruler what was perhaps visually motivated. i think that the look is exegetically significant (it is not there for no reason). my point is also that this does not refer to a divine electing love and there is absolutely nothing in the context which suggests that it should be so understood (aside from the dubious semantic fallacy of AGAPAW/AGAPH).

[Skeuos Eleos]

I agree that the look is probably exegetically significant but to me it increases the case for this speaking of Jesus' love for one of His Sheep. Anyway, as WB said the commentaries seem to be divided and I doubt we will be able to prove this one way or the other.

I understand your point but I am not sure as to whether you understand mine! i.e. just as you say "there is absolutely nothing in the context which suggests that it should refer to a divine electing love" so I say there is also nothing in the context that suggests that it refers to a love for a reprobate! That is why this verse was originally brought up!
Originally posted by Tumbleweed:
does not this verse itself explicitly set forth God's love for one not elect to eternal life? Not only do I believe that it does not do that but I also maintain that it does not fit with countless other scriptures which speak of God's hatred for the wicked and I maintain that, since God is perfect, he has only perfect, unchanging love, and that this love is for His Elect only.

I recognise that we use the word love in a variety of ways and I can understand how some might want to use this word to describe God's temporary benevolence to the wicked. However, I want to stick with what the bible reveals about God's love, eg.

This is how we know what love is: Jesus Christ laid down his life for us. (1 John 3:16)

9This is how God showed his love among us: He sent his one and only Son into the world that we might live through him. 10 This is love: not that we loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son as an atoning sacrifice for our sins.
(1 John 4:9-10)

And even the 'love' shown by a Christian to someone who, unbeknown to them, is a reprobate, serves only to further condemn them. (Pr 25:21-22 / Rom 12:20).

Grace and peace,
Martin

Martin

[Brandan Kraft]

When we can't figure out what a verse is saying through raw exegesis we need to apply that wonderful reformation principle of the analogy of faith. We need to let Scripture interpret Scripture. :D

[disciple]

When we can't figure out what a verse is saying through raw exegesis we need to apply that wonderful reformation principle of the analogy of faith. We need to let Scripture interpret Scripture. :Dbut for the analogy of faith to specifically apply here, it would require another verse telling us that the rich young ruler came to faith. my contention is that we should plead ignorance with this specific case since it nowhere says he ever came to faith and as others have said the text implies that he never did. in addition, this text should not be used to prove either position as we don't have enough information to come to a dogmatic conclusion.

[Brandan Kraft]

but for the analogy of faith to specifically apply here, it would require another verse telling us that the rich young ruler came to faith. my contention is that we should plead ignorance with this specific case since it nowhere says he ever came to faith and as others have said the text implies that he never did. in addition, this text should not be used to prove either position as we don't have enough information to come to a dogmatic conclusion.:) Doug, my point is this, and Martin summed it well, but I'll repeat it :D

We have several passages of Scripture telling us that God has set His love on His elect in eternity and we have several passages of Scripture telling us that God has set His hatred on the reprobate in eternity. Nowhere in Scriptures do we learn that God loves the reprobate. Here we see in this passage that God appears to love the reprobate in a non-salvific way. If that is the case, then this verse stands in direct contradiction to the entire tenor of Scripture? Does the Bible contradict itself? I say no - it's a complete harmonious system of truth that does not contain paradoxes. Since we believe that Scripture should shed light on Scripture and since we cannot seem to exegetically resolve this passage within its local context, we have to believe that God is loving this rich young ruler in a salvific way! No other passage in Scripture would allow any other type of love for Jesus to have on this wretched soul. To suggest otherwise is to destroy our systematic! We absolutely must allow the rest of Scripture to trump our exegetical leanings when our leanings show us to be in direct contradiction to the Bible as a whole. :p

[Brandan Kraft]

but for the analogy of faith to specifically apply here, it would require another verse telling us that the rich young ruler came to faith. my contention is that we should plead ignorance with this specific case since it nowhere says he ever came to faith and as others have said the text implies that he never did. in addition, this text should not be used to prove either position as we don't have enough information to come to a dogmatic conclusion.Further, we can't plead ignorance here. To say it's neither salvific love nor non-electing love is to say it's one or the other but we don't know for sure. If we don't know, then we have to allow the rest of Scripture to state what kind of love this is. Contextual exegesis is great - we need more of it to understand the Scriptures, but when there are gray areas we can faithfully depend on the rest Scritpure to shed the light of understanding on these areas when contextual exegesis fails us.

[tomas1]

Dr Gill said: Nowhere in Scriptures do we learn that God loves the reprobate.


If you put the rich young ruler passage beside the people at the foot of the cross and Jesus weeping for Jerusalem and all the other passages that have been brought up in this thread and the many others that have not it does look as though that is just what we are being taught.

It seems to me that we are jumping through hoops to explain away these passages because they don’t fit in our theology. Given the choice I know we would rather let the scripture stand and our theology bend any day

[wildboar]

Murray and others have made the accusation that those who deny the well-meant offer and common grace are hyper-Calvinists. This is a very harsh accusation. If I accuse someone of murder, I must prove that they have actually committed murder. If I provide no such proof, the other person has complete right to call me a bumbling idiot. I only wish that Murray was a bumbling idiot, but he's not. He knows exactly what he is doing. Murray has not shown from Calvin or the reformed confessions that those whom he accuses are actually hyper-Calvinists. He has simply used the dreaded name to sway the ignorant to his position. His organization has castrated Pink's book and set up Spurgeon as the standard of orthodoxy. I think calling them bumbling idiots is being too kind. This has nothing to do with proving I am right, but silencing those who bring accusations against great men of God and have no interest in answering the true objections brought against their position.

Sola Gratia,

WildBoar

[Brandan Kraft]

He knows exactly what he is doing. Murray has not shown from Calvin or the reformed confessions that those whom he accuses are actually hyper-Calvinists. He has simply used the dreaded name to sway the ignorant to his position.Exactly. What's worse is he's exalted WESLEY.... let me repeat that... JOHN WESLEY THE HERETIC has now been honored and esteemed in Murray's latest book. Yet, John Gill and those of us who think like him have been portrayed as heretics of the worst sort. Now you tell me why I shouldn't consider the banner of Truth to be psuedo Arminian? Granted, these brethren are Calvinists, but they seem to be so reluctantly.


His organization has castrated Pink's book...Right again. The Banner of Truth when publishing Pink's book, The Sovereignty of God, left out three chapters and all 4 appendices! From an article on the subject...
The Banner Muzzles A. W. Pink


In 1918, A. W. Pink wrote what is to this day a classic–The Sovereignty of God. In twelve chapters and four appendices, Pink clearly and powerfully put forth the glorious truths of God’s sovereignty over every aspect of His creation. He met his redeemer in July 1952. By 1959, the book had gone through six printings by the Bible Truth Depot.

In 1961, The Banner of Truth Trust printed what they called their "British Revised Edition" of Pink’s book. In the preface to this edition, the publishers note that "the contemporary value of the book could be increased by certain minor revisions and abridgements."17 What were these "minor" changes? THREE CHAPTERS and ALL FOUR APPENDICES were gone! In an unconscionable, sinister move, The Banner of Truth Trust whisked away 44% of the sections of Pink’s book; and it is obvious from the content of the censored chapters that it was because these chapters condemned as wickedness what The Banner of Truth Trust held dear. The chapters were: "The Sovereignty of God and Reprobation," "God’s Sovereignty and Human Responsibility," and "Difficulties and Objections." The appendices deal with the false distinction between decretive and permissive will, the foreordaining of the Fall, and treatments of John 3:16 and 1 John 2:2 to show that there is not a universal love or propitiation. And instead of leaving the remaining text alone, the publishers felt it necessary to include a footnote where Pink put forth the true Calvinist view of 1 Timothy 2:6, referring the reader to a Banner of Truth book "for another interpretation of this text."18

The following from the chapter on reprobation is an example of what was censored; see how Pink pointed the finger right at The Banner of Truth:


The thoughtful reader will naturally ask, And what of those who were not "ordained to eternal life?" The answer which is usually returned to this question, even by those who profess to believe what the Scriptures teach concerning God’s sovereignty, is, that God passes by the non-elect, leaves them alone to go their own way, and in the end casts them into the Lake of Fire because they refused His way, and rejected the Saviour of His providing. But this is only part of the truth; the other part–that which is most offensive to the carnal mind–is either ignored or denied. . . . He loves one and hates another. He exercises mercy toward some and hardens others, without reference to anything save His own sovereign will. That which is most repulsive to the carnal mind in the above verse is the reference to hardening–"whom He will He hardeneth"–and it is just here that so many commentators and expositors have adulterated the truth. . . . We ask our readers to mark well the above language. A perusal of it should show that what the present writer has advanced in this chapter is not "hyper-Calvinism" but real Calvinism, pure and simple. Our purpose in making this remark is to show that those who, not acquainted with Calvin’s writings, in their ignorance condemn as ultra-Calvinism that which is simply a reiteration of what Calvin himself taught–a reiteration because that prince of theologians as well as his humble debtor have both found this doctrine in the Word of God itself.19In his censored chapter on "Difficulties and Objections," Pink said this of universal love:


One of the most popular beliefs of the day is that God loves everybody. . . . So widely has this dogma been proclaimed, and so comforting is it to the heart which is at enmity with God we have little hope of convincing many of their error. . . . To tell the Christ-rejector that God loves him is to cauterize his conscience as well as to afford him a sense of security in his sins. The fact is, the love of God is a truth for the saints only, and to present it to the enemies of God is to take the children’s bread and cast it to the dogs.20In his censored chapter on "God’s Sovereignty and Human Responsibility," Pink said:


Others have acknowledged that the Scriptures present both the sovereignty of God and the responsibility of man but affirm that in our present finite condition and with our limited knowledge it is impossible to reconcile the two truths, though it is the bounden duty of the believer to receive both. The present writer believes that it has been too readily assumed that the Scriptures themselves do not reveal the several points which show the conciliation of God’s sovereignty and man’s responsibility.In other parts of the censored chapters, Pink addressed the verses that hypo-Calvinists (and Arminians) love to use and crushed all Arminian interpretation.

"Contemporary value of the book" indeed! These chapters were deleted to make the carnal minds of the hypo-Calvinists more soothed in their misunderstanding and misapplication of God’s Holy Word. The Banner of Truth Trust, in a very underhanded way, sought to adulterate the truth of the complete sovereignty of God and pass it off as a full representation of A. W. Pink’s views. This is a serious, serious sin.

Did not someone print The Forgotten Spurgeon, asserting that there were some who were printing materials by Spurgeon and leaving out his Calvinism? Perhaps a book should be published entitled The Forgotten Pink, in which the censored sections of the book are reprinted. The book would certainly expose The Banner of Truth Trust and all hypo-Calvinists throughout history as undermining the doctrine of the sovereignty of God. (Marc Carpenter, Trinity Review)The Sovereignty of God by Arthur Pink was written when he was newly converted. Pink I believe had been a Christian for less than 10 years and in my opinion is brilliant. It is the best introductory book on the subject of Calvinism I've ever read. Everyone here should own a copy of it.


and set up Spurgeon as the standard of orthodoxy.Exactly... Since when did Spurgeon become the standard for everything? Instead of calling us hyper-calvinists, banner of truth should call us hyper-spurgeonists because we dared to go further than Spurgeon in our understanding of Scripture. I adore Spurgeon and his sermons. I love reading from his works (I have every single one of his writings). But when it comes to exegesis, there were much better exegetes than him.


I think calling them bumbling idiots is being too kind. This has nothing to do with proving I am right, but silencing those who bring accusations against great men of God and have no interest in answering the true objections brought against their position.It does appear that the Banner of Truth is more interested in attacking those they disagree with. They do have an agenda, and they are far from idiots.

Brandan

p.s. Attached for your reading pleasure - the Sovereignty of God by Arthur Pink.

[Brandan Kraft]

Good letter on the hyper-calvinism controversy by George Ella:
An Open Letter to Thomas Ascol and Earnest C. Reisiger, Editors of The Foundation Journal.



Dear Brethren in Christ,

You will be aware that until the late eighties in Britain and on the Continent of Europe, the issue of Calvinism v. Hyper-Calvinism was not a major factor in evangelical debate. There is much evidence to suggest that it was not even a minor factor. After 1988, however, certain orthodox Calvinistic leaders had a frightening vision of Hyper-Calvinism flooding evangelicalism. They took this as a sign from God, authorising them to make the combating of Hyper-Calvinism a major issue in their programme of evangelism.

Since then, it appears that there has been a revival of Hyper-Calvinism in Great Britain and The Netherlands and the campaigners against it now feel justified in their action. What appears to be, does not always reflect what is. Cleansing the churches of Hyper-Calvinism has become an issue throughout evangelical and reformed churches. This debate is, however, back-firing on the intentions of its sponsors. It is doing tremendous harm and limiting the spread of the gospel radically. It has resulted in brother being suspicious of brother and one cannot help noticing that brethren are being unjustly accused of Hyper-Calvinism who were, according to former standards, quite orthodox. Those who preach God's sovereignty, election, predestination and effectual atonement now seem invariably to be labelled 'Hypers'. With their backs to the wall, these men are becoming over-suspicious of their accusers and over-reacting. They are tempted to view others as Arminians merely because they say that God is love, Jesus wept over Jerusalem and the gospel ought to be preached to all men everywhere as the Spirit leads. What is actually happening is that the full gospel of redemption through our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ is being split down the middle and two conflicting gospels are being artificially created. Striving to heal the breach, some brethren, hopelessly out of their depth theologically, are saying that there is a third gospel, which is the true gospel, namely the gospel of paradox. It all reminds one of Babel! What is more, none of these gospels is being preached with a view to the conversion of souls but with a view to scoring over the alleged enemy.

You have both set up two highly dubious theories which echo the manifestos of the present sponsors of the Hyper-Calvinism controversy. You maintain that where orthodox Calvinism is alive and active, Hyper-Calvinism will raise its ugly head. This theory destroys itself as it works both ways. Hyper-Calvinism was almost none existent until the recent debate started. This suggests to me that when the orthodox faith is strong, Hyper-Calvinism fears to show its ugly face. On the other hand, there is ample evidence to show that, because of the present debate, full reformed preaching has been weakened greatly and, if we are to believe recent articles of yours, Hyper-Calvinism was never such a threat as now.

The second dubious theory is to use the maxim "Forewarned is fore-armed" as a reason for diverting evangelical energies into highly-controversial side-tracks. This reminds me of the 'reforms' in sex education in schools. Teach the kids sex from Kindergarten age and there will be fewer illegitimate children, they told us in the sixties. Of course, human nature being what it is, there are so many illegitimate children nowadays, they have stopped even calling them such and the practice receives general approval. Since then marriage itself is deemed by many as a superfluous binding. Here in Holland (I live near the border), liberal teaching on drugs and liberal access to them were initially designed to put people off drugs. Now Holland has a terrible problem with escalating drug addiction. In moral and spiritual things, given the perversity of man, to forewarn is often to disarm! It is obvious for all to see that the present debate which has been artificially thrust upon us for the alleged purpose of forewarning us is producing the very state against which we are supposed to be warned. Actually, you contradict yourselves here. The realist in you sometimes triumphs over the theorist. You both believe that there has been a renewal of Calvinism which has not been accompanied by a growth of Hyper-Calvinism. Then why pretend that it has? Why write articles such as If I were your son . . . and An Open Letter About Spurgeon v. Hyper-Calvinism as if Hyper-Calvinism is, very much with us (Ascol) or, banging at the door (Reisinger)? Why are you calling 'Fire' when not even yourselves have seen a blaze or even a puff of smoke? Why cause panic?

What is strange about your articles is that you write of Hyper-Calvinism as if everybody knew what you were talking about. I must be a very poor reader as I became quite frustrated trying to imagine just to whom you were referring as you never told me. Then, right at the end of the issue, you make an attempt at a definition. If this had been put at the beginning, you would have helped readers no end. There is much in the definition which suggests that what Americans call Hyper-Calvinism is different to what is claimed in Britain. Yours is also more theologically defensible. It would thus pay you to be more cautious about what British views you let loose on your churches with the latest 1,500 free copy offer of Iain Murray's latest book. Iain has made it quite clear that his criteria are different. Much broader and with intricate detail but not allowing for freedom of conscience on these matters. They have become a new kind of Traditions of the Elders. The broader the surface of an argument, the more it leaves itself open to criticism.

The Banner's is a system of negatives. Hyper-Calvinists are those who do not preach the gospel to unbelievers; do not believe that a sinner need not be made 'sensible' by the Spirit before becoming aware of his lost state; do not believe that saving faith is a duty of the law; do not preach that every sinner can be guaranteed salvation; do not use terms such as 'the free offer` because they have become ambiguous and are not Scriptural; do not believe that the flesh cannot be made righteous; do not believe that election and predestination are on reception; do not hold that justification is merely 'as if'; do not believe that repentance and faith are human conditions of salvation but believe that all conditions for our salvation were settled by Christ; do not refer to Christ's sufferings alone as the condition of salvation but also to his obedience to the law; do not believe that Christ was above the law and had no need to fulfil it in all respects; do not accept that Christ did not put Himself under the law and have no teaching on holiness which they feel is 'imputed' only.

These are items I have picked up recently in the evangelical press and from regular correspondence with some fifty friends and critics. If I thought about the matter longer, I would certainly remember more. I am not saying even Iain uses all these criteria, though I suspect he uses most. His followers are either slowly coming into this kind of thinking or quickly leaving so they do not necessary hold to all these points. As you will clearly see, most of these denials were common to our Reformers and preachers of the 18th century revival, including absolute jewels of orthodoxy such as Whitefield and Hervey. Actually the only safe pointer of Hyper-Calvinism which would come near your definition is not preaching to unbelievers. Sad, for them, however, the Bannerites have not come up with one person's name who did not preach to believers, although they have claimed that a number of preachers to thousands have held such ideas. I would add not seeing the need for holiness to my definition of an imaginary Hyper-Calvinist. I have never met such a 'Christian', nor read of one. My humble opinion is that these guys just do not exist and the whole exercise that Iain has set on foot is one unholy waste of good gospel time. If you examine the Bannerite or Hulsean, (call it what you will), view of Hyper-Calvinism, you will find that the only men, historically speaking, who are exempt from suspicion are Latitudinarians, Neo-Platonists, Fullerites, Chandlerians and the New Divinity School. People, of course, who skated on the far borders of orthodoxy. Even Andrew Fuller would not be fully exempt because of his views of the gospel as explained to Button and Taylor.

Holding this extreme negative view, has, indeed, made Bannerism, as it has come to be called, rub out the names of many saints from their book of orthodoxy. Think of John Brown of Whitburn. He was judged as 'moderate' by his contemporaries. He wrote that a wise preacher who was grounded in the Scriptures would not use the following 'unevangelical expressions':

"God is reconcilable; Make your peace with God; Sinners may hope in God, but they must not immediately appropriate him; Fall in with the terms of the gospel; Christ and salvation are freely offered to penitent sinners; Fulfil the conditions of the covenant on your part, and God will fulfil those on his."
This 'moderate' would be accused by today's Bannerite enthusiasts as been the rankest Hyper-Calvinist. Brown was thinking of gentle James Hervey's all-round ministry when he complimented him in this way. Hervey, whom Balleine sees as the first evangelical pastor in the Midlands and Whitefield pronounced him one of the holiest men this world had ever seen. Read Hervey on the distinction between law and gospel. All duties are under the law. Everything pertaining to faith and salvation are under the gospel. There was no law-gospel mishmash for him! Wesley told Hervey that he was an Antinomian. Bannerism would agree but they claim not to be Arminians themselves but reformed men. Think too of Whitefield and Romaine on actual justification. It was Whitefield's sermon on justification which sealed Hervey's salvation but this sermon is Antinomian to modern hunters of Hyper-Calvinists. Romaine has already been thrown out by the Banner. Did not Iain deny in a Banner article that we are justified for real! And did not Romaine stress that our justification is actual? Now we are told by the Banner that Romaine was unbalanced with an unscriptural view of faith (the same as most of his evangelical contemporaries) defective in his spiritual, evangelical and experimental works, a school master to bring the soul to 'theoretical Antinomianism’, he 'rested upon a basis of sovereign mercy' and could only be understood by the intelligent etc. etc.. My own personal opinion is that the one who is guilty of such libel opens himself to the charge of practical Antinomianism. As you see, resting on God's sovereignty is a red rag to some theological bullies. I could go on through dozens of the saints who are all rapidly coming under Banner broadsides. Think of Robert Hawker, for instance. Once the doyen of evangelicals, praised by the ex-prostitutes, old soldiers, down and outs and African believers whom he helped to glory, his orthodoxy is now called 'dangerous' and even 'poison'. A Strict Baptist library known to me used to be manned by Gillites and bought all of his and Hawker's books. Now they are giving them away because they do not want them to pollute their library. Actually, they really ought to burn them to be consistent! Look at the old Bulletins of the British Strict Baptist Historical Society. I could say 'Yea and Amen' to those of up to even a few years ago but now they are praising the very off-line men whom they disowned previously. Talk of winds of change! What is crystal clear is that Bannerism has no eyes for true Hyper-Calvinism as defined by you. The people whom they are against believe in preaching to sinners just as much as the best of us. Indeed, they are the best of us. These men have also a high standard of holiness, so I am satisfied with them, even if Mr. Murray is not.

My next open letter to you will be on the subject of the Banner's misuse of Spurgeon for ulterior motives and show how Brother Reisinger's strange usage of Spurgeon, following Mr Murray, cannot possibly help solve any problems whatsoever and, indeed is fully designed to create new ones. I do really think Spurgeon has not deserved to be used in Mr. Murray's advertising campaign like this. Spurgeon, is far nearer Gill and Huntington than he is Grotius and Chandler. But as he says himself, it is impossible to be always consistent. Who will criticise that? It is, however, inconsistent with the testimony of a professed Calvinist such as Iain, to quote Spurgeon so often as if he were forcing him to appear not only inconsistent but as an out and out Arminian. He has been persistently provoking fellow Calvinists with carefully culled words of Spurgeon to provoke their opposition, only to gloat and taunt them for being anti-Spurgeon. Few of Iain's so-called Hypers show such disrespect to Spurgeon.

In closing, I must ask Brother Reisinger to consider Jim Packer's use of Spurgeon in his Preface to Owen's Death of Death, where a Spurgeon emerges, sympathetic to me but would make a number of Mr. Murray's people feel uncomfortable. Think, too of Spurgeon's words in his autobiography against his brethren who felt that Jesus wished to save all men yet allowed those to go to hell for whom His death had atoned. Again, this would anger many of Mr. Murray's followers. May I refer you, Brother Ascol to the Witsius you love? I hear that my article on Witsius in the ET angered one director of the EP, a very hot anti-Antinomian man, so much that he asked for a ban on my articles. May I ask you to go through Witsius with which ever Bannerite comes your way and discuss him on the law, on faith, on righteousness, on justification, on the covenant of works, on the covenant of Christ with his Father and of the covenant of Christ with his elect and even on effectual calling. You will be surprised how many enemies you will suddenly make. Dear Brethren, the Scriptures tell us that if our own eyes offend us, we should pluck them out. It does not tell us to pluck out the offending eyes of our brethren. The reason for the present Hyper-Calvinist controversy grew on British soil, it has been fought out on British and European soil and has caused enough havoc there. Can you give me one good reason why this plague of plagues should be let loose on the Southern Baptists as if you were doing them a good turn? Do you want to go down in history as the two men who brought the Southern Baptists to their knees, not in prayer but in chains of madness and controversy?

May we all have the vision, understanding and brotherly love of both Spurgeon and Witsius - and the patience of Job with one another!

[Brandan Kraft]

Here is what the REAL Spurgeon had to say about hyper-calvinism:

Oh! there be some, the moment they hear that word, election, put their hands upon their foreheads, and mutter, "I will wait till that sentence is over, there will be something I shall like better, perhaps." Some others say, "I shall not go to that place again; the man is a hyper-Calvinist." But the man is not a hyper-Calvinist; the man said what was in his Bible — that is all. He is a Christian, and you have no right to call him by those ill-names, if indeed an ill- name it be, for we never blush at whatever men do call us. (Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit V.1 No. 11 Feb 25, 1855, The People's Christ)

[disciple]

It seems to me that we are jumping through hoops to explain away these passages because they don’t fit in our theology. Given the choice I know we would rather let the scripture stand and our theology bend any dayand this goes both ways. wildboar, brandan, skeuos, et al i'm not trying to take sides here i'm just calling for balance both ways. i don't think that murray's tactics are right any more than any hard supralapsarian who accuses all infralapsarians as being pseudo-arminians. name calling, straw men, caricatures, etc. are wrong whoever it is who is doing it (even if they do agree with me).

i've said this before and i'll say it again, i want to attempt to understand both sides and listen and avoid slamming anyone as much as possible. i want to believe the best about these folks (from both sides). their motives may indeed be malicious and tactics may be wrong but i see this same thing from both sides. i'm not going to call one side pseudo-arminians any more than i'm going to call the other side hyper-calvinists because i truly believe that both are trying to be honest with what they believe the Scriptures say and to be faithful in their exegesis or systematic. i also can see an exegetical basis for each side. they believe the texts under discussion say a particular thing and they try and be consistent with that. the problem is that they don't agree on the exegesis of the texts or on the exact system of how it all works together. i know which i think is more faithful to the plain reading of the text but i want to leave open the possibility that i might be wrong.

as thomas said, i would much rather say my system is wrong (or flawed) than to try and bend the Scripture to fit my system. my goal is to develop an exegetical theology and allow the Scripture to speak for itself. if it contradicts my system then so be it...perhaps my system is flawed or perhaps i don't have full knowledge of how it all works. the plain reading of Scripture is the standard, not my understanding of how it works and how i can systemitize it. it may be that my interpretation is wrong and the system is right but i want to allow the option that perhaps my pre-committed system doesn't have all of the answers. what i want to protect myself against and what i see so often in myself and others is bringing my pre-committed grid and forcing the Scriptures into it. i know it is impossible to avoid presuppositions, but i want to prevent them as much as possible from coloring my reading of the text thereby letting the Scripture say what it plainly says.

all this to say that i understand what both sides are saying, i see exegetical bases for each, i'm unwilling to call either names (whether it be hyper-calvinist or pseudo-arminian), and i'm unwilling to judge either side for trying to be faithful with their understanding of the Scripture. if i decide that the anti-common grace side is more accurate, i'm not going to chide those who read the texts differently than i do but remain committed to the doctrines of grace. i will continue to appreciate their contribution to the issue and to value their perspective. therefore if you observe a tendency in me to be non-commital here it is because of what i've said above. so please everyone, do not try and pigeon-hole me and place me on either side. thanks.

[Brandan Kraft]

therefore if you observe a tendency in me to be non-commital here it is because of what i've said above. so please everyone, do not try and pigeon-hole me and place me on either side. thanks.Why you... you.... er... YOU LIBERAL ARMINIAN YOU!!!!! :p :p :p :p :p (just kidding)

[disciple]

Why you... you.... er... YOU LIBERAL ARMINIAN YOU!!!!! :p :p :p :p :p (just kidding)thanks...i love you too ;)

[Skeuos Eleos]

Brandan, I think the articles on the censure of Pink and the hyper-calvinism controversy were absolutely excellent. I do not support name-calling or labelling but I do think those things needed to be said.

Disciple, it may be obvious from my posts which way I lean but I certainly do not pretend to have it all figured out. Indeed, my motives for posting are just as much to help confirm, and correct if necessary, my own understanding as to help others. If I have offended or labelled then I am sorry. I do not wish to cause any division to the body. I realise that I am at least as guilty as the next person in trying to make scriptures fit my understanding and I do try to avoid this. But I do earnestly want to understand as much of God's purposes in this matter as I can and so I hope we can continue the discussion by focussing on the scriptures.

I do think Brandan makes some good points though about allowing the "rest of Scripture to shed the light of understanding on these areas when contextual exegesis fails us". If we can all accept for the moment though that the rich young ruler is conclusive neither way then I still believe the burden falls on the advocates of common love to establish this doctrine since I cannot but help notice that the verses which speak of God's hatred of the wicked are undisputed and not contended and yet there have been no scriptures given, as yet, that I can recall, that clearly establish this love of God.

Tomas, you mention that there are several verses other than the rich young ruler, perhaps you could start by posting one or more with than explanation as to why you think it teaches a universal love of God?

Soli Deo Gloria,
Martin

[Skeuos Eleos]

PS and I do hope that this discussion can continue in a way that even Brandan's sense of humour can be enjoyed by all. :D


Martin

[disciple]

If we can all accept for the moment though that the rich young ruler is conclusive neither way then I still believe the burden falls on the advocates of common love to establish this doctrine since I cannot but help notice that the verses which speak of God's hatred of the wicked are undisputed and not contended and yet there have been no scriptures given, as yet, that I can recall, that clearly establish this love of God.

Tomas, you mention that there are several verses other than the rich young ruler, perhaps you could start by posting one or more with than explanation as to why you think it teaches a universal love of God?i don't want to answer for thomas but the several verses that are often read variously as i mentioned before are Lk 14:23, John 3:15-17, 2 Co 5:17-19, 1 Tim 2:4, Titus 2:11, and 2 Peter 3:9. additional verses are Ps 145:9; Mt 5:43ff, 9:36, 14:14, 15:32; Lk 6:35; Acts 14:17; 17:31 et al.

following is a summary of da carson's book "difficult doctrine of the love of God":

http://www.antithesis.com/features/love_01.html

here is a quote:


God's providential love over all that he has made. By and large the Bible veers away from using the word love in this connection, but the theme is not hard to find. God creates everything, and before there is a whiff of sin, he pronounces all that he has made to be "good" (Gen. 1). This is the product of a loving Creator. The Lord Jesus depicts a world in which God clothes the grass of the fields with the glory of wildflowers seen by no human being, perhaps, but seen by God. The lion roars and hauls down its prey, but it is God who feeds the animal. The birds of the air find food, but that is the result of God's loving providence, and not a sparrow falls from the sky apart from the sanction of the Almighty (Matt. 6). If this were not a benevolent providence, a loving providence, then the moral lesson that Jesus drives home, viz. that this God can be trusted to provide for his own people, would be incoherent.
God's salvific stance toward his fallen world. God so loved the world that he gave his Son (John 3:16). I know that some try to take kosmos ("world") here to refer to the elect. But that really will not do. All the evidence of the usage of the word in John's Gospel is against the suggestion. True, world in John does not so much refer to bigness as to badness. In John's vocabulary, world is primarily the moral order in willful and culpable rebellion against God. In John 3:16 God's love in sending the Lord Jesus is to be admired not because it is extended to so big a thing as the world, but to so bad a thing; not to so many people, as to such wicked people. Nevertheless elsewhere John can speak of "the whole world" (1 John 2:2), thus bringing bigness and badness together. More importantly, in Johannine theology the disciples themselves once belonged to the world but were drawn out of it (e.g., John 15:19). On this axis, God's love for the world cannot be collapsed into his love for the elect.

The same lesson is learned from many passages and themes in Scripture. However much God stands in judgment over the world, he also presents himself as the God who invites and commands all human beings to repent. He orders his people to carry the Gospel to the farthest corner of the world, proclaiming it to men and women everywhere. To rebels the sovereign Lord calls out,


As surely as I live ... I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but rather that they turn from their ways and live. Turn! Turn from your evil ways! Why will you die, O house of Israel?
| Ezek. 33:11 |

[Brandan Kraft]

I saw this picture on that article disciple linked to:
http://www.5solas.org/images/smile_god_loves_you.gif

The thought of God's love brings me such joy and comfort. Yet to say to all men that God loves them is to tell a lie. God may hate them. And that should cause men to tremble in fear.

Brandan

[disciple]

The thought of God's love brings me such joy and comfort. Yet to say to all men that God loves them is to tell a lie. God may hate them. And that should cause men to tremble in fear.carson makes some very insightful comments in his article:




To put this another way, we live in a culture in which many other and complementary truths about God are widely disbelieved. I do not think that what the Bible says about the love of God can long survive at the forefront of our thinking if it is abstracted from the sovereignty of God, the holiness of God, the wrath of God, the providence of God, or the personhood of God — to mention only a few nonnegotiable elements of basic Christianity.

The result, of course, is that the love of God in our culture has been purged of anything the culture finds uncomfortable. The love of God has been sanitized, democratized, and above all sentimentalized. This process has been going on for some time. My generation was taught to sing, "What the world needs now is love, sweet love," in which we robustly instruct the Almighty that we do not need another mountain (we have enough of them), but we could do with some more love. The hubris is staggering.

It has not always been so. In generations when almost everyone believed in the justice of God, people sometimes found it difficult to believe in the love of God. The preaching of the love of God came as wonderful good news. Nowadays if you tell people that God loves them, they are unlikely to be surprised. Of course God loves me; he's like that, isn't he? Besides, why shouldn't he love me? I'm kind of cute, or at least as nice as the next person. I'm okay, you're okay, and God loves you and me.

Even in the mid-1980s, according to Andrew Greeley, three-quarters of his respondents in an important poll reported that they preferred to think of God as "friend" than as "king." I wonder what the percentage would have been if the option had been "friend" or "judge." Today most people seem to have little difficulty believing in the love of God; they have far more difficulty believing in the justice of God, the wrath of God, and the noncontradictory truthfulness of an omniscient God. But is the biblical teaching on the love of God maintaining its shape when the meaning of "God" dissolves in mist?

[Tumbleweed]

Hope you can make sense of this, as my quotations from Brandon did not highlight for some reason - Paul.


"Hmmm, would you please continue with this thought. Why does God have to love a creature made in His own image?" The short answer here would be that of your namesake: "Because the thing God loves most of all is Himself." Under any circumstance, the reason for God's love of man lies in Himself, not in us. Therefore, purely for the sake of His own image and likeness, He has grounds for love.


"The creatures made in His image are sent to hell, does He love these people in hell too?"Yes. ( I don't have to say again that this is not the same as electing love, do I?)


"God loves and hates people based on His good pleasure and will. That is His basis for everything. If we have that as the basis for everything, then indeed, love and hate for an object are paradoxical. If we however take our eyes off of God's sovereign will for a moment, then yes, I can see how you might think that God loves and hates at the same time due to different bases. But you are supposing that God's basis for love is the same as man's and that is a critical mistake as the Bible never gives us a reason for His love other than it's His desire." Now, as Calvinists who love to haggle over the old Infra/Supra, Labrador/Retreiver controversy, we surely admit to the importance of perceiving things in an orderly way. Are you saying that God's loving precedes His electing? If so, our terminology has been askew, because the real soteriological mystery is not His electing grace but His "loving grace" upon which election must necessarily follow. What I'm saying is this: Does not the scripture uniformly present God's electing as having the priority, and that we are loved for a disceranble reason? (IE: Because He has chosen us to be His own.) To some this may seem like splitting hairs, but the difference is important. If He loves the elect for the reason that they are His own, then He may logically have a form of love toward others upon a different basis, in the same way we humans do.


"Again, you're applying human emotions to God."How can this be objected to when He applies these to Himself constantly? Is He not an aggrieved husband of Israel, a joyful bridegroom to the church, a tender parent to His children, etc? And does this not reinforce the assertion that God loves and hates for discernable reasons?


"If you want to stick to this analogy, allow me to point out the critical error in your thinking. God does not see the reprobate as being in any particular relationship with Himself. So therefore He does not love him."I rather think you may be confusing "relationship" with fellowship. God does indeed have a Creator/created relationship to that tree in your front yard that you mentioned earlier, just as He has a relationship to (rather than with) everything else. I myself love trees, but have not so far contemplated fellowship with one!


"Are you a professor too?"No - Just a poorly-equipped pastor who conducts institute-level classes because I beleive they are an important part of feeding the Lord's sheep.

[edited by Dr. Gill - fixed quotes]

[Brandan Kraft]

No - Just a poorly-equipped pastor who conducts institute-level classes because I beleive they are an important part of feeding the Lord's sheep.Amen! I'm glad to hear that not all churches have abandoned systematic theology.

[Skeuos Eleos]

Disciple,

I do hope that we get to cover the scriptures you list but for now I'd like to comment on the quote by D A Carson.

One of the great things about these forums is, of course, that we can discuss things. If only we could involve those whom we quote in the discussions as well! For I would be interested to know how D A Carson would respond to these articles by Pink, Engelsma and Homer Hoeksema giving a more thorough and, I believe, more credible interpretation of John 3:16 and 1 John 2:2:

Pink: Sovereignty of God Appendix 4 (http://www.pbministries.org/books/pink/Sovereignty/appendix_04.htm)

GOD SO LOVED THE WORLD (http://www.prca.org/pamphlets/pamphlet_52.html)

(Thankyou WB for introducing me to PRCA pamphlets!)

Martin

[Brandan Kraft]

(Thankyou WB for introducing me to PRCA pamphlets!)Herman Hoeksema, and later his son Homer have really been helpful to the body of Christ. I may be a baptist, but I recognize good theologians when I see them! The history of the PRC is really interesting! Had the CRC not fallen into the common grace error, I wonder if there would have been a PRC?


http://www.5solas.org/images/hoeksema.jpg


In 1924, a 38-year-old preacher by the name of Herman Hoeksema was the center of controversy in the Christian Reformed Church (CRC). The CRC had come out with its "Three Points of Common Grace" that included a section stating that God, in the general offer of the Gospel, exhibits a favorable attitude toward humanity in general. Hoeksema contended that this was not Reformed and resolved to continue preaching the unadulterated truth -- that Gospel preaching serves as grace to the elect and a means of hardening to the reprobate. He and two other ministers, Henry Danhof and George Ophoff, were expelled from the CRC for refusing to express agreement with the CRC's view of common grace. Out of this break came the Protestant Reformed Churches.

For almost 50 years, Hoeksema was the pastor of First Protestant Reformed Church in Grand Rapids, Michigan. For almost 40 of those years, he occupied the Chair of Dogmatics at the Theological School of the Protestant Reformed Churches. He wrote many works, including a massive three-volume exposition of the Heidelberg Catechism entitled The Triple Knowledge. It has become apparent from his works that Herman Hoeksema was the greatest theologian of the twentieth century.

Throughout his time in the PRC, Hoeksema worked on a systematic theology that he hoped would eventually be published. Although he completed the work, he never got to see it published, as he died in 1965. The Reformed Free Publishing Association published Reformed Dogmatics in 1966 with a subject and Scripture index.

Reformed Dogmatics is unique, not because of how it is set up (six loci: Theology, Anthropology, Christology, Soteriology, Ecclesiology, and Eschatology), but because of its clear and uncompromising stance. There was no attempt to "balance" God's particular grace with a universal grace or "balance" reprobation with a well-meant offer. Professing Calvinist G.C. Berkouwer, in his book Divine Election, decried Hoeksema's black-and-white theology and theocentricity, saying that Hoeksema "proceeded from sharp light and black shadow, God's eternal love and hatred ... [T]he aspects of sovereignty are overemphasized at the cost of the harmony of Scripture. ... Hoeksema sees everything in the light of his severe concept of predestination which limits the kerygma to the elect and withholds it from the reprobate." Praise God for such a narrow-minded systematic theology.

The following are some areas in which Hoeksema differed from the mainstream of professedly Reformed thought.

1. The biblical view of the eternal decrees of God is supralapsarian. God actively decreed both election and reprobation; He did not merely "leave the reprobate in their sin." "[W]hat is first in the decree is last in the execution of it. It is in the nature of the case that in the historical sense of the word creation and the fall precede the execution of election. Thus it is always with the execution of a decree, or a plan, and the plan itself. When I make a plan of a house, the very first element in the plan is my purpose to live or to dwell in the house; next, where and in what way I want to live; and finally, how the foundation of the house must be suitable to carry the house itself. That is the supra order of the plan of a house. But in my execution of that plan the order becomes naturally infra. ... History presents to us the picture of God's decrees in reversed order; and if according to this principle I turn back on the historical line, the result is the supra order in the decree of God" (p. 162).

"According to supralapsarians, God destined certain men to damnation. According to infralapsarians, God merely passed them by in His eternal decree of election, and determined to leave them in the common misery into which they had wilfully plunged themselves, and determined not to bestow upon them saving faith and the grace of conversion ... In reality, the case stands thus, that infralapsarianism cannot find an answer to the question concerning reprobation. God, according to their presentation, is really arbitrary: He was able to save all men, but in His good pleasure He determined to leave some in their sin and damnation" (p. 164).

2. There is no such thing as God's "permissive will" as distinguished from His "determinative will." "Nor must we, in regard to the sinful deeds of men and devils, speak only of God's permission in distinction from His determination. Holy Scripture speaks a far more positive language. We realize, of course, that the motive for speaking of God's permission rather than of His determined will in regard to sin and the evil deeds of men is that God may never be presented as the author of sin. But this purpose is not reached by speaking of God's permission or His permissive will: for if the Almighty permits what He could just as well have prevented, it is from an ethical viewpoint the same as if He had committed it Himself. But in this way we lose God and His sovereignty: for permission presupposes the idea that there is a power without God that can produce and do something apart from Him, but which is simply permitted by God to act and operate. This is dualism, and it annihilates the complete and absolute sovereignty of God" (p. 158).

3. The Hodgian view of the Covenant of Works is unbiblical. "Hence, according to the presentation of Dr. Hodge, there would have come a moment in Adam's life, had he not sinned, when the period of probation was finished and when the promise would have been fulfilled to him, so that he would have entered into immortality and eternal life. He would have been changed. ... That the relation between God and Adam in the state of righteousness was a covenant relation we readily admit. But that this covenant should be an established agreement between Adam and his Creator, consisting of a condition, a promise, and a penalty, and that it was essentially a means whereby Adam might work himself up to the highest state of eternal life and heavenly glory that is now attained by the believers in Christ, we deny. ... it is quite impossible that man should merit a special reward with God" (pp. 216-217).

4. God decreed the fall for His own glory. "On the one hand, it is possible to conceive of the matter as if God really had a double counsel: one in which the Lord purposed to cause His creation to develop normally, in case Adam remained standing in his original integrity; the other in which He provided for the possibility of Adam's fall and for the salvation of His people in Christ Jesus. And of course, the latter happened. The outcome, of course, was in that case entirely contingent upon the free will of Adam. As far as creation itself is concerned, it is forevermore deplorable that the devil succeeded in his purpose to mar and spoil the beautiful works of God; and the work of salvation is after all repair work. Such a conception is really blasphemous: for it robs God of His honor, and to a large extent gives the devil and the forces of iniquity the victory" (p. 235).

5. Man completely lost the image of God and took on the image of Satan at the fall. The idea of common grace is unbiblical. "[T]hrough this fall the recipient of God's revelation was so changed and corrupted that he can no longer truly hear the Word of God. For he lost the image of God, and all his light was changed into darkness. ... And no 'natural theology' can ever be constructed by that fallen man! So darkened is his understanding that he will always lie about the living God" (pp. 41-42).

"Nor is the distinction an innocent one and without danger to true doctrine. It is dangerous because it prepares room for the further philosophy that there are remnants of the image of God left in fallen man, and that therefore the natural man cannot be wholly depraved. ... It is a distinction that lends itself very easily to support the view that there is a certain common grace by virtue of which natural man is not so depraved as without that grace he would have been. And if this is not a denial of the doctrine of total depravity, words certainly have lost their plain meaning" (p. 207).

"Through sin the whole relation of man to God was put into reverse. He lost the image of God, yea, that image turned into its very opposite. ... Instead of being consecrated to the living God, man, who fell into sin and death, was consecrated to the service of iniquity and of the devil" (p. 374).

6. God's covenants (including the covenant with Himself and the covenant with His people) are not conditional agreements between two parties. "However, as soon as we present the matter of the covenant in this wise, if the life of the covenant in God is such a life of most perfect friendship, of the most intimate communion, of the deepest knowledge and the most affectionate love, it follows, in the first place, that the idea of the covenant cannot be found in an agreement or pact. ... God knows and wills Himself, loves and seeks Himself eternally as the covenant God. The covenant is the bond of God to Himself. It is the eternal life of perfect light. ... If the essence of the covenant in God is the communion of friendship, this must also be the essence of the covenant between God and man. ... [The covenant] is the relation of the most intimate communion of friendship in which God reflects His own covenant life in His relation to the creature, gives to that creature life, and causes him to taste and acknowledge the highest good and the overflowing fountain of all good" (pp. 322-323).

7. The good things God gives to the reprobate do not show God's grace to them, and there are no "common operations of the Holy Spirit" in the unregenerate. "And therefore, the error of the Romanists concerning transubstantiation is not far different from the theory of common grace. It also postulates that grace is in things. The reprobate too receive many blessings from God: food and drink, life and health, etc. According to the defenders of this theory, all things are grace to the wicked, to the reprobate. And according to them, even the preaching of the Word is grace to all that hear. And therefore, we must insist that grace is never in things, that it is only through an operation of the Holy Spirit that we can receive grace, and that this operation of the Holy Spirit is only in the elect" (p. 715).

8. The preaching of the gospel is not God's grace to the reprobate. There is no universal well-meant gospel offer. "[T]he calling through the gospel does not come only to the elect, but also to the reprobate according to the good pleasure of God. And also this calling has significance, not only for the elect, but also for the reprobate. This significance certainly is not, as some have it, that this calling is grace for all that hear the gospel. ... Just as it is no grace when the darkness does not comprehend the light of the Logos, so the preaching of the gospel is no grace for those that are lost. Neither on the part of God, Who causes the gospel to be preached unto them, nor on the part of the hearers, who without the regenerating and illuminating grace of the Holy Spirit always reject that gospel, can it be called grace when a reprobate is under the calling of God through the gospel. Grace is never general, but always particular" (p. 470).

"It stands to reason that it is only through the gospel, as contained in the Scriptures, that the Spirit calls unto life and light. ... They may not change the Word of God into a well-meaning offer of salvation to all men on the part of God. Ever and everywhere they must be nothing but ministri verbi divini. And that Word, carried upon the vehicle of a human proclamation, makes alive and kills, is a savor of life unto life, but also a savor of death unto death. Even through the preaching of the gospel God is merciful unto whom He will be merciful, but He also hardens whom He wills. Anyone who does not want to serve this two-fold purpose can never be a minister of the Word of God. But he who, through divine grace, has learned to will this purpose of God may be assured that in the proclamation of the gospel he is always well pleasing to God Who sent him" (pp. 477-478).

Hoeksema's work is a light among the darkness of professing Christianity. It is more biblical than Hodge and Berkhof. It is black and white. It is scorned by compromisers. It is highly recommended.

That review came from Marc Carpenter's website - http://www.outsidethecamp.org (http://www.outsidethecamp.org/). Carpenter is perplexing to me to say the least. He's very dogmatic against the Arminian heresy - as well we all should be. But he's gone so far as to suggest that if you're a Calvinist and don't think that all Arminians are lost, then you're lost also. Carpenter also anathamatized Pink, Spurgeon, John Calvin, and the entire PRC. I think it's very weird and disturbing. Nevertheless, he's written a few wonderful articles that I've enjoyed reading.

Brandan

[Brandan Kraft]

More on Herman Hoeksema - a great man of God!http://www.hudsonvilleprc.org/Ministers/Herman_Hoeksema.htm

[Brandan Kraft]

This was brought up in the recent debate in Grand Rapids. The full debate can be read or listened to at http://www.prca.org/current/Articles/a%20debate%20on%20common%20grace%20-%20engelsma-mouw.htm
You can listen to this debate here: http://www.hudsonvilleprc.org/ram-2/debate.html

I just now listened to this common grace debate. It's awesome! Friends, if you have been closely following this thread, I would suggest you go to this website listen to the debate (in real audio). I've downloaded the files and uploaded them to our website as they are a valuable resource I'll want to hold onto in the future.

http://www.5solas.org/mp3/common%20grace/mouw1.ram
http://www.5solas.org/mp3/common%20grace/engelesma.ram
http://www.5solas.org/mp3/common%20grace/rebuttal.ram
http://www.5solas.org/mp3/common%20grace/question.ram

Go download these now or go here (http://www.hudsonvilleprc.org/ram-2/debate.html) to stream this debate.

Brandan

[tomas1]

My list of texts would not be exactly the same as Disciples I would add some and not include others. But can’t we all that at least agree some of these texts when read naturally seem to say that God has compassion on all his creation including the reprobate. I will grant that great minds have spent lots of time showing that they don’t have to say what they appear to. The question for me is why?
I’ve read here that God can’t have compassion for someone and wrath at the same time. Are there any scriptures to back that up?
I think a lot of the issue here is the difficulty of understanding how God can have compassion on someone and then send him or her to Hell.
I know I’m not the best person to bring this up seeing that the details of hell are very muddy to me but I am confident in saying that hell is not some cosmic torture chamber. It is simply a place where the reprobate get the punishment they (and we) deserve no more no less. We can rest assured nether God nor the saints will say “poor souls we loved them so” when we look on them there.

[wildboar]

tomas:

None of the texts given thus far provide a clear example of God's grace or love being given to the reprobate. It must be assumed by the reader that the person in the text is reprobate or that the person being referred to is reprobate. There is also failure to recognize the distinction between Jerusalem and the children of Jerusalem and who the wicked are in the Ezekiel text.

Cults are started by those who take passages with multiple interpretations and then read the teachings they have invented into the rest of Scripture.

Sola Gratia,
WildBoar

[wildboar]

Dr. Gill:


Had the CRC not fallen into the common grace error, I wonder if there would have been a PRC? Had the CRC accepted the common grace error but had not deposed Hoeksema for denying it, Hoeksema most likely would have remained and there would have been no PRC. God often purifies the church by putting individuals in the church in positions where they have no choice but to start their own church (Luther, etc.), but schism must only occur when unity is impossible.

I have been trying to get Mr. Anthony [edit Dr. Gill - you mean Mr. Carpenter]to anathematize Hoeksema to avoid the link between the two. Hoeksema has enough problems being accused of being a hyper-Calvinist without Anthony's [edit Dr. Gill - lol Carpenter's] help. After some e-mail conversation I sent Anthony [edit Dr. Gill - Carpenter] proof that Hoeksema denied his teachings and I haven't heard back since.

Hoeksema certainly did an excellent job in developing reformed theology while filtering out the nonsense. He especially developed the works of Kuyper. I've been reading "The Work of the Holy Spirit" by Kuyper and it's excellent. Hoeksema's Romans commentary is the best I've read as well as his Reformed Dogmatics. I really think you would enjoy reading his first locus on the Knowability of God. Engelsma and Hanko have both done excellent jobs in further developing the doctrines developed by Hoeksema and weeding out the error.

Sola Gratia,
WildBoar

[Brandan Kraft]

I have been trying to get Mr. Anthony to anathematize Hoeksema to avoid the link between the two. Hoeksema has enough problems being accused of being a hyper-Calvinist without Anthony's help. After some e-mail conversation I sent Anthony proof that Hoeksema denied his teachings and I haven't heard back since.:confused: :confused: :confused: Charles, would you elaborate on this subject? I was not aware of any controversy between Anthony and Hoeksema. Please tell me who Mr. Anthony is if you wouldn't mind excusing my ignorance.

Brandan

[Skeuos Eleos]

Disciple,

I’m a little confused by the list of verses you posted since most Calvinsts take several of them as only applying to the Elect. Are you suggesting that verses such as John 3:15-17, 2 Co 5:17-19, 1 Tim 2:4, Titus 2:11 and 2 Peter 3:9 also apply to the reprobate?

I notice you mention Luke 6:35 “But love your enemies and do good and lend, expecting nothing in return; and your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High; for He Himself is kind to ungrateful and evil men.”
What is notable about this verse is that having commanded us to love our enemies the justification given is not that God loves them but that He is kind to them. Surely this was the place for Jesus to say “for He Himself loves ungrateful and evil men”?

I don’t see any of those verses saying God loves the reprobate. What I do see is that God provides for and may be compassionate and very good and even (seemingly) temporally merciful to the reprobate. But all of these things are intended as part of His purposes in Glorifying Himself and demonstrating the riches of His glory to His vessels of mercy and His patience and wrath towards the vessels of wrath prepared for destruction. The temporal ‘blessings’ the wicked receive are not really blessings then, indeed, even their riches are stored up for the righteous. The reprobate receives these temporal blessings because God has decreed that the wheat and tares shall grow up together and any ‘good’ they receive only serves to further condemn them. Compared to eternal torment any temporal good they receive pales into insignificance and only serves to heighten both the goodness of God and their rejection of it.

The fact that we are called to love our neighbours and even our enemies in no way means that God loves them. We do not know who are the reprobates – even amongst our enemies - we are therefore unable to make any distinction in our dealings with people, unlike God. In doing this we are demonstrating something of the character of God and “heaping burning coals on their heads”.

I think the problem still comes back to our definition and usage of the word “love” which will vary according to our personality, culture, experience and even the language we use. Some of us might say “I love cheeseburgers” others might not use such a phrase even though it is their favourite food. From the little I know about other languages, use of the word "love" in connection with inanimate things is less prevalent than in English – perhaps our resident multi-linguist (Milt) can add a comment here?

Sinful human experience abounds with instances where we may tell someone we love them but effectively deny it by our actions. We are imperfect and our love is imperfect. Our definition of the word love brings all this baggage with it. God’s love is perfect. Perhaps it is for this reason that the word ‘love’ is never used clearly in connection with the reprobate to describe God’s general, temporary provision, kindness and compassion? I cannot conceive of how God could have less than perfect love for someone such that He would want to provide very brief temporary kindnesses in an often pain-lived, brief life and them condemn them to eternal torment. No, this is the comfort we have in knowing that God loves us – that, because He loves us, He will ALWAYS work for our good in all things!

It may seem to some to be little more than semantics but since God never explicitly says that He loves the wicked and since I think scripture shows that God's love is different to our love I want to try to stick with the words that I think scripture uses in connection with the reprobate. These are words like hate, condemn, kind, compassion but never 'love'.

Martin

[wildboar]

Charles, would you elaborate on this subject? I was not aware of any controversy between Anthony and Hoeksema. Please tell me who Mr. Anthony is if you wouldn't mind excusing my ignorance.

Sorry, my brain must not be working right today. I don't know who Mr. Anthony is either...lol. I meant to write Mr. Carptenter. Please insert Carpenter wherever I wrote Anthony in my post, for some reason his name mutated in my head into Marc Anthony. I was somewhat concerned that people might think that Hoeksema agreed with the false gospel of Marc Carpenter.

Sola Gratia,
WildBoar

[disciple]

Disciple,

I’m a little confused by the list of verses you posted since most Calvinsts take several of them as only applying to the Elect. Are you suggesting that verses such as John 3:15-17, 2 Co 5:17-19, 1 Tim 2:4, Titus 2:11 and 2 Peter 3:9 also apply to the reprobate?this is why i feel that perhaps piper, macarthur, spurgeon, murray, carson, etc. are being misunderstood. you asked:


Tomas, you mention that there are several verses other than the rich young ruler, perhaps you could start by posting one or more with than explanation as to why you think it teaches a universal love of God?to clarify, my purpose in posting the verses was not to say that they all teach a universal saving and electing love for all men but to give a list of the verses that appear to be saying that God has a universal compassion (or a type of love). i don't know that i read the texts that way but those calvinists who believe they do seem to have some exegetical bases. i think it is a stretch to limit some of the above verses to the elect. there are better arguments on the anti-common grace side for 1 Tim 2:4 and 2 Peter 3:9 but the others i think are have better exegetical support the other way. so as i said before, i see exegetical support and reasoning for both positions and am leaving it open that my interpretation may be wrong...and as i said before, please don't pigeon-hole me as to being an ardent proponent of either side. i'm simply trying to provide balance and help in understanding both positions.

in addition, carson said:


"God's providential love over all that he has made. By and large the Bible veers away from using the word love in this connection, but the theme is not hard to find."the point being that it is quite true that the word love is not generally used here but the concept of a type of love (e.g., compassion, kindness, mercy, goodness, etc.), if we are not in bondage to mere words, cannot be denied. that is why it is said that this is a drastically different type of love than He has say for His elect or for His Son. these calvinists try to be careful to make this distinction and not to mix or confound these different types of love. arminians do not. they do not see a distinction in the type of love God has for the reprobate from the type of love He has for His elect. that in my mind is a huge difference.

i would like for some here to at least admit this and to understand this point. i feel that some here do not even recognize this and therefore it seems that some of the posts sound as if one is only trying to prove that they are right rather than at least understand the other position and give them a fair representation.

anti-common gracers do not see in God any ability to both hate in one sense and have compassion in another. the logical contradiction would be if God both hated and had compassion in the same sense and in the same relationship (e.g., God both hated the reprobate to damnation and loved the reprobate to salvation). but to confess that God may love and hate simultaneously but in different ways is not a logical contradiction IMHO. so this to me is the major point of disagreement. one side sees it impossible for God to love and hate a particular person at the same time while the other does not. but the common grace calvinists do understand that God hates the reprobate though often this fact is ignored. what i would ask for is that at least this difference in presuppositions is recognized and the distinction in types of love is at least understood.

[Brandan Kraft]

Lk 14:23, John 3:15-17, 2 Co 5:17-19, 1 Tim 2:4, Titus 2:11, and 2 Peter 3:9. additional verses are Ps 145:9; Mt 5:43ff, 9:36, 14:14, 15:32; Lk 6:35; Acts 14:17; 17:31I deal with everyone of these passages below...


Lk 14:23, (NKJV), "Then the master said to the servant, 'Go out into the highways and hedges, and compel them to come in, that my house may be filled."Of course we should preach the gospel to all men. We should of course reason with sinners and show to them what they're missing out on if they reject the gospel message. This verse however says nothing of God's love for anyone - including the reprobate.


Jn 3:15-17, (NKJV)
15 "that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life.
16 "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.
17 "For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved.Oh come on Doug, you can't be serious that this passage seems to indicate God's love for the reprobate. I don't know how any serious exegete could say that God's love is "common" in this passage. This has to do with salvific love, and if you want to make the word "world" mean every person universally, then that means they would everyone will be saved! Seriously I think we can dismiss this passage as having any relevance in this discussion. To think a Calvinist would use this as "proof" that God loves the reprobate is amazing.


2 Cor 5:17-19, (NKJV)
17 Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; old things have passed away; behold, all things have become new.
18 Now all things are of God, who has reconciled us to Himself through Jesus Christ, and has given us the ministry of reconciliation,
19 that is, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not imputing their trespasses to them, and has committed to us the word of reconciliation. Again this passage is dealing with salvation. God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself. Tell me, do you believe God has reconciled the reprobate to Himself? I don't. Further it goes on to show that God has not imputed their sins unto these people. If God has every person in mind here then all are sinless in the eyes of God.


1 Tim 2:4, (NKJV), who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.Ok, like I haven't heard this one before. Give me a break! Arminians and Romanists have used this passage for centuries to prove their damnable doctrine of universal atonement. Now we have Calvinists using it to prove their belief of common grace and the "well meant offer." I think I'll let Calvin speak for us on this passage: "... the Apostle simply means, that there is no people and no rank in the world that is excluded from salvation; because God wishes that the Gospel should be proclaimed to all without exception ... But the present discourse relates to classes of men, and not to individual persons; for his sole object is, to include int his number princes and foreign nations... If God willed, or wished, that His truth should be known to all men, how was it that He did not proclaim and make known His law to the Gentiles also? Why did He confine the Light of Life within the narrow limits of Judaea? ... This passage of the apostle (1 Tim. 2:4) was long ago brought forward by the Pelagians, and handled against us with all their might ... Who does not see that the Apostle is speaking of orders of men rather than of individuals?"


2 Pet 3:9, (NKJV), The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance.:rolleyes: *sigh*, What does "longsuffering toward us" mean? God is not willing that any [of us] should perish but that all [of us] should come to repentance. And since God is willing that all of us will come to repentance, we will! Wow, now wasn't that simple? Common grace teaching complicates this passage by dreaming up the "two will" theory and "complicated nature" of God.


Ps 145:9, (NKJV), The LORD is good to all, And His tender mercies are over all His works.Yes, God is good to all, what's the point? His tender mercies are over all his "new creations!" If God was merciful to all men universally, then all men would be saved, right? Eph 2:10, (NKJV), FOR WE ARE HIS WORKMANSHIP, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them.

Mt 5:43-45, (NKJV)
43 "You have heard that it was said, 'You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.'
44 "But I say to you, love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who spitefully use you and persecute you,
45 "that you may be sons of your Father in heaven; for He makes His sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust. Martin dealt with this passage when he wrote: "The fact that we are called to love our neighbours and even our enemies in no way means that God loves them. We do not know who are the reprobates – even amongst our enemies - we are therefore unable to make any distinction in our dealings with people, unlike God. In doing this we are demonstrating something of the character of God and “heaping burning coals on their heads”."


Mt 9:36, (NKJV), But when He saw the multitudes, He was moved with compassion for them, because they were weary and scattered, like sheep having no shepherd.I've not dealt with this passage as to date. Someone who is more versed in combatting common grace theology will have to take this one up for me. However, it does appear that Jesus saw these people as "sheep" and not "goats". There of course may have been goats mixed in with these sheep, but I think the Jesus' general view in mind here was His sheep.


Mt 14:14, (NKJV), And when Jesus went out He saw a great multitude; and He was moved with compassion for them, and healed their sick. See above.


Mt 15:32, (NKJV), Then Jesus called His disciples to Him and said, "I have compassion on the multitude, because they have now continued with Me three days and have nothing to eat. And I do not want to send them away hungry, lest they faint on the way." See above.


Lk 6:35, (NKJV), "But love your enemies, do good, and lend, hoping for nothing in return; and your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Highest. For He is kind to the unthankful and evil. See above (Mt 5:43ff)


Acts 14:17, (NKJV), "Nevertheless He did not leave Himself without witness, in that He did good, gave us rain from heaven and fruitful seasons, filling our hearts with food and gladness." And how does this imply love for the reprobate? This is referring to God's kind providence.


Acts 17:31, (NKJV), "because He has appointed a day on which He will judge the world in righteousness by the Man whom He has ordained. He has given assurance of this to all by raising Him from the dead."Huh? How is this speaking of God's love for the reprobate?

[disciple]

Oh come on Doug, you can't be serious that this passage seems to indicate God's love for the reprobate. I don't know how any serious exegete could say that God's love is "common" in this passage. This has to do with salvific love, and if you want to make the word "world" mean every person universally, then that means they would everyone will be saved! Seriously I think we can dismiss this passage as having any relevance in this discussion. To think a Calvinist would use this as "proof" that God loves the reprobate is amazing.please read my post above. i'm not arguing what you think i am. i'm simply posting the verses that are so read.

i think here there is better support for world being taken here in a general sense as mankind like Titus 3:4 (all without distinction, i.e., all kinds). but i wonder how we'd understand KOSMOS in 3:17, 19. world of the elect is altogether excluded from this context. so it seems here to be a disposition of love toward mankind in general, specifically and especially to those who believe (John 3:16; cf. 1 Tim 4:10).


And how does this imply love for the reprobate? This is referring to God's kind providence.

Huh? How is this speaking of God's love for the reprobate?
i meant Acts 17:30..."He is calling all everywhere to repent." not a universal love but often used to say that God desires, in some sense, that each and every individual repent from their sin because of His compassion for them.

[disciple]

in general, it seems that some approach the texts saying: "how can i understand this verse within my system? how can i explain this verse with my system?" and this is my overall problem with performing exegesis this way. we should try as little as possible to not come to the Scripture with the interpretation already decided. i want to allow Scripture to speak for itself and leave open the possibility that perhaps my system just doesn't explain it all perfectly. i also want to leave open the possibility that i just might be wrong.

[Skeuos Eleos]

Wow! What a lot of ground has been covered in this thread since it began. I'm posting a link to it to a friend and so I went back to the first page to look at how it all started (Hi Brian, you're doing well if you start at the beginning and make it this far! :) ).

Some repetition is starting to appear (and I'm guilty of some of it!) but I did notice a question posted early on by our own Dr. Gill:
Another objection in argument for common grace that has been brought up is the biblical command that we as Christians are to love everyone - that is we are to love our enemies. The objector usually states, well how can God expect His children to extend their love to people that He is not willing to extend?

I have an answer, but I'd like to hear what others have to say first. I think we've covered a lot that is related to this question but would you say that we have fully answered it? - because, if not, then isn't it about time you shared your answer with us? :D

Grace and peace,
Martin

[Brandan Kraft]

Good letter on the hyper-calvinism controversy by George Ella:The post I made earlier quoting the letter by George Ella to the Founders Journal editors (southern Baptist mag) was in response to this article: http://www.founders.org/FJ24/article1.html

- Brandan

[Robert R. Higby]

The debate goes on about whether God may be said to have any type of 'compassion' for the reprobate. I'm still studying the issue (from the standpoint of Greek meanings)--to determine whether I believe there is any sense in which scripture teaches this. I pointed out previously that I have finally ruled out the notion that the Bible teaches 'love' as a disposition of God toward the wicked:

1. No agape, for this would be salvific. Neither is it ever used as a disposition of God towards reprobate souls.
2. No phileo, for only believers are his friends.
3. God is never said to possess erotic (sentimental, emotional) love towards anyone in the Bible. At least I have never encountered it.

In going through the many posts, I need to respond to something that Milt wrote over a week ago (which I just now read):

Bill:

In all fairness, the quote you use in blue in your last post is actually how I responded to all those who limit to define the word "grace" via dictionary when discussing biblical Grace, (which is inadequate in my view) so it is actually my words responding to Tomas, who seems to define "grace" via dictionary and using man's standards and not solely via the Bible revelatory context.

Here is the quote:

I maintain that God is overall compassionate to the unelect, (as I pointed in all my posts several times), but He does it to fulfill His overall eternal purpose and that such love is different than the love He has for the elect. Thus, I prefer not to call it Grace as I prefer to define Grace by N.T. standards and not by the Webster Dictionary.


Those are my words. I hope this clarifies...

Thanks Bob!

Milt

I truly apologize for my oversight in attributing a quote to the wrong person! I realize that we probably thought and wrote exactly alike when we interacted on this issue in past years. I'm still struggling through it, trying to interpret the 'compassion' word adequately. One issue is whether chesed in the OT is ever used of the reprobate, or similar words for kindness, compassion, etc. in the NT are ever used of them.

Another point to keep in mind is the difference between wicked and reprobate. We were all wicked--without hope and under God's wrath, before conversion. God certainly loved and took compassion on us then, even when we were still in our sins. But the question is whether God has such a disposition towards those who are destined to forever be under his wrath.

I think it is very important to also realize that hate in God is not a disposition of emotional mood-swings. God's hatred of reprobate souls is far different than human rage or anger. It simply refers to his disposition toward those who, in his eternal purposes, are vessels of wrath. These are destined to fulfill God's purposes outside or opposite of salvation. They serve God's will and fulfill a chosen destiny every bit as much as those who are chosen to salvation.

[PILGRIM313]

Here are the verses out of the Bible that refer to the 'reprobate', it is amazing when you dwell on them awhile, there are more verses written to the 'christian' telling him to be concerned not to be, or act as a reprobate, then there are warnings to those that will be such. Maybe the Word is trying to set our perrogatives straight?
Pilgrim



Psalms 15:4 In {1} whose eyes a reprobate is despised, But {1} who honoreth them that fear Jehovah; {2} He that sweareth to his own hurt, and changeth not; {1) Or his?he 2) Or He sweareth}
Romans 1:28 And even as they {1} refused to have God in their knowledge, God gave them up unto a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not fitting; {1) Gr did not approve}
2 Corinthians 13:5 Try your own selves, whether ye are in the faith; prove your own selves. Or know ye not as to your own selves, that Jesus Christ is in you? unless indeed ye be reprobate.
2 Corinthians 13:6 But I hope that ye shall know that we are not reprobate.
2 Corinthians 13:7 Now we pray to God that ye do no evil; not that we may appear approved, but that ye may do that which is honorable, {1} though we be as reprobate. {1) Gr and that}
2 Timothy 3:8 And even as Jannes and Jambres withstood Moses, so do these also withstand the truth. Men corrupted in mind, reprobate concerning the faith.
Titus 1:16 They profess that they know God; but by their works they deny him, being abominable, and disobedient, and unto every good work reprobate.

[wildboar]

Let's suppose for a moment that the rich young ruler was a reprobate and that Christ loved this man in his divine nature. How does this prove any kind of general love for every man? Isn't the point of this passage that Jesus bestowed his love upon this man and not upon every other person that came up to him? If Jesus loving every person that he saw, why would it only be recorded that he loved the rich young ruler? Even if we take the rich young ruler to be reprobate, there is still particularity involved.

Sola Gratia,
WildBoar

[tomas1]

Please don’t take this post the wrong way. I mean no disrespect and I am not calling any one here a heretic.
I have many wasted many hours with Jehovah’s Witness showing them all the many scriptures that portray Christ as God only to have them say, “I see nothing here that proves the Trinity”. Their system won’t allow them to see what would be plain to any child.
If God had wanted us to read only the elect instead of the World in John 3:16 he could have just said so. If God had wanted us to assume that the rich young ruler was saved later in life it would have been easy to include that fact for all to see. If the people at the foot of the Cross where elect why does the Bible show them rejecting Christ?
I love the Bible because it is plain and straightforward and it doesn’t require leaps of logic to understand. We can just take the plain meaning unless the Bible itself forces us to research more. I don’t see any reason from the Bible why we can’t do that in this case. If there are any passages that show that God can’t feel compassion and wrath for the same people I will humbly take all this back. We all have systems myself included but we must continue to hold them up to Scripture to see if they pass muster.
Of course the Bible doesn’t say in capitol letters “I have compassion for all my creation even the reprobate”. If it did we would not be having this discussion. But I would hope we could agree that at least some of the scriptures mentioned by Disciple seem to say just that, if you take their plain meaning. I could offer other scriptures but I’m afraid they would not make any difference until we deal with the system.


After scanning back over this post I feel like I should quickly share what I have learned so far from this thread so I won’t sound so bitter. I have learned to not use the term Grace so lightly. I learned that even Spurgeon sometimes made mistakes. And I’ve learned that we all enjoy cheeseburgers but some of us would not go so far as to call it love. :D
By the way I have been called a hyper-Calvinist because I believe in limited atonement ;)
Peace Brothers

[Robert R. Higby]

If God had wanted us to read only the elect instead of the World in John 3:16 he could have just said so.

This assumes from the start that the common use of the word 'world' by evanjellyfishanity is the orthodox position, and any other view is suspect. Who determines what 'world' means anyway? Is a position viewed by the majority assumed to be truth--simply because most persons believe it? Come on!

If God had wanted us to assume that the rich young ruler was saved later in life it would have been easy to include that fact for all to see.

OK! I once had a work friend who said that if God wanted him to believe Christ and the Bible for salvation, he would have personally delivered him a written message on paper to that effect.

If the people at the foot of the Cross where elect why does the Bible show them rejecting Christ?

Some were elect and some were reprobate, of course. That is the nature of the human race at all times and places. Certainly John, Mary, the guard who said 'surely this was God's son', and many others were elect.

[Robert R. Higby]

Ok, well, I admit that what I said in response to Tomas about the rich young ruler sounded sarcastic.

The Bible is not a systematic theology. Not all details of what is implied in a certain event or teaching are made perfectly plain in exact language. In addition, we are to interpret disputable verses in the light of didactic passages or teaching elsewhere. :cool:

[Skeuos Eleos]

Tomas:

Two thoughts on your question about why doesn't God make these things clearer:

1. No matter how clear some scriptures may be wicked men will always try to twist the truth. If you define absolute complete truth as 100%, finite men will have varying degrees of understanding of absolute truth. Some great scholars may have 0.5% say, others may have only 0.01%, even the worst of heretics may have 0.00001% of truth! There are so many problems with language and limited, sinful human reasoning. The bible could say the same thing, unequivocally and clearly ten different ways and someone would still twist it!

2. The scriptures do seem to speak of things being deliberately unclear, spoken in parables so that its NOT clear, others even, are simply described as a "mystery". We can, however, be sure that God's Word is perfect and will achieve what He intends. I would suggest that a part of His purposes even includes some of these things being unclear. What is important to remember, of course, is that, thankfully, salvation does not come from having a correct intellectual understanding of all truth but from a very simple, Holy Spirit-inspired understanding of the Glorous Gospel of Christ and from being born again, not by the will of man but by the will of God who is forever to be praised. Amen!

Your concern to stick with what the bible says is commendable and I think you are right in that we tend to want to make something black and white when it can be a shade of grey but I do think it is important to harmonise our understanding of one piece of scripture with scripture as whole. This, unfortunately, is not straightforward and does require further research! Sometimes I wish I had one of those photographic memories and I could remember the whole Bible word-for-word! Nevertheless, we have and will have nothing except that which we receive from the Gracious hand of Almighty God who has promised to teach us, guide us and write His laws on our hearts, and has given each of us different gifts and abilities, has appointed each of us to different 'work' that we may be a people who shine like stars before a crooked generation and who leads us in the way everlasting that we may one-day, receive a "crown of life", evermore to sing the praises of the Lamb upon the Throne!

Martin

[GraceAmbassador]

well said, Jim, you have seen the confusion of those that link 'common grace' (God's goodness and mercy to all in a general sense (not salvation)) to Salvation. There is no connection in the thoughts of those that hold to common grace, it is just another revelation of God's Goodness to all His creatures and creations.
For some reason, some are not able to distinguish between talking of the attributes of God, in an honorable way, without meddling into Arminian ideology.
PilgrimI believe the statement above to be a bit unfair. I don't see anyone making that confusion here and the use of the indefinite "some" may also be a misapplication of the word since re-reading the thread I could not identify who the "some" is.

I did, though, identified virtually all of us here never denying that God shows "goodness" to the reprobate and to the wicked, i.e., everyone of us in a way see God being "good" to the wicked or reprobate.

As for me, I think the theological argument is out there for anyone to draw their conclusions. I mean, the theological argument. I believe that if we do not draw the definition of the word sin from the Webster dictionary or from any other source outside the Bible, but rather we draw such a definition from the Bible, it is not much to expect that we should use ONLY the Bible as a rule to define our terms, including but not limited the term "grace". In other words, if we take the definition of "sin" from the Bible, we should as well take the definition of the word "grace" from the Bible. Then we would be debating the same concept. Grace is acording to the dictionary "favor". But the NT reserves such a word in relation to God's Love for His elect, as I see it. If I am to debate Grace in reference to God I will use how His book defines or demonstrates it to be.

[wildboar]

If God had wanted us to read only the elect instead of the World in John 3:16 he could have just said so.I don't think we ought to read the word 'elect' into the verse. What is being emphasized here is God's love for people of every nation. I find it very strange that people take the natural meaning of the word world in the verse to be "everyone who ever lived or ever will live." Even in English, I can't think of a single instance where in everyday conversation someone has used the word world to mean every person who ever lived or ever will live. Most of the time in English the word is used to speak of the majority of the people which are living on earth at the present time as in "Everyone in the world knows that Saddam is insane." Most would not be referring to Noah if they said that. The Greek word kosmos which is translated as world seems to be used for all of the meanings which we give to the word world and more. It is translated as adorning in 1 Peter 3:3 to speak of a woman's attire. Are you suggesting that some women wear every person that ever lived or ever will live? I'm sure you have seen all the examples in which world is used so I am surprised you are trying to say world must mean every person who ever lived or ever will live.

Also, in John 3:16 the way in which God demonstrates his love is described. God loved the world in such a way that He gave His only Son. How is God giving His Son a display of His love towards the reprobate.

John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. 17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.

Does God want to save every person that ever lived or ever will live but is incapable of doing so? or does verse 17 tell what actually happend? It seems that we must either adopt universalism, say that God was unsuccessful, or say that "the world" means something other than every person who ever lived or ever will live.


If God had wanted us to assume that the rich young ruler was saved later in life it would have been easy to include that fact for all to see.If we are supposed to draw from this passage that God loves every reprobate person, why is the focus upon one? If God wanted us to assume that the rich young ruler remained an unbeliever for the rest of his life wouldn't he have recorded that? The Gospels record that all of Jesus brothers were unbelievers, yet after the resurrection we find that at least two of them became believers and occupied important places in the church. I find it interesting that attention is drawn to the fact that he is young. Perhaps later on in life he realized his foolishness, but I've offered other interpretations as well which do not require that the rich young ruler ever become a believer.


If the people at the foot of the Cross where elect why does the Bible show them rejecting Christ?
Because without the regenerating power of the Holy Spirit we would have done the same thing and would have been yelling for his death and still do when we sin. Peter in fact preaches to some of those who had been standing there at the foot of the cross on Pentecost and many believe.

Sola Gratia,
WildBoar

[disciple]

2. The scriptures do seem to speak of things being deliberately unclear, spoken in parables so that its NOT clear, others even, are simply described as a "mystery". We can, however, be sure that God's Word is perfect and will achieve what He intends. I would suggest that a part of His purposes even includes some of these things being unclear. What is important to remember, of course, is that, thankfully, salvation does not come from having a correct intellectual understanding of all truth but from a very simple, Holy Spirit-inspired understanding of the Glorous Gospel of Christ and from being born again, not by the will of man but by the will of God who is forever to be praised. Amen!good words SE. i just was reading the first chapter out of a book by larry crabb called "the safest place on earth" and i thought this quote was very apropos to this conversation (even though he wasn't necessarily talking about theology):


The upside of confusion is openness. Confused people listen better, not always, but more often than people whose minds are made up. Those folks listen only in order to critique, to see if someone else is on the right track, namely theirs. Confused people are more likely to combine kindness with whatever convictions emerge out of their confusion. And, because of their eagerness for meaningful dialogue with honest people, the convictions they develop tend to speak to the realities of life as it is really lived.
i think it's healthy to always admit a bit of confusion and an attitude that we don't (and indeed cannot) ever have it all figured out. when we have the attitude that we have arrived and that we possess the compendium of knowledge on a subject always seems to result in unkindness and a seeming lack of interest in actually dialoguing about a particular subject.

[GraceAmbassador]

i think it's healthy to always admit a bit of confusion and an attitude that we don't (and indeed cannot) ever have it all figured out. when we have the attitude that we have arrived and that we possess the compendium of knowledge on a subject always seems to result in unkindness and a seeming lack of interest in actually dialoguing about a particular subject.
It is indeed a sign of kindness and courtesy to admit a bit of confusion. But only when the confusion is real and sincere. Only confused people, genuinely confused people should admit confusion.

People with convictions, however, although often wrong about their convictions, if they admit confusion for the sake of kindness and courtesy, or because they don't want to appear hubridic and haughty, will then, in my little book, be downgraded from confused to a timid at best or at worse a liar.;)

I am deeply interested in what anyone has to say in correction of my own convictions and am willing to renounce such convictions publicly if necessary. However, we must define our terms before we discuss and establish the same rule and source of definition.

Speaking about confusion, I am admiting mine, openly here and now, and that has nothing to do with the desire to "make courtesy with anybody else's hat", or even seek more dialogue than we had here in this thread: My confusion is simply how can we define the Grace of God, either to the elect or to the reprobate apart from what the Bible says what Grace means? I am confused why we use the word "Grace" with its intended meaning in the English Language as being "favor" against the meaning of the undescribable Grace has shown and "bestown" the ek-klesia and call it the same thing with different results, i.e. that one is salvific and the other is not...

I insist in saying that we have a distinction without a difference if we all agree that God does not save everybody and that he is providential to all but loving to the elect, and that both, (his providence and His love) fulfill his eternal purpose. However the more those who prefer the terms "common grace" read my conciliatory tone, the more they insist in defending their point of view that we should use such a term as "common grace" anyway... then, the more I read in between their lines (and perhaps I shouldn't) I see insinuations (such as hypercalvinist) of labels and lack of courtesy and open mindeness or things of the sort. Now, who is interested or not in dialogue?

I want to praise God for what we have seen here so far. If we had abandoned our convictions, even the wrong ones, on behalf of courtesy and dialogue, we would not have had such a tremendous treasure chest of study about the issue of "common grace" as we had (and indeed continue to have - no thanks to me) in this thread. Perhaps the convictions presented here are the very reason why we have a dialogue, in which case, convictions were a good thing so far. At the same time, I do not want to close my mind for what others have to say here and please, I pray they say it with convictions with no worries about courtesy. I prefer to "be the wise man that when rebuked loves his "rebuker" (I am not attributing to me the term wise), than to have a lot of nice guys maintaining me in the dark chambers of stupidity, since from these I have grown weary.

[disciple]

It is indeed a sign of kindness and courtesy to admit a bit of confusion. But only when the confusion is real and sincere. Only confused people, genuinely confused people should admit confusion.

People with convictions, however, although often wrong about their convictions, if they admit confusion for the sake of kindness and courtesy, or because they don't want to appear hubridic and haughty, will then, in my little book, be downgraded from confused to a timid at best or at worse a liar.;)

I am deeply interested in what anyone has to say in correction of my own convictions and am willing to renounce such convictions publicly if necessary. However, we must define our terms before we discuss and establish the same rule and source of definition.

Speaking about confusion, I am admiting mine, openly here and now, and that has nothing to do with the desire to "make courtesy with anybody else's hat", or even seek more dialogue than we had here in this thread: My confusion is simply how can we define the Grace of God, either to the elect or to the reprobate apart from what the Bible says what Grace means? I am confused why we use the word "Grace" with its intended meaning in the English Language as being "favor" against the meaning of the undescribable Grace has shown and "bestown" the ek-klesia and call it the same thing with different results, i.e. that one is salvific and the other is not...

I insist in saying that we have a distinction without a difference if we all agree that God does not save everybody and that he is providential to all but loving to the elect, and that both, (his providence and His love) fulfill his eternal purpose. However the more those who prefer the terms "common grace" read my conciliatory tone, the more they insist in defending their point of view that we should use such a term as "common grace" anyway... then, the more I read in between their lines (and perhaps I shouldn't) I see insinuations (such as hypercalvinist) of labels and lack of courtesy and open mindeness or things of the sort. Now, who is interested or not in dialogue?

I want to praise God for what we have seen here so far. If we had abandoned our convictions, even the wrong ones, on behalf of courtesy and dialogue, we would not have had such a tremendous treasure chest of study about the issue of "common grace" as we had (and indeed continue to have - no thanks to me) in this thread. Perhaps the convictions presented here are the very reason why we have a dialogue, in which case, convictions were a good thing so far. At the same time, I do not want to close my mind for what others have to say here and please, I pray they say it with convictions with no worries about courtesy. I prefer to "be the wise man that when rebuked loves his "rebuker" (I am not attributing to me the term wise), than to have a lot of nice guys maintaining me in the dark chambers of stupidity, since from these I have grown weary.AMEN!!!! well said as usual brother milt. as always, i appreciate your comments and the perspective you bring. indeed, i did not mean that we should pretend we are ignorant or confused for the sake of being kind but that we should be willing to admit that perhaps we don't have it all figured out. convictions are very good and i have many of them...but i believe edification for all abounds when we begin to realize that our convictions are not the only correct convictions and when we are able to appreciate our brethren's convictions even when they don't agree with our own. thanks again milt!

[Brandan Kraft]

And who says the DARTH GILL of Planet HyperCalderon doesn't have it figured out?

[John 6-37]

Introduction by Mr. Rick Noorman:

Prof. Engelsma will be defending the position that the doctrine of common grace is not reformed. Prof. Engelsma currently is professor of Dogmatics and Old Testament Studies at the Theological School of the Protestant Reformed Churches in Grandville, Michigan. He has served in this position for the past fifteen years. Following his schooling in the Protestant Reformed Seminary, he served as pastor of Protestant Reformed Churches in Loveland, Colorado and South Holland, Illinois. He is a graduate of Calvin College, and he earned his Masters of Theology Degree at Calvin Theological Seminary. He has authored several books defending the historically reformed position on marriage, divorce and remarriage, Christian education, the covenant, and the end-times. Prof. Engelsma is also the editor of the reformed periodical the Standard Bearer published by the Reformed Free Publishing Association. Prof. Engelsma is married to his wife...Ruth, and he has many children. Please welcome with me tonight Prof. David Engelsma.



Mister moderator, my esteemed co-disputant and friends. All of us have honored reformed doctrine by our coming together tonight. What brings us together is a debate over the issue whether the grace of God is common or particular. And this issue is distinctively a reformed issue. For this discussion of the doctrine of common grace we have Dr. Richard Mouw to thank. And I thank him now face to face, as about a year ago I thanked him in writing. In his recent book, He Shines in All That’s Fair, Dr. Mouw has renewed the discussion of the doctrine of common grace. He has renewed the discussion, not only among reformed people, but also among evangelicals. Not long ago Christianity Today featured Dr. Mouw’s book and the doctrine of common grace in a lengthy article. Indeed, even the Protestant liberals join the discussion : University of Chicago theologian Brian Gerrish has written a lengthy review of Mouw’s book.

In his treatment of common grace, Dr. Mouw has presented the Protestant Reformed rejection of common grace fairly , and even, with a certain respect. He is sensitive to the spiritual concern of the Protestant Reformed Churches : the conviction that the doctrine of common grace opens the church up to the corrupting influence of the wicked world. Mouw remarked, that in their rejection of common grace, and in their insistence on the separation of the church and the world, the Protestant Reformed Churches may lay some claim to be true to the theology of John Calvin. Dr. Mouw himself, of course, enthusiastically endorses the common grace project. Indeed, he wants to spread the doctrine beyond the boundaries of reformed churches and he advocates a far more aggressive exercise of common grace than heretofore. He proposes what he calls, “ common grace ministries “. Hence, our debate this evening.

All of us should understand that Dr. Mouw and I are limiting ourselves tonight to one aspect of the doctrine of common grace. That aspect which we are airing tonight is a grace of God supposedly shown to the non-elect or reprobate, in which God gives them good gifts, such as rain and sunshine on the fields of an atheist farmer, and musical ability to W.A.Mozart. And in which God restrains sin in the reprobate so that they are not completely depraved, but partially good, and therefore are able to perform works that are truly good, even though they are not the highest form of good. In addition that aspect of common grace that we are discussing tonight holds that by virtue of the common grace of God, Christians can, may, and should form friendships with unbelievers. Especially in order to cooperate with unbelievers in building a good, even godly, culture. There is another, more important aspect of common grace. A love of God for all humans without exception in the preaching of the gospel of Christ in which God sincerely desires the salvation of all humans without exception. This was not the subject of Dr. Mouw’s book, and this is not our subject tonight. Our subject tonight is what I might call, cultural common grace.

I deny that the doctrine of common grace is reformed, and I do so as a representative of the Protestant Reformed Churches. I put forward three main reasons why we object to the doctrine of common grace.

First of all the Reformed Faith is defined by the Reformed Confessions, and common grace is not taught in the Reformed Confessions. The reformed creeds mention common grace one time, and this mention attributes the doctrine of common grace to the Arminians, whose teaching the creed, the Canons of Dort, condemns as heresy. The Arminians used the doctrine of common grace in the service of their teaching that God on His part is, quote, “ ready to reveal Christ unto all men “ end of quote. In view of the great things that are ascribed to common grace by its defenders, it forms nothing less than a world view, the silence of the confessions is deafening. The complete absence of the doctrine of common grace in the creeds may not be decisive for the question : is the doctrine of common grace reformed ? But the silence of the creeds certainly should give pause to those who want to proclaim the doctrine as important, even fundamental reformed truth. The matters are worse for the doctrine of common grace as far as the creeds are concerned than that the Heidelberg Catechism, the Belgic Confession, and the Canons of Dort, and, I may add, the Westminster Standards as well, know absolutely nothing of this doctrine.

The doctrine of common grace conflicts with teachings that are found in the creeds. Teachings that are fundamental. I mention two : Common grace conflicts with the confessional teaching of total depravity : the Heidelberg Catechism in question and answer eight is representative : I quote, “ Are we then so corrupt that we are wholly incapable of doing any good, and inclined to all wickedness ? Indeed, we are, except we are regenerated by the Spirit of God. “ end of quote. Common grace, however, teaches a work of God in all humans that restrains sin, so that all humans are partially good, and capable of doing good. The effect of the doctrine of common grace, is to render the reformed doctrine of total depravity hypothetical, that is, unreal. Total depravity is what all of us would have been, were it not for common grace. According to the doctrine of common grace, no one is totally depraved, except for perhaps such monsters as Nero, Hitler, and John Wayne Gasey. This, we charge, is a compromise of the offense of Calvinism, which is, in reality, the offense of the gospel.

The second fundamental doctrine of the confessions, with which the doctrine of common grace conflicts, is the teaching of the confessions that the grace of God is particular for the elect of God alone. The whole world knows that the hallmark of Calvinism, the hallmark of the reformed faith, is its teaching that the grace of God, with its source in predestination, is particular, not universal. And this is why most of the world has always detested Calvinism, and why much of the world still does detest Calvinism today. Common grace, however, universalizes the grace of God. It universalizes the grace of God both as regards a favorable attitude of God towards people, and as regards His mighty power within sinners delivering them from sin.
Granted, defenders of common grace, have argued that common grace is a different kind of grace from God’s saving grace in Jesus Christ. The fact remains, the doctrine of common grace posits a grace of God that is general and universal, in diametrical opposition to the particularity of grace in the reformed confessions. In their teaching of total depravity and of the particularity of grace, the reformed confessions present the doctrine of scripture. In Romans Three verses nine and following quoting Psalm Fourteen, the apostle passes a devastating judgment upon the entire human race without exception : “ all are under sin “, “ none is righteous “, “ there is none that doeth good, no not one”. This is not hypothetical, this is not what we would have been had it not been for common grace. This is reality. This is the truth about everyone of us as we are in and of ourselves, apart from the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Common grace teaches a favor of God upon all humans without exception. But according to Romans One, verses sixteen and following, apart from the gospel of Christ, there is only wrath upon ungodly and unrighteous persons who hold the truth in unrighteousness. All the way through the epistle to the Romans, which is recognized widely as a summary of the Christian gospel, the stark alternatives are grace, righteousness, and life in Jesus Christ according to God’s sovereign election, or wrath, guilt and death outside of Jesus Christ. One objection then, to common grace, is that it is not only un-confessional, but it is also anti-confessional.

Second, we oppose the doctrine of common grace, because the doctrine of common grace is destructive of the antithesis that God Himself has put between the Church, and the world of the ungodly , and between the Christian, and the unbeliever. ‘ Antithesis ‘ refers to spiritual separation, hostility and warfare. I emphasize, this separation is spiritual, not physical. Although often enough, the world of the ungodly has made the separation physical, by boycott, reproach, and persecution. The term ‘ antithesis ‘ may be unfamiliar to some who are here tonight, surely the reality is known by every Christian. “ I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed. “ God said at the very dawn of the history of the Church in the world in Genesis Three fifteen. From then on there are two groups of people in the world, and they are at enmity by God’s appointment. Of the typical church in the Old Testament, Moses declared, “ Israel then shall dwell in safety alone.” Deuteronomy Thirty-three verse twenty-eight. No more forceful insistence on the antithesis can be found anywhere in the Bible, than the New Testament exhortation of Paul to the church, and her members, in Second Corinthians Six verses fourteen and following. “ Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers : for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness ? what part hath he that believeth with an infidel ? Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate. “

‘ Antithesis ‘ may be a strange word, but the doctrine is basic Christian doctrine. Augustine taught it long ago, in his City of God. This doctrine we maintain, and observe, is compromised by the doctrine of common grace. The antithesis is fatally compromised. According to common grace church and world now share grace, a grace of God. According to the doctrine of common grace, Christian and infidel now have sweet fellowship in grace. According to the doctrine of common grace, the Christian school must be open to the world’s thinking on matters of faith, for example creation and of life, for example, sexual and marital ethics. According to the doctrine of common grace, the Church and the world, can and should cooperate, in the good work of creating a godly society on the basis, not of Jesus Christ, and His redemption, but on the basis of a grace and goodness found in the world itself. The doctrine of common grace has destroyed, and is presently destroying churches, and Christian institutions, especially Christian schools, that have embraced and practiced that doctrine, by opening those churches and schools to the thinking and the ways of the world that hates God. I refer specifically to evolutionary theory concerning origins, with the inescapable implication that Holy Scripture is not inspired, at least in the opening chapters. I refer to the repudiation, at this late date in history, after two thousand years of the Church’s thinking to the contrary, of the authoritative headship of the husband in marriage, reflected by the restriction of office in the Church to qualified males. I refer to the endorsement, and even the defense, of the filthiest, most violent movies and music, for the entertainment of the children and young people of the covenant, God’s children. I refer to the approval of friendship with unbelievers, which leads, among other things, to mixed marriages, that is, the marriages of believers and unbelievers. And I refer to the acceptance, at the present time, of homosexual behavior and relationships, and also, an increasingly favorable judgment, upon non-Christian religions. Where the doctrine of common grace has been emphasized, the very idea of antithesis has largely been lost.

Do not mistake it, common grace is not only a doctrine, it is also a mentality. The effects of common grace have been harmful. We do not stand tonight where our Fathers stood in the Netherlands one hundred years ago, and in Western Michigan eighty years ago. We stand where we can see with our own eyes, the fruits of the doctrine of common grace and the fruits are bitter ! It is evident that the project and world view of common grace have failed. Society has not been Christianized, not in Amsterdam, not in Grand Rapids, not in Chicago, and also not in Northwest Iowa. But the churches and the schools have become worldly. Do not misunderstand, we who deny common grace, are not, for that reason, immune to the danger of being swallowed up by the world. We, we ourselves, are fighting a life and death battle against the pressures and influences of a wicked world, now far advanced in unholiness. But adoption of the doctrine of common grace takes the weapons out of the hand of the Christian, takes the fight out of his soul, and indeed tells the Christian that there is no war at all.

Third, we object to the doctrine of common grace because it inevitably develops into a doctrine of universal saving grace. Despite the protestations of the advocates of common grace, that this is an entirely different grace, from the saving grace of God in Jesus Christ; and Abraham Kuyper emphasized that in the opening pages of his three volumes De Gemeene Gratie. The lesson of history is that inevitably common grace develops into universal saving grace, which is the destruction of the gospel of Christ. Either the advocates of common grace teach a love of God for all, and a desire of God to save all in the gospel, or they teach that in some sense Christ died for all, or, as is becoming more the case today, they outrightly teach that all will be saved, in the end. Dr. Mouw could not resist that tendency of the doctrine of common grace in his book. On the next to the last page of He Shines in All That’s Fair he wrote this, I quote, “ For all I know, much of what we now think of as common grace may in the end time be revealed to be saving grace. “ end of quote. It is to my mind ominous that in his favorable review of Dr. Mouw’s book, the University of Chicago theologian Brian Gerrish observes that the updating of the doctrine of common grace called for by Dr. Mouw requires a reexamination of the Calvinistic doctrine that, and now I quote Gerrish, “ the divine decrees divide humankind into the elect, and the non-elect.” end of quote. That is not Dr. Mouw’s position, but that is Brian Gerrish’s observation concerning the updating of common grace, for which Dr. Mouw has pleaded.

These are three main objections of ours to the doctrine of common grace. It is not confessional, it destroys the antithesis, and it threatens the doctrine of particular saving grace in Christ alone. Are these not worthy concerns for reformed people, indeed, for all Christian people ? Are not these grave concerns that all should share with us ? Is it fair, is it gracious, to dismiss these concerns as “ Anabaptist “, those who deny common grace as Anabaptists ? Something again Dr. Mouw does not do, and rebukes others for doing.

In the time remaining to me, I will clarify our position regarding the doctrine of common grace in several important respects, the rules of this debate, you understand, demand brevity. First we freely acknowledge that God gives many good gifts to ungodly people. From rain and sunshine in season, to the ability of Beethoven to compose the Pastoral Symphony. These gifts are bounties of providence. To the non-elect ungodly, whoever he may be, say Emperor Nero living in luxury and gorging himself with every good thing creation affords, these good gifts are not blessings. They do not come to the reprobate wicked in the favor of God. Psalm Seventy- three teaches otherwise. By lavishing upon the wicked such good things, God sets the wicked on “ slippery places “. He “ casts them down into destruction “. Let no wicked person conclude from his health and wealth that God loves him and is blessing him. Divine blessing is not identical with earthly prosperity. Just as Divine wrath and curse are not identical with poverty, troubles and grief. That earthly good things and circumstances are not in themselves blessings is of vital importance for the comfort of God’s people. While Nero was feasting, the saints were burning as torches in his gardens, and were being torn in pieces in the Roman amphitheater. If Nero’s luxuries were a common grace blessing, the distresses of the saints were common wrath curse. The truth is that everything is blessing to the elect. Everything is blessing to the one who believes in Jesus Christ. “ All things are yours “, says the apostle in First Corinthians Three. “ All things work together for good to those who love God “, he says in Romans Eight. And nothing is blessing to the impenitent unbeliever outside of Christ. All things work together for his eternal ruin. And this must be preached to the wealthy, prospering, unbeliever.

Second, we readily admit that the deeds of some non-Christians seem good to us. And that these deeds are useful to us and other people. To conclude, however, on the basis of this, that their works are good, truly good, good in God’s judgment, as the very fruits of His grace in them, is a mistake. We do not determine what is good, and what is evil. God determines good and evil. And God has made known in His Word, that every work that leaves Him out, any work that does not have Him, the Triune Father of Jesus Christ, as its purpose and goal, any work that misses the mark of His glory is sin. “ Whatsoever is not of faith is sin. “ Romans 14:23. This position is not a new, and strange teaching in the Church of Jesus Christ. Augustine saw the apparent good works of the wicked, and he called them “ glittering vices “, an indictment echoed both by Luther and Calvin.

Third. Although we deny that common grace is the basis of the Christian’s active life in society, and the basis of the Christian’s association in everyday life with non-Christians, what Dr. Mouw calls the “ commonalty “ of Christian and non-Christian, we affirm and practice the active life of the Christian in all of creation. And the perfect right of the Christian to cooperate with non-Christians in everyday life. That is, at work, in the neighborhood, in the armed forces, and in politics. Christians must live, in every sphere of earthly life, family , labor, government, and the rest. They may use and enjoy all their gifts, athletic, musical and mathematical. They may avail themselves of the products of the ungodly from ‘ Black and Decker ‘ tools, to Patrick O’Brian’s great series on Aubrey and Maturin. They may associate closely with, and cooperate with unbelievers in everyday life : Muslims, Buddhists, and the typical American pagan whose idea of Sabbath keeping is mowing his lawn on Sunday. Denial of common grace does not mean withdrawal from society. The antithesis is not isolation. Rejection of cultural common grace does not secretly promote the life of pietism : ‘ met e'n bookje in e'n hoekje’ : with a little book in a little corner. But the basis for the full active life of the Christian in the world is the doctrine of creation and providence, not the doctrine of common grace. When Paul condemns asceticism, world flight, in First Timothy Four [ verse four ], he grounds his warning, not at all in a doctrine of common grace, but in the doctrine of creation : quote, “ Every creature of God is good and nothing to be refused. “ end of quote. “ The earth is the Lord’s and the fulness thereof. “ [ 1 Cor.10:26,28 ] This is the basis of the Christian’s life and work in the ordinances of creation : associating with unbelievers at work, in the army, and in the neighborhood watch for burglars and abduction of children.

Basing the life of the Christian in the world on the doctrine of creation establishes the possibility of the Christians’s use and enjoyment of the creation, and of his associating with unbelievers, without compromising the spiritual antithesis. Christian’s live a full active life in the world, but, and mark this well, we live this life, not by the power of a common grace, but by the power of the special, saving, sanctifying grace of Jesus Christ in the Spirit.
[ bell chimes indicating end of allotted time ]
Just a couple of minutes left, do I have that much grace ?
The Christian does not live his life in the world on the basis, and by the power, of a common grace, but by the power of the special sanctifying grace of Christ in the Spirit. We live in the same world with the unbelievers, but we live by a different power - grace. We live according to a different standard - the law of God. We live with a different purpose - the glory of God. Therefore the Christian man and the Christian woman are marked people, and they ought to be. This enables them to witness to the unbeliever. This makes the Christian the object of persecution.

Fourth and finally, and very briefly, we confess that God has one all controlling purpose in history. To which, absolutely everything that happens in history, is subordinated, from the standing still of the universe in the long day of Joshua, to Babe Ruth’s hitting sixty home runs in a season. That one purpose of God with absolutely everything is the honor of the worthy name of Jesus Christ, the Head and Savior of the Church, and thus the glory of God. In the eternal counsel of God Jesus Christ is first “ before all things “, Colossians One seventeen. “ All things were created for him “, Colossians One verse sixteen. Everything serves his “ preeminence “, Colossians One eighteen. Common grace posits two distinct purposes of God with history - Christ and culture. A culture that has nothing to do with Jesus Christ, and a culture that inevitably overshadows Jesus Christ. We say “ no “ to common grace, because we are determined to say “ yes “ to Jesus Christ. Thank you.

[thepaulinator]

And who says the DARTH GILL of Planet HyperCalderon doesn't have it figured out?

Now that is comedy =)

[Tumbleweed]

holidayjim:



If the association of grace with salvation is unjustified, could you please provide an example where the Bible explicitly says that God bestows His grace upon those who later suffer eternal punishment?



Those who deny common grace do not deny that God gives good gifts to the reprobate. However, giving someone a good gift is not the same as bestowing grace upon a person. If I know that someone is suicidal and I give the gift of a gun to that person. That gun is a good gift which can be used for hunting or self-defense. But it is not grace. It is actually a display of hatred towards that person because I know what they will do with it. Giving someone physical life who is going to suffer eternally in hell cannot be thought of as grace unless grace is something very terrible.

It has been shown historically that those groups which adopt common grace, eventually end up on the road to universalism. Dr. Mouw has even suggested this in his book "He Shines in All That's Fair". He says that possibly all that we think of today as common grace, we might one day discover is actually saving grace.

Sola Gratia,
WildBoar

I've been too busy lately to visit the board, but I'm currently preaching through I Peter, and last week, in dealing with 3:7, this discussion came to mind. The question of whether Karis is ever used in scripture except with respect to salvation seems to be answered in this verse.

The expression "the grace of life", must necessarily have application in the case of an unregenerate marriage partner, given the context of the previous verses. The expression itself is designed to indicate that both husband and wife, regardless of their spiritual state, are nevertheless recipients of grace.

Notice Calvin on this verse: "For since the Lord is pleased to bestow in common on husbands and wives the same graces, he invites them to seek an equality in them; and we know that those graces are manifold in which wives are partakers with their husbands. For some belong to the present life, and some to God's spiritual kingdom. He afterwards adds, that they are co-heirs also of life, which is the chief thing. And though some are strangers to the hope of salvation, yet as it is offered by the Lord to them no less than to their husbands, it is a sufficient honor to the sex."

Can we deny therefore that Calvin accepted the concept of Common Grace?

- Paul

[wildboar]

The expression "the grace of life", must necessarily have application in the case of an unregenerate marriage partner, given the context of the previous verses.
What in the context of the previous verses leads you to believe this?


Can we deny therefore that Calvin accepted the concept of Common Grace?
I don't see anything in what you just quoted where Calvin says that reprobate spouses receive grace from God. This is an example of reading neo-orthodox teaching into Calvin. Notice what Calvin says just prior to this.




It is evident, that God is despised in his gifts, except we honor those on whom he has conferred any excellency. But when we consider that we are members of the same body, we learn to bear with one another, and mutually to cover our infirmities.


Calvin is going under the assumption as is Peter that the wife is a member of the body of Christ. Peter's point is that the wife has received the same grace the husband has.





And though some are strangers to the hope of salvation, yet as it is offered by the Lord to them no less than to their husbands, it is a sufficient honor to the sex.


Calvin states that salvation is offered unto wives just as well as husbands (this may be a poor translation, I'd have to check the Latin) he does not say that all are the reciepients of grace. Calvin says that life is the main thing that is because salvation is what Calvin is reading by life. Notice that Calvin does not read "the grace of life" but believes that "grace and life" is a better reading.





Being heirs together (or co-heirs) of the grace of life. Some copies have "ofmanifold grace;" others, instead of "life," have the word "living." Someread "co-heirs" in the dative case, which makes no difference in the sense.A conjunction is put by others between manifold grace and life; whichreading is the most suitable.


Notice in the following quotation that Calvin equates life with salvation.





He afterwards adds, that they are co-heirs also of life, which is the chief thing. And though some are strangers to the hope of salvation, yet as it is offered by the Lord to them no less than to their husbands, it is a sufficient honor to the sex.


This is for good reason, as Gill writes:




the grace of life, because it is the free gift of God's grace: and agreeably the Syriac version renders it, "the gift of eternal life"; and the Ethiopic version, glorious life: and this is represented as an inheritance, being what belongs only to the children; and which they have not by their own works, as an acquisition of theirs, but by the free grace of their heavenly Father, and as his gift and bequest unto them. Now all the saints, of whatever state, condition, or sex, are equally heirs of this inheritance; for there is but one inheritance, one kingdom, one crown of glory, which all shall enjoy; and whatever disparity there may be, particularly between husband and wife, in their natural relation, there is none in the things of grace, and with regard to the kingdom of glory; and which is an argument why husbands should dwell peaceably and comfortably with their wives, and give all due honour to them, since they are upon a par in spiritual things, there being neither male nor female in Christ Jesus, and because they are now joint heirs of, and shall equally share in eternal life and happiness,

That your prayers be not hindered: as they would be were they not to dwell together; or should not the husband give honour to his wife, and take care of her as he ought to do: hence would arise strifes and quarrels, when they could not cordially, and to edification, join together in prayer; nor would such prayers, put up in wrath, be acceptable unto God, who requires that men should lift up holy hands everywhere, whether in public, or in private, in God's house, or in their own houses, without wrath and doubting. From hence we may observe, that family prayer is a duty incumbent on professors of religion, and great care should be taken that it be not neglected and hindered,

(q) T. Bab. Bava Metzia, fol. 59. 1. & Sepher Musar apud Drusium in loc. (r) Apud. Buxtorf. Chald. Gram. p. 389. (s) T. Bab. Bava Metzia, fol. 59. 1.





I don't think the majority of those who hold to the idea of common grace would appeal to this as proof for the doctrine. At best it could be twisted to teach that God bestows grace upon reprobate spouses of elect individuals but there is nothing which would lead one to believe that God bestows His grace upon all reprobates.


It also seems clear that the case of a two believing spouses is being addressed because of the plural which is used.



and as being heirs together of the grace of life; that your prayers be not hindered.




The verse does not say that your (singular) prayers be not hindered, but your(plural) prayers be unhindered which makes it clear that the husband and wife are praying together.


As Kistemaker writes:



God does not accept prayers that husband and wife offer in an atmosphere of strife and contention. He wants them to be reconciled so that they are able to pray together in peace and harmony and thus enjoy untold divine blessings.


Sola Gratia,

WildBoar

[Tumbleweed]

Wildboar, you said:

"I don't think the majority of those who hold to the idea of common grace would appeal to this as proof for the doctrine. At best it could be twisted to teach that God bestows grace upon reprobate spouses of elect individuals but there is nothing which would lead one to believe that God bestows His grace upon all reprobates."

I raised this verse only because I happened to be dealing with it at the time, not because I consider it to be pivotal evidence. It is just a tiny piece of the mosaic.

1) The very phrase Karitos Zoes is so designed as to avoid it's necessary application to salvation, but to life broadly. Regardless of textual variants, this is the one we have majority evidence for.

2) The context does indeed require that we understand Peter to be allowing for situations where the wife is unregenerate. In dealing with the wife's responsibilities, v.1-6, he lays particular emphasis on the need for the wife's submission where the husband is disobedient to the word. What causes you then to imagine that he excludes the possibility of a mixed marriage when he then says, "Likewise ye husbands"? It is this illogical assumption that would be best described as "twisting the scripture".

3) In begrudgingly allowing the possibility of showing that God bestows some form of grace upon the reprobate spouses of elect individuals, you yield the entire argument (IE: by allowing that God bestows grace in ways that are not always salvatory). What happens to other reprobates is irrelevant.

[wildboar]

1) The very phrase Karitos Zoes is so designed as to avoid it's necessary application to salvation, but to life broadly. Regardless of textual variants, this is the one we have majority evidence for.

I do not doubt that Karitos Zoes is the correct reading. But there were two separate issues I was addressing, the one was whether or not the Bible teaches common grace and the other of whether or not Calvin taught common grace. The textual variant which Calvin chose showed that he did not believe this passage taught common grace. In fact none of the recent commentaries I consulted, regardless of theological disposition believed that this passage was referring to anything but a salvatory grace. Wayne Grudem and J. Ramsey Michaels both believed that the second part of the verse was referring specifically to believing spouses and Peter Davids thought that the idea that a man had an unbelieving spouse was outside of Peter's thought since the husband had spiritual control in the home.


What causes you then to imagine that he excludes the possibility of a mixed marriage when he then says, "Likewise ye husbands"?
It may very well be that the first half of the verse is referring to spouses in general. However the very fact that it speaks of them being co-heirs and the prayer which is taking place together shifts to the situation of two believers.


In begrudgingly allowing the possibility of showing that God bestows some form of grace upon the reprobate spouses of elect individuals, you yield the entire argument (IE: by allowing that God bestows grace in ways that are not always salvatory).
I was not allowing this possibility. I was merely stating that even if someone were to interpret the verse in this way there is nothing "common" about this grace anymore than there is in Jesus' very specific love for the rich young ruler.

Sola Gratia,
WildBoar