# God's Hatred



## SoliDeoGloria

Now excuse me as this is my first "real" thread and I did not take the time to search for anything regarding this, but I would care to ask the question:

Does God hate unrepentant sinners?

My answer resides as _yes_.
This is why:

What does God hate?
Wickedness
Sin
Those who perform iniquity. (Psalm 5:5)
(I am assuming) The suppression of truth and His righteousness (Romans 1)

Now, what do unrepentant sinners do?:
Wickedness
Sin
All things against God
Iniquity
Suppress the truth and His righteousness.

Furthermore:
What more is there for God to live in the individual? What good is there to an unrepentant sinner? Absolutely nothing, nothing but wickedness and everything God hates. What can God possibly _personally_ love towards a person who is nothing short of _everything_ He hates?

For purpose of my arguments, as I see that I am perhaps the youngest poster on this forum, you all seem to be in seminary and college and far wiser and intelligent than me. I suppose I don't have to bring up the Greek text of John 3:16 which is only a _demonstration_ of God's love towards ill deserving sinners such as you and me, and the same goes for Romans 5:8.

I have never seen a verse in the Bible suggesting God has a _personal_ love for unrepentant sinners.

And this "hatred" I am attempting to debate is not one of our comprehension for any such hatred would be pure, perfect, righteous, and just in every way beyond ways our fallible, sinful selves and comprehend.

Thoughts?


----------



## awretchsavedbygrace

SoliDeoGloria said:


> Now excuse me as this is my first "real" thread and I did not take the time to search for anything regarding this, but I would care to ask the question:
> 
> Does God hate unrepentant sinners?
> 
> My answer resides as _yes_.
> This is why:
> 
> What does God hate?
> Wickedness
> Sin
> Those who perform iniquity. (Psalm 5:5)
> (I am assuming) The suppression of truth and His righteousness (Romans 1)
> 
> Now, what do unrepentant sinners do?:
> Wickedness
> Sin
> All things against God
> Iniquity
> Suppress the truth and His righteousness.
> 
> Furthermore:
> What more is there for God to live in the individual? What good is there to an unrepentant sinner? Absolutely nothing, nothing but wickedness and everything God hates. What can God possibly _personally_ love towards a person who is nothing short of _everything_ He hates?
> 
> For purpose of my arguments, as I see that I am perhaps the youngest poster on this forum, you all seem to be in seminary and college and far wiser and intelligent than me. I suppose I don't have to bring up the Greek text of John 3:16 which is only a _demonstration_ of God's love towards ill deserving sinners such as you and me, and the same goes for Romans 5:8.
> 
> I have never seen a verse in the Bible suggesting God has a _personal_ love for unrepentant sinners.
> 
> And this "hatred" I am attempting to debate is not one of our comprehension for any such hatred would be pure, perfect, righteous, and just in every way beyond ways our fallible, sinful selves and comprehend.
> 
> Thoughts?



Common Grace anyone?


----------



## awretchsavedbygrace

Joshua said:


> XBlackWaterX said:
> 
> 
> 
> Common Grace anyone?
> 
> 
> 
> If, by _Common Grace_, you mean that God brings rain on the just and the unjust alike, that He grants temporal gifts to the reprobate as well as the elect, so on and so forth, I can agree with you (though I wouldn't call it _grace_). However, all of those "gifts" simply serve to fit the reprobate for destruction and make them all the riper for judgment. So I believe _Common Grace_ is an insufficient term to describe the temporal "good things of the earth" God gives to all creatures made in His image.
> 
> If you're interested, there's a very good article that touches upon this briefly by our very own Rev. Winzer (armourbearer):
> 
> http://www.puritanboard.com/f71/there-free-offer-just-command-repent-believe-46402/#post588587
Click to expand...


Touche....


----------



## Berean

Joshua said:


> God _does_ hate the reprobate, and He _is _angry with the wicked everyday. What _we_ must be careful about, however, is that we are commanded to love our enemies and do good to those who persecute us, _et al_. God's hatred is a perfect, holy, and just hatred. Ours, on the other hand, is not because it is tainted by our own pride, self-righteousness, and sinfulness.



Thanks, Josh


----------



## awretchsavedbygrace

Joshua said:


> XBlackWaterX said:
> 
> 
> 
> Common Grace anyone?
> 
> 
> 
> If, by _Common Grace_, you mean that God brings rain on the just and the unjust alike, that He grants temporal gifts to the reprobate as well as the elect, so on and so forth, I can agree with you (though I wouldn't call it _grace_). However, all of those "gifts" simply serve to fit the reprobate for destruction and make them all the riper for judgment. So I believe _Common Grace_ is an insufficient term to describe the temporal "good things of the earth" God gives to all creatures made in His image.
> 
> If you're interested, there's a very good article that touches upon this briefly by our very own Rev. Winzer (armourbearer):
> 
> http://www.puritanboard.com/f71/there-free-offer-just-command-repent-believe-46402/#post588587
Click to expand...


Do these "gifts" not come from the grace of God?


----------



## SoliDeoGloria

Would one of you mind defining what you mean by "common grace?"
Common grace in my mind has always been the grace that allows us to live, breathe, laugh, and keep us from hell.
Essentially, common grace is attributed towards _all_ men and is everything short of hell for us.

Is this the definition we are going by or is there a deeper understanding and meaning for this?


----------



## SoliDeoGloria

Joshua said:


> I can't adequately define the term _common grace_ because I don't believe _grace's _application is referred to as _common_ in scripture.



I suppose perhaps not by name, but to evaluate:

What lets us breathe? God's grace
What lets us live? God's grace
Why do we have food? God's grace.

Essentially all things we have are found as being as a gift of God which can be considered an act of grace, displayed towards all people.

Whereas we have _saving grace_ which would include God's electing grace, financial, persevering, justifying, glorifying and so forth.

Do you understand the point I am attempting to make?


----------



## SoliDeoGloria

Joshua said:


> SoliDeoGloria said:
> 
> 
> 
> What lets us breathe?
> What lets us live?
> Why do we have food?
> 
> 
> 
> Who's _us_? The Elect or the Reprobate? It's a different answer for each group.
> 
> For the elect, these things are God's temporal gifts and comforts, or his longsuffering toward them before He brings them to salvation. For the reprobate, these things serve as a hardening and ripening exercise fitting them unto destruction (Rom. 9).
Click to expand...


Well I suppose the "us" would include everyone.
I consider all these things regardless as to whom they are for, an act of grace towards all people whether for hardening and ripening or for temporal gifts and comforts as you put it.

My opinion is that regardless of whom they are for, they are a gracious gift which we still receive even though we are sinners. I consider that even despite our sin and suppression of God's truth He still provides for such things which is in my mind an act of grace. Which will ultimately for the reprobate only prolong their life until judgment, or for the elect as a gift of grace and love and mercy from God which we don't deserve that we might enjoy God for being so gracious in providing them.


----------



## historyb

Well the controversial one will answer, because well I'm feeling controversial.  I don't think God hates the reprobate


----------



## toddpedlar

historyb said:


> Well the controversial one will answer, because well I'm feeling controversial.  I don't think God hates the reprobate



Hard to argue that Scripturally...


----------



## toddpedlar

Joshua said:


> I can't adequately define the term _common grace_ because I don't believe _grace's _application is referred to as _common_ in scripture.



I much prefer the simple term "Providence" as God acts in time and space to effect His decrees - and for some that means they get rain (both just and unjust) and for others, drought (both just and unjust). For the just, timely rain very well may spring forth from God's gracious love to them - for the unjust, timely rain is, well, as Josh put it, hardly to be termed "grace" if what it does is harden them in their self-sufficiency and arrogant pride. Always, though, it is God's Providential working of His Will.


----------



## Reformed Rush

SoliDeoGloria said:


> Would one of you mind defining what you mean by "common grace?"



Well, Jake, I for one do not believe there is such a thing as "common grace."  I believe God's grace is particular in nature, always salvific, and only applied to His elect sons of God and never to the reprobates of the world.

What many call "grace," such as earthly blessings and divine patience with wickedness, is not "grace" but Godly providence.

God is a good God and providentially bestows earthly blessing amongst many in order to pursue and fulfill His own purposes and intents.

But GRACE is the receiving of covenant blessings, promised to the spiritual seed amongst mankind, alone. Only those chosen and elect in Jesus Christ ever truly know the saving grace of God.

Jim


----------



## toddpedlar

SoliDeoGloria said:


> Joshua said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SoliDeoGloria said:
> 
> 
> 
> What lets us breathe?
> What lets us live?
> Why do we have food?
> 
> 
> 
> Who's _us_? The Elect or the Reprobate? It's a different answer for each group.
> 
> For the elect, these things are God's temporal gifts and comforts, or his longsuffering toward them before He brings them to salvation. For the reprobate, these things serve as a hardening and ripening exercise fitting them unto destruction (Rom. 9).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well I suppose the "us" would include everyone.
> I consider all these things regardless as to whom they are for, an act of grace towards all people whether for hardening and ripening or for temporal gifts and comforts as you put it.
Click to expand...


I've said this in another post... but I'll say it again, since you brought it up here.

How can an act which hardens a reprobate, and sends him deeper into his sin ever possibly be interpreted as an act of grace toward him?


----------



## Reformed Rush

SoliDeoGloria said:


> Does God hate unrepentant sinners?



The more important question would be, do unrepentant sinners hate God?

The answer: Yes.

Is God obligated in any way to love those who hate Him?

The answer: No.

When we were dead in our sins and trespasses, did we saved Christians hate God?

The answer: Yes.

So God chose to love us despite our hatred of Him. Which is pure grace.

Those God chooses to leave reprobate in hatred of Him, is pure justice.

At least, that is how I see these matters taught in the bible.

Jim


----------



## historyb

Joshua said:


> Doug, posting simply to stir the pot is not welcome.


I didn't I posted my opinion which goes against the grain here


----------



## toddpedlar

historyb said:


> Joshua said:
> 
> 
> 
> Doug, posting simply to stir the pot is not welcome.
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't I posted my opinion which goes against the grain here
Click to expand...


Posting a hit-and-run opinion without the Scriptural grounding for it (you should have it, if you hold it to be what the Bible teaches) is what we generally refer to as "stirring the pot". You know it "goes against the grain", yet you posted your little quip anyway. That's why it's not appreciated. Posting of such pot-shot opinions isn't something you should be so willing to do.


----------



## ChariotsofFire

When you first compare passages like Ezekiel 18:23 with Hosea 9:15 or Romans 9:13, it's seems hard to reconcile such passages. Our finite minds can not fully comprehend how the will of God works. We must interpret Scripture with Scripture and submit to the teaching of Scripture. We can not rely on our reason to understand how God Almighty works, but only his Word. 

My view is that God hates wickedness, and yes he hates the wicked. At the same time, God does not delight in condemning the wicked to hell. He is a kind, compassionate merciful God, but he is also a God of justice. 


A helpful article:
Are There Two Wills in God? :: Desiring God Christian Resource Library


----------



## kalawine

Here's an audio debate on the subject. Is the Doctrine of Common Grace Reformed? 
I agree with Engelsma that there is no common grace.


----------



## SoliDeoGloria

toddpedlar said:


> SoliDeoGloria said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Joshua said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who's _us_? The Elect or the Reprobate? It's a different answer for each group.
> 
> For the elect, these things are God's temporal gifts and comforts, or his longsuffering toward them before He brings them to salvation. For the reprobate, these things serve as a hardening and ripening exercise fitting them unto destruction (Rom. 9).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well I suppose the "us" would include everyone.
> I consider all these things regardless as to whom they are for, an act of grace towards all people whether for hardening and ripening or for temporal gifts and comforts as you put it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've said this in another post... but I'll say it again, since you brought it up here.
> 
> How can an act which hardens a reprobate, and sends him deeper into his sin ever possibly be interpreted as an act of grace toward him?
Click to expand...

All things that are not sinful can be used to glorify God. Soli Deo Gloria in action.

Can food be used to glorify God? I believe so. Can it be used for sin and wrong things? Absolutely.
What more is the thing which permits us to live and move other than grace? 
I suppose I interpret grace differently than you. God provides, yes; God is provident, yes; but God's providence is an act of grace, which we still don't deserve. It is sin when God's blessings towards us are used for things other than the glorification of Him, which is actually idolatry. Good things become god things which makes it a bad thing.

I hope the answers your question.


----------



## ChariotsofFire

I've thought about this subject before when I've heard friends of mine say, "God hates the sin, but not the sinner." It's sounds like a nice cliche, but I don't know if it's Biblical. Any thoughts?


----------



## kalawine

Joshua said:


> XBlackWaterX said:
> 
> 
> 
> Common Grace anyone?
> 
> 
> 
> If, by _Common Grace_, you mean that God brings rain on the just and the unjust alike, that He grants temporal gifts to the reprobate as well as the elect, so on and so forth, I can agree with you (though I wouldn't call it _grace_). However, all of those "gifts" simply serve to fit the reprobate for destruction and make them all the riper for judgment. So I believe _Common Grace_ is an insufficient term to describe the temporal "good things of the earth" God gives to all creatures made in His image.
Click to expand...


----------



## Reformed Rush

ChariotsofFire said:


> When you first compare passages like Ezekiel 18:23 with Hosea 9:15 or Romans 9:13, it's seems hard to reconcile such passages. Our finite minds can not fully comprehend how the will of God works. We must interpret Scripture with Scripture and submit to the teaching of Scripture. We can not rely on our reason to understand how God Almighty works, but only his Word.
> 
> My view is that God hates wickedness, and yes he hates the wicked. At the same time, God does not delight in condemning the wicked to hell. He is a kind, compassionate merciful God, but he is also a God of justice.
> 
> 
> A helpful article:
> Are There Two Wills in God? :: Desiring God Christian Resource Library



This "Two Wills of God" is a fallacious teaching, meant to suggest God desires that not all men perish, and is unhappy that many are consigned to hell, which contradicts the doctrine of divine reprobation, altogether.

It is an apologetic for teaching a "common grace" that is not biblical at all.


----------



## ChariotsofFire

Reformed Rush said:


> ChariotsofFire said:
> 
> 
> 
> When you first compare passages like Ezekiel 18:23 with Hosea 9:15 or Romans 9:13, it's seems hard to reconcile such passages. Our finite minds can not fully comprehend how the will of God works. We must interpret Scripture with Scripture and submit to the teaching of Scripture. We can not rely on our reason to understand how God Almighty works, but only his Word.
> 
> My view is that God hates wickedness, and yes he hates the wicked. At the same time, God does not delight in condemning the wicked to hell. He is a kind, compassionate merciful God, but he is also a God of justice.
> 
> 
> A helpful article:
> Are There Two Wills in God? :: Desiring God Christian Resource Library
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This "Two Wills of God" is a fallacious teaching, meant to suggest God desires that not all men perish, and is unhappy that many are consigned to hell, which contradicts the doctrine of divine reprobation, altogether.
> 
> It is an apologetic for teaching a "common grace" that is not biblical at all.
Click to expand...



It may seem fallacious to our human minds, but it's what God's Word teaches in both Ezekial 18 and 1 Timothy 2. God's revealed will and secret will are two different things.


----------



## SoliDeoGloria

> Jakob,
> 
> Consider the whole of the Scriptures and its use of grace. Where has God shown grace and it wasn't specific, efficacious, and salvific in nature?


I in a sense think that right now we live in a point of Grace. I think that because God is not actively killing us for our sins, although it is to come, we have a sense of grace displayed towards us.

The only act of provision or grace, in my opinion that affects all humanity, is the fact that we all are not in hell at this moment. I think that it is an act of Grace that God has spared humanity as far as He has, although surely justice is to come only accordingly.

All I'm simply trying to say is that I see my food, house, books, clothes, and everything I have as God being gracious to me. It is an act towards an ill deserving sinner like myself and I simply call it grace, because it's undeserved.


----------



## kalawine

ChariotsofFire said:


> I've thought about this subject before when I've heard friends of mine say, "God hates the sin, but not the sinner." It's sounds like a nice cliche, but I don't know if it's Biblical. Any thoughts?



PSALM 5

4 For you are not a God who delights in wickedness;
evil may not dwell with you.
5 The boastful shall not stand before your eyes;
*you hate all evildoers.*
6 You destroy those who speak lies;
the Lord abhors the bloodthirsty and deceitful man.


----------



## Reformed Rush

ChariotsofFire said:


> Reformed Rush said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChariotsofFire said:
> 
> 
> 
> When you first compare passages like Ezekiel 18:23 with Hosea 9:15 or Romans 9:13, it's seems hard to reconcile such passages. Our finite minds can not fully comprehend how the will of God works. We must interpret Scripture with Scripture and submit to the teaching of Scripture. We can not rely on our reason to understand how God Almighty works, but only his Word.
> 
> My view is that God hates wickedness, and yes he hates the wicked. At the same time, God does not delight in condemning the wicked to hell. He is a kind, compassionate merciful God, but he is also a God of justice.
> 
> 
> A helpful article:
> Are There Two Wills in God? :: Desiring God Christian Resource Library
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This "Two Wills of God" is a fallacious teaching, meant to suggest God desires that not all men perish, and is unhappy that many are consigned to hell, which contradicts the doctrine of divine reprobation, altogether.
> 
> It is an apologetic for teaching a "common grace" that is not biblical at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It may seem fallacious to our human minds, but it's what God's Word teaches in both Ezekial 18 and 1 Timothy 2. God's revealed will and secret will are two different things.
Click to expand...


I wholeheartedly disagree, but the subject deserves its own thread.

Jim


----------



## SoliDeoGloria

For the record.
"Hate the sin, love the sinner" was a quote from Ghandi.
Hate the sin, show evidences of love towards the sinner, because they are just as undeserving of the forgiveness displayed towards you as you are.
We have no right to justly or righteously hate them for we fall short of the standard we are attempting to hold them up to.
We can love the sinner and hate the sin, because we too are sinners and we too hate our own sin. But this is us.


----------



## Reformed Rush

SoliDeoGloria said:


> I in a sense think that right now we live in a point of Grace. I think that because God is not actively killing us for our sins, although it is to come, we have a sense of grace displayed towards us.



What you describe is God's long patient suffering with wickedness. And the only reason God suffers long with wicked men, is to work salvation for His elect. Once God saves the last elect soul, His patience with wickedness will abruptly end and Judgment Day will occur. No grace for the unrepentant reprobates on that Day!





> All I'm simply trying to say is that I see my food, house, books, clothes, and everything I have as God being gracious to me. It is an act towards an ill deserving sinner like myself and I simply call it grace, because it's undeserved.



Such things are providential, earthly blessings. Even the reprobate enjoy food, houses, books, clothes, etc.

Grace has always to do with the saving of sinful souls from deserved punishment and death, through the substitutional sufferings of Jesus Christ, and nothing less. God's grace always saves for it is always based on the cross work of the Savior; performed for the elect sons of God, alone.


----------



## SoliDeoGloria

> Such things are providential, earthly blessings. Even the reprobate enjoy food, houses, books, clothes, etc.


Ultimately, what are acts of provision and blessings?

And what would you define grace as?

I ultimately see all things from God as an act of Grace for He does not have to do anything, but graciously, lovingly, and mercifully does.
I believe my food is a provision, given to me as an act of grace ultimately. I don't know of any theological reason as to suggest otherwise.


----------



## Reformed Rush

SoliDeoGloria said:


> Such things are providential, earthly blessings. Even the reprobate enjoy food, houses, books, clothes, etc.
> 
> 
> 
> Ultimately, what are acts of provision and blessings?
> 
> And what would you define grace as?
> 
> I ultimately see all things from God as an act of Grace for He does not have to do anything, but graciously, lovingly, and mercifully does.
> I believe my food is a provision, given to me as an act of grace ultimately. I don't know of any theological reason as to suggest otherwise.
Click to expand...


God's providence sustains temporal life for all. 

God's grace brings eternal life through faith in Christ for the elect only.


----------



## ChariotsofFire

kalawine said:


> ChariotsofFire said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've thought about this subject before when I've heard friends of mine say, "God hates the sin, but not the sinner." It's sounds like a nice cliche, but I don't know if it's Biblical. Any thoughts?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PSALM 5
> 
> 4 For you are not a God who delights in wickedness;
> evil may not dwell with you.
> 5 The boastful shall not stand before your eyes;
> *you hate all evildoers.*
> 6 You destroy those who speak lies;
> the Lord abhors the bloodthirsty and deceitful man.
Click to expand...


It seems clear to me that God hates evil and evildoers. It also seems clear, he grants evil doers some measure of grace in this life. God restrains them from utter depravity, let's their conscience work, and gives temporal blessings in this life. 

So while I disagree with the Arminian who says "God loves you", I also disagree with someone who would say there is no common grace. It seems quite possible that God hates wicked people in his justice, but still allows some measure of his grace to enter their lives, although they are doomed for destruction.

This also leads me into thinking about the free offer of the gospel, which is also a "common" grace.


----------



## SoliDeoGloria

Reformed Rush said:


> SoliDeoGloria said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Such things are providential, earthly blessings. Even the reprobate enjoy food, houses, books, clothes, etc.
> 
> 
> 
> Ultimately, what are acts of provision and blessings?
> 
> And what would you define grace as?
> 
> I ultimately see all things from God as an act of Grace for He does not have to do anything, but graciously, lovingly, and mercifully does.
> I believe my food is a provision, given to me as an act of grace ultimately. I don't know of any theological reason as to suggest otherwise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> God's providence sustains temporal life for all.
> 
> God's grace brings eternal life through faith in Christ for the elect only.
Click to expand...

I don't mean to be difficult, so I am sorry if I seem to be, but I don't see it that way.
I see God's providence as gracious, I see everything I have is God being gracious, and by gracious I mean displaying grace.

God's grace is enough for this life and the life to come. Grace need not always be defined as God's gift imputed upon us.
Paul proclaims "His grace is sufficient for me" in fact there are fourteen points of saving grace listed in the New Testament. Those being:
1. Electing grace
2. Preached grace
3. Regenerating grace
4. Converting grace
5. Justifying grace
6. Adopting grace
7. Ministry grace
8. Sanctifying grace
9. Empowering grace
10. Provisional grace
11. Financial grace
12. Miraculous grace
13. Persevering grace
14. Glorifying grace

Jesus proclaimed I have come to bring "grace upon grace."

I suppose we define grace differently, and I don't see anything sinful regarding that, so that's as far as I am concerned okay. What I see as grace, you see as provision. What you see as provision, I see as an act of grace which is something we don't deserve. Grace is abused in the instances we sin by commission, and Grace is cherished when we choose righteousness over infidelity.

And I hope you never take my posts as authoritative or demanding, I mean them all gently, lovingly, and humbly because I do not know all. And perhaps one day I will see things the way you do, or perhaps not. But that's okay we disagree on this, I don't know of any Scripture suggesting that what I'm suggesting is heretical, wrong, fallacious, or anything. No need to reconcile friends, Spurgeon says.


----------



## toddpedlar

SoliDeoGloria said:


> Such things are providential, earthly blessings. Even the reprobate enjoy food, houses, books, clothes, etc.
> 
> 
> 
> Ultimately, what are acts of provision and blessings?
> 
> And what would you define grace as?
> 
> I ultimately see all things from God as an act of Grace for He does not have to do anything, but graciously, lovingly, and mercifully does.
> I believe my food is a provision, given to me as an act of grace ultimately. I don't know of any theological reason as to suggest otherwise.
Click to expand...


Was God's provision of the tent peg for Jael to use an act of grace toward Sisera?

Not everything God does is grace for everyone or loving toward everyone. We have to be careful not to take "God is love" to be THE quality of God that drives our interpretation of everything. 

Mere provision of food and water is not "grace" in any sense of the word - I know this is disputed among some, but I just cannot see how or why the word "grace" needs to be used in that place, when "providence" is perfectly legitimate and more appropriately reflects the truth of the situation.


----------



## Peairtach

toddpedlar said:


> SoliDeoGloria said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Such things are providential, earthly blessings. Even the reprobate enjoy food, houses, books, clothes, etc.
> 
> 
> 
> Ultimately, what are acts of provision and blessings?
> 
> And what would you define grace as?
> 
> I ultimately see all things from God as an act of Grace for He does not have to do anything, but graciously, lovingly, and mercifully does.
> I believe my food is a provision, given to me as an act of grace ultimately. I don't know of any theological reason as to suggest otherwise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Was God's provision of the tent peg for Jael to use an act of grace toward Sisera?
> 
> Not everything God does is grace for everyone or loving toward everyone. We have to be careful not to take "God is love" to be THE quality of God that drives our interpretation of everything.
> 
> Mere provision of food and water is not "grace" in any sense of the word - I know this is disputed among some, but I just cannot see how or why the word "grace" needs to be used in that place, when "providence" is perfectly legitimate and more appropriately reflects the truth of the situation.
Click to expand...


Surely the good things which the reprobate receive from God are undeserved and therefore of God's grace.


----------



## toddpedlar

Richard Tallach said:


> Surely the good things which the reprobate receive from God are undeserved and therefore of God's grace.



If everything that is undeserved is from God's grace, that's a very strange definition of "grace", indeed.

If something given by God hardens his heart, and causes that person to become more and more deeply entrenched in his hatred of God (and obviously that is God's intent, since God is Sovereign and nothing comes to pass that is not his decree), can that thing, though undeserved, truly be called a gift of God's "grace"?


----------



## Ivan

This is an issue that I'll soon being dealing with at my church. The recent annual meeting at the SBC has brought up a lot of questions concerning the Doctrines of Grace. Some of my church members are still reforming in these areas but they are more than willing to listen and have open hearts.


----------



## Marrow Man

Much of the disagreement here is over the use of the term "grace" when discussing what has come to be called "common grace." While I agree whole-heartedly with the concept (as stated above by brothers Josh and Jim) of God's general and providential goodness, the term "grace" itself is misleading and I would shy away from its usage because it can imply something that was not intended by the term. A term such as "common goodness" might actually be more helpful.

The problem is that the Scripture sometimes uses the term "grace" (or "favor" as it is sometimes translated -- both are based upon the Hebrew _hen _and the Greek _charis_) -- is applied to specific individuals in Scripture in contexts where the normal understanding of "grace" (i.e., salvific grace) is not applicable (e.g., Joseph in Genesis 39:4 and Jesus in Luke 2:52). If anyone is interested, I posted a paper on this issue at my blog here.


----------



## Jeff Allen

I'm beginning to see why reformed Christianity is weak at evangelism. 
To a sinner of most any stripe:" God probably hates you but because I don't know for sure, Jesus might love you."

Meanwhile the pentecostal preacher says to the riff raff, I don't care who you are or what you have done. God want to save you now.


----------



## Marrow Man

Johnny DeFrange said:


> I'm beginning to see why reformed Christianity is weak at evangelism.
> To a sinner of most any stripe:" God probably hates you but because I don't know for sure, Jesus might love you."



That sounds more like a straw man. I don't know of anyone who is really Reformed who says that. I suppose you might have a few nutcases like Fred Phelps who might say something like that, but I am not speaking of fringe folks but the historic Reformed faith.

I do see two dangers that may come forth -- a hyper-Calvinistic tendency that puts up too many roadblocks for the proclamation of the gospel (but I don't think hyper-Calvinism should be confused with Reformed Christianity), and neo-Arminian tendency that might lead to a false assurance of salvation (or worse: if God loves me anyway, why do I have the need to come to Christ and repent?). Both are dangerous and both are distortions of the gospel.


----------



## toddpedlar

Johnny DeFrange said:


> I'm beginning to see why reformed Christianity is weak at evangelism.
> To a sinner of most any stripe:" God probably hates you but because I don't know for sure, Jesus might love you."
> 
> Meanwhile the pentecostal preacher says to the riff raff, I don't care who you are or what you have done. God want to save you now.



As Josh noted, no Reformed person in his right mind would say what you have asserted. Cut it out.

As for your quotation from the pentecostal preacher, it's certainly true that they often say such things, and it's a misleading statement for him to do so, because he is not endued with knowledge about who is or is not elect. Since he doesn't, he shouldn't assert such things as he does in your above quote. 

Rather, what both should say is that all mankind are born in a state of brokenness and there is only one way to heal the breach and come to a right relationship with God - Jesus Christ, who gave His life to save His people from their sins. 

We must never avoid difficult conversations (like "well you say He died to save His people - what about me?") by twisting or misrepresenting the truth. We should, rather, be prepared to trumpet the grace of God to save men and women like you and me, and be willing to engage in the difficult conversations that can come about when the truth is faithfully presented.


----------



## toddpedlar

Success in evangelism, by the way, Johnny, comes not through gaining professions of faith, but by faithfully professing the truth, no matter HOW many come.


----------



## Jeff Allen

I was using hyperbole and didn,t not mean to offend and I was speaking mainly of myself. I lived in the gay ghetto of Long Beach for many years and saw horrible behavior. It was very easy to write these people off. I wondered why a earthquake did not swallow up the gay pride parade. I know this was a sinful attitute on my part to assume that their sin was worst than mine in God's sights.

Lets be honest? How many of us have written people off?


----------



## Ivan

Reformed Christianity weak in evangelism. Ever hear of Judson, Carey, Whitefield, Spurgeon, Lloyd-Jones? How 'bout MacArthur, Mohler, Piper, Duncan, etc.?

Weak? Hardly.

BTW, Todd nailed it in post #55.

-----Added 6/30/2009 at 12:18:49 EST-----



Johnny DeFrange said:


> Lets be honest? How many of us have written people off?



Not one.


----------



## Prufrock

Johnny DeFrange said:


> I was using hyperbole and didn,t not mean to offend and I was speaking mainly of myself. I lived in the gay ghetto of Long Beach for many years and saw horrible behavior. It was very easy to write these people off. I wondered why a earthquake did not swallow up the gay pride parade. I know this was a sinful attitute on my part to assume that their sin was worst than mine in God's sights.
> 
> Lets be honest? How many of us have written people off?



If we have done so, it has nothing to do with (or rather, is wholly opposed to) our Reformed theology which from scripture _assumes_ the total depravity of man, God's free election and Christ's irresistible grace. I would submit its the preacher of free-will that has the greater propensity to "write people off."

The gospel the Reformed preach is "See here Christ offered for sinners, freely and graciously -- though you be the most vile sinner on earth, here stands Christ ready to receive and save if you but turn and place your faith in him." This is a far cry from "God probably hates you."


----------



## Jeff Allen

More honesty: When I think that as a foolish Christian I went into Mormonism and engaged in horrific temple ceremonies making fun of the biblical God ( As time goes by it just seems worst and worst) I can't tell if I,m elect. I would not choose myself. Actually it is eating me alive.


----------



## Prufrock

Johnny, do not try to speculate as to whether you are elect: there is only one question to ask yourself -- is Christ mine? Do you cling to him? If you do, beholding that free promise in Christ, then you see as it were the mirror of your election. I would recommend talking to your pastor about this.


----------



## SoliDeoGloria

Johnny DeFrange said:


> I'm beginning to see why reformed Christianity is weak at evangelism.
> To a sinner of most any stripe:" God probably hates you but because I don't know for sure, Jesus might love you."
> 
> Meanwhile the pentecostal preacher says to the riff raff, I don't care who you are or what you have done. God want to save you now.



In my opinion, reformed thoughts and theology generally provide the strongest converts because it reveals a more complete Gospel as opposed to some youth conference where we talk down and aisle and say a prayer.

You must understand why the just and righteous hatred God has exists, and why it must be corrected. God hates sinners, but for what purpose? Because you're _evil_. Seriously, we're wicked. God hates us for our sin, and for suppressing the truth. Who upon realization of their depravity is going to want to know that an omnipotent God who has a furious, perfect and immense hatred for everything you are wants to stay that way? 

We are saved from the wrath of God. If I was not a Christian and someone put it to me that God hates me amending that would be on the first of my list, at least I would assume if I was still my same persona.

Sinners in the hands of an angry God, anyone?


----------



## VilnaGaon

Getting back to the original topic, would one say that the Hatred of God towards the Reprobate is different from human hatred in that it is devoid of passions, whereas our hatred(s) are tainted with sinful passions?


----------



## SoliDeoGloria

VilnaGaon said:


> Getting back to the original topic, would one say that the Hatred of God towards the Reprobate is different from human hatred in that it is devoid of passions, whereas our hatred(s) are tainted with sinful passions?



Absolutely.
God's hatred is one that is just, perfect, pure, and righteous. He being perfect, must hate imperfection, He being righteous, must hate unrighteousness.
This is something beyond our comprehension for we are not to attain this status of perfection or pure righteousness, for us to hate this way would be impossible.

It also further goes to show the graciousness of God's towards His elect.


----------



## Spinningplates2

I think it could be said that God hates the "non-Elect" only. Because we were all sinners and scripture is clear that "While we were still in our sins He loved us first; then Called us, then changed us." ( I know this is a mix of two verses.)

God loving the elect is nothing to be proud or a reason to boast. He has every right to hate me. I hate myself when I think how unpure and imperfect I am when compared to Him and His example of love.

That is why we can say, "I know that God hates the wicked, I thank God for Grace because without it He would hate me too."


----------



## SoliDeoGloria

Spinningplates2 said:


> I think it could be said that God hates the "non-Elect" only. Because we were all sinners and scripture is clear that "While we were still in our sins He loved us first; then Called us, then changed us." ( I know this is a mix of two verses.)
> 
> God loving the elect is noting to be proud or a reason to boast. He has every right to hate me. I hate myself when I think how unpure and imperfect I am when compared to Him and His example of love.
> 
> That is why we can say, "I know that God hates the wicked, I thank God for Grace because without it He would hate me too."



To clarify, are you saying that before the elect are regenerated, they are not hated by God?
If this is what you are saying, I would disagree. Regardless if one is elect, before one is regenerated, they are everything God hates.

And I believe you are mixing Romans 5:8 with Ephesians 1:3-7 in multiple parts.
God performed an act of gracious love towards us, yet the question was does God personally hate unregenerated people? And I answered with a yes.
At least that's my take on this.


----------



## toddpedlar

SoliDeoGloria said:


> Spinningplates2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think it could be said that God hates the "non-Elect" only. Because we were all sinners and scripture is clear that "While we were still in our sins He loved us first; then Called us, then changed us." ( I know this is a mix of two verses.)
> 
> God loving the elect is noting to be proud or a reason to boast. He has every right to hate me. I hate myself when I think how unpure and imperfect I am when compared to Him and His example of love.
> 
> That is why we can say, "I know that God hates the wicked, I thank God for Grace because without it He would hate me too."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To clarify, are you saying that before the elect are regenerated, they are not hated by God?
> If this is what you are saying, I would disagree. Regardless if one is elect, before one is regenerated, they are everything God hates.
Click to expand...

Maybe you should show some Scriptural support for your position?


----------



## Peairtach

I'm in a bit of a hurry, but would those of you who believe that there is no common grace, say that the Gospel comes to the non-elect in hate?

Also if the elect can be objects of God's wrath in some sense before their conversion, surely the reprobate can be objects of God's grace in some sense in this life.


----------



## toddpedlar

Richard Tallach said:


> I'm in a bit of a hurry, but would those of you who believe that there is no common grace, say that the Gospel comes to the non-elect in hate?



How is it "grace" when all the gospel does for the unregenerate is stumble them and cause them to more deeply trust in themselves and their own autonomous status?



> Also if the elect can be objects of God's wrath in some sense before their conversion, surely the reprobate can be objects of God's grace in some sense in this life.



We can debate what it means for the elect being objects of God's wrath before conversion in a different thread.

However, in regard to this particular situation, if the Bible said the reprobate were objects of God's grace in some sense in this life, then we'd have to agree. But it doesn't. You can't argue from the existence of statements which seem to call the unregenerate elect objects of God's wrath prior to conversion that the contrary must therefore be true. That's a simple logical fallacy.


----------



## SoliDeoGloria

toddpedlar said:


> SoliDeoGloria said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spinningplates2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think it could be said that God hates the "non-Elect" only. Because we were all sinners and scripture is clear that "While we were still in our sins He loved us first; then Called us, then changed us." ( I know this is a mix of two verses.)
> 
> God loving the elect is noting to be proud or a reason to boast. He has every right to hate me. I hate myself when I think how unpure and imperfect I am when compared to Him and His example of love.
> 
> That is why we can say, "I know that God hates the wicked, I thank God for Grace because without it He would hate me too."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To clarify, are you saying that before the elect are regenerated, they are not hated by God?
> If this is what you are saying, I would disagree. Regardless if one is elect, before one is regenerated, they are everything God hates.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Maybe you should show some Scriptural support for your position?
Click to expand...

There is only so far as I can go, it does extend into philosophy as I stated in my original post.

What is an unregenerate Christian but everything God hates? A worker of iniquity, wicked, sinful, a person who commits deeds as good as menstrual cloths, self righteous, a person who walks in the flesh.
THese are all things God hates, and this is all an unregenerate Christian is, what is there for God to love in a person who is everything He hates and has nothing of Himself in there?

The main source of this statement is based in Psalm 5:5 "You hate those who perform iniquity."


----------



## toddpedlar

SoliDeoGloria said:


> toddpedlar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SoliDeoGloria said:
> 
> 
> 
> To clarify, are you saying that before the elect are regenerated, they are not hated by God?
> If this is what you are saying, I would disagree. Regardless if one is elect, before one is regenerated, they are everything God hates.
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe you should show some Scriptural support for your position?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is only so far as I can go, it does extend into philosophy as I stated in my original post.
Click to expand...


If you've not got Scriptural support for such a position, then you'd probably better examine whether you can rightly hold that position, all philosophical gerrymandering to the contrary. 



> What is an unregenerate Christian but everything God hates? A worker of iniquity, wicked, sinful, a person who commits deeds as good as menstrual cloths, self righteous, a person who walks in the flesh.
> 
> THese are all things God hates, and this is all an unregenerate Christian is, what is there for God to love in a person who is everything He hates and has nothing of Himself in there?
> 
> The main source of this statement is based in Psalm 5:5 "You hate those who perform iniquity."



But again, you need to deal with the clear statement that has already been quoted - that is, that God loved us even while we were still in our sins (i.e. unregenerate). The clear places in Scripture need to hold sway over the not-so-clear, and help you interpret the other places.


----------



## Confessor

SoliDeoGloria said:


> To clarify, are you saying that before the elect are regenerated, they are not hated by God?
> If this is what you are saying, I would disagree. Regardless if one is elect, before one is regenerated, they are everything God hates.



If this were the case -- if God has nothing but hatred for all unregenerates (without discriminating between elect and reprobate) -- then no one would be saved.

A distinction must be made between God's love of _persons_ and of their _actions_. Yes, the "God hates the sin but loves the sinner" statement rears its ugly head.

God loves the elect as persons from eternity, but hates all their evil actions. God hates both the reprobates' persons and actions from eternity. This, and this alone from what I have seen, accounts for all the Scriptural evidence. But if I am mistaken I would appreciate correction.


----------



## SoliDeoGloria

Confessor said:


> SoliDeoGloria said:
> 
> 
> 
> To clarify, are you saying that before the elect are regenerated, they are not hated by God?
> If this is what you are saying, I would disagree. Regardless if one is elect, before one is regenerated, they are everything God hates.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If this were the case -- if God has nothing but hatred for all unregenerates (without discriminating between elect and reprobate) -- then no one would be saved.
> 
> A distinction must be made between God's love of _persons_ and of their _actions_. Yes, the "God hates the sin but loves the sinner" statement rears its ugly head.
> 
> God loves the elect as persons from eternity, but hates all their evil actions. God hates both the reprobates' persons and actions from eternity. This, and this alone from what I have seen, accounts for all the Scriptural evidence. But if I am mistaken I would appreciate correction.
Click to expand...


God's righteous and just hatred towards reprobates is deserved.
I am not speaking if God can act lovingly towards us, God does act lovingly towards us, that's why we have Christ, obviously. However, I am speaking of a _personal_ hatred of sinners. Romans 5:8 and John 3:16 are only expressions of gracious undeserved love towards sinners but does not constitute a personal deep affection and love for the reprobate.

In my opinion, God did send Christ for the sinners, in order that He might be able to fully love us completely for our sin is justified by the blood of Christ and we are no longer seen before the Father as what we formerly were which enables untainted pure love for He willingly sees not our sin because it has been justified.

Scripture supports that God does do thing in and out of love, because God simply is love, but God is also more than love. I need not lecture you on this subject, however I am not aware of God loving an unregenerate person in a personal deep affection as He does a regenerate. I don't think it can continue to fit the nature of God to personally love an unregenerate because if God were to personally love that person, He is personally loving all that He hates.
And I emphasize the word "personal" for a reason.



> There is no such creature. There may be one who is elect, but not regenerate, but there is no unregenerate Christian, in the proper sense of the word.


This is correct, I did not mean to say unregenerate Christian. I know there is no such thing, this is the proverbial Freudian slip.


----------



## Confessor

SoliDeoGloria said:


> In my opinion, God did send Christ for the sinners, in order that He might be able to fully love us completely for our sin is justified by the blood of Christ and we are no longer seen before the Father as what we formerly were which enables untainted pure love for He willingly sees not our sin because it has been justified.



Here's the problem: the Bible nowhere says that God does all these things for us _so that_ He might love us, but _because_ He loves us. God's love for all His elect, regenerate and unregenerate, is the cause of His actions, not the effect.

Romans 5:8 -- _but God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us._

God cannot _show_ His love to us thusly unless love is the cause.

-----Added 6/30/2009 at 04:13:12 EST-----

Also, for the record, I deny common grace. I like to term it "providential benevolence" as John Gill says; it's merely fattening the cattle for destruction.


----------



## SoliDeoGloria

Confessor said:


> SoliDeoGloria said:
> 
> 
> 
> In my opinion, God did send Christ for the sinners, in order that He might be able to fully love us completely for our sin is justified by the blood of Christ and we are no longer seen before the Father as what we formerly were which enables untainted pure love for He willingly sees not our sin because it has been justified.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here's the problem: the Bible nowhere says that God does all these things for us _so that_ He might love us, but _because_ He loves us. God's love for all His elect, regenerate and unregenerate, is the cause of His actions, not the effect.
> 
> Romans 5:8 -- _but God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us._
> 
> God cannot _show_ His love to us thusly unless love is the cause.
> 
> -----Added 6/30/2009 at 04:13:12 EST-----
> 
> Also, for the record, I deny common grace. I like to term it "providential benevolence" as John Gill says; it's merely fattening the cattle for destruction.
Click to expand...

What the Bible does say though is that God does hate people who perform iniquity/sin.

I can not comprehend God righteously and justly maintaining His position as perfect, just, holy, and righteous while having a personal love and affection for those whom are as Christ said "Children of Satan", objects of His wrath, and are everything He is not. The reason this does not function in my mind is because God is partaking and loving something contrary to Himself because there is nothing more to the object He would be loving than everything He isn't.
There is nothing more to an unregenerate than sin. I don't see how God can love a person who is nothing more than wicked and sinful. I can understand God has done evidences of love and grace towards that person in order that He might love them to create unity, but I do not theologically understand what you are attempting to hold to.


----------



## Confessor

SoliDeoGloria said:


> What the Bible does say though is that God does hate people who perform iniquity/sin.



Although I'm not sure of this explanation, the Psalms often refer to the elect as "the righteous" and reprobates as "the wicked"; therefore I am inclined to interpret Psalm 5:5 as referring to reprobates only. But I would appreciate others' input on that.



SoliDeoGloria said:


> I can not comprehend God righteously and justly maintaining His position as perfect, just, holy, and righteous while having a personal love and affection for those whom are as Christ said "Children of Satan", objects of His wrath, and are everything He is not. The reason this does not function in my mind is because God is partaking and loving something contrary to Himself because there is nothing more to the object He would be loving than everything He isn't.
> There is nothing more to an unregenerate than sin. I don't see how God can love a person who is nothing more than wicked and sinful. I can understand God has done evidences of love and grace towards that person in order that He might love them to create unity, but I do not theologically understand what you are attempting to hold to.



That's what makes grace grace. God does not love us as a result of anything good in us, but only because He has freely chosen to do so. There is absolutely nothing in us that would prompt God to love us. It is His choice.


----------



## toddpedlar

SoliDeoGloria said:


> There is nothing more to an unregenerate than sin. I don't see how God can love a person who is nothing more than wicked and sinful. I can understand God has done evidences of love and grace towards that person in order that He might love them to create unity, but I do not theologically understand what you are attempting to hold to.



You might not be able to see how God can love a person who is nothing more than wicked and sinful... but Scripture plainly says that he loves his elect with an everlasting love. One reason you can't understand this is because you're finite, just like me and you have never elected anyone, something God did before the foundation of the world. I can't understand it, either, but Scripture is clear about the relationship between God and His elect, and that he LOVES them prior to their being regenerate. When Scripture speaks, we must listen, whether our finite brains can wrap themselves around the concept or not.

Furthermore, you're not quite correct when you say there is nothing more to an unregenerate than sin. If that unregenerate is elect, then there IS more to him than simply sin... there is election... and calling... and justification...and sanctification...and glorification - all fruit of the eternal electing love of God. FAR MORE than sin - God's mark was placed on that unregenerate prior to the foundation of the World. To say that there is nothing more than sin to that unregenerate elect person is to denigrate God's eternal purpose and miss a fundamental truth about God's redemptive work.


----------



## SoliDeoGloria

> That's what makes grace grace. God does not love us as a result of anything good in us, but only because He has freely chosen to do so. There is absolutely nothing in us that would prompt God to love us. It is His choice.


And I agree, and I believe that because of grace which declares us righteous in the eys of God which permits God to love us fully and unconditionally. I'm just suggesting that before justification such a pure act of love is not conceivable for it creates a separation from God judicially, at least until justification occurs.



> Then what does it mean when the Bible says that God loved Jacob, yet hated Esau, before either were born or had done good or bad? What does it mean when the Scriptures say that God has loved us with an everlasting love? When has God's disposition changed toward His elect?


I am not aware of the "before the birth" aspect being recorded, I (quickly) just skimmed Malachi 1 and Romans 9. And for what reason did God love Jacob? My answer would be a form of justification which would enable this. But that's actually getting a little too technical for me to strongly stand and debate.



> You might not be able to see how God can love a person who is nothing more than wicked and sinful... but Scripture plainly says that he loves his elect with an everlasting love. One reason you can't understand this is because you're finite, just like me and you have never elected anyone, something God did before the foundation of the world. I can't understand it, either, but Scripture is clear about the relationship between God and His elect, and that he LOVES them prior to their being regenerate. When Scripture speaks, we must listen, whether our finite brains can wrap themselves around the concept or not.
> 
> Furthermore, you're not quite correct when you say there is nothing more to an unregenerate than sin. If that unregenerate is elect, then there IS more to him than simply sin... there is election... and calling... and justification...and sanctification...and glorification - all fruit of the eternal electing love of God. FAR MORE than sin - God's mark was placed on that unregenerate prior to the foundation of the World. To say that there is nothing more than sin to that unregenerate elect person is to denigrate God's eternal purpose and miss a fundamental truth about God's redemptive work.


And I do believe God loves the elect with an everlasting love, simply from the point at which that love was out poured in a personal way, which is at the moment of regeneration/justification. Not to confuse the two, they're just so instantaneous and close in the happening.

I would also like Scripture supporting as to where God has a personal love for the elect before the point of justification. I am only aware of demonstrations of love, but not a true personal love.

And where as you're technically correct regarding your second paragraph. I would still suggest that even though there are elect reprobates, before the moment of conversion of the reprobate occurs, there is no justification or glorification. Justification being the required act for a true personal love from God the Father, in my opinion.

I'm trying to remain open minded in this, so if I seem difficult I apologize. I am trying hard to explain my points in clarity.


----------



## steven-nemes

I am inclined to believe that God does not love the reprobate. They have clearly turned their backs on him, spit on him, and disregarded his commands, though they carry authority in themselves. 

One common objection I receive from various friends when discussing the subject is: what about the fact that God doesn't just destroy the reprobate upon creating them? He lets them live, enjoy life, have children, have earthly pleasures, and so on.

My response is that it is not love nor grace to allow a desperately wicked person to live on, continuously breaking God's commands and bringing more and more hell upon himself.

1 John 4:19 says "We love because he first loved us." From this we can draw the principle that there are persons that God does not love:

1. If S loves, then God first loved S.
2. S does not love. (Think of any person who is not loving.)
3. Therefore, God did not first love S.


----------



## toddpedlar

SoliDeoGloria said:


> That's what makes grace grace. God does not love us as a result of anything good in us, but only because He has freely chosen to do so. There is absolutely nothing in us that would prompt God to love us. It is His choice.
> 
> 
> 
> And I agree, and I believe that because of grace which declares us righteous in the eys of God which permits God to love us fully and unconditionally. I'm just suggesting that before justification such a pure act of love is not conceivable for it creates a separation from God judicially, at least until justification occurs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then what does it mean when the Bible says that God loved Jacob, yet hated Esau, before either were born or had done good or bad? What does it mean when the Scriptures say that God has loved us with an everlasting love? When has God's disposition changed toward His elect?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am not aware of the "before the birth" aspect being recorded, I (quickly) just skimmed Malachi 1 and Romans 9. And for what reason did God love Jacob? My answer would be a form of justification which would enable this. But that's actually getting a little too technical for me to strongly stand and debate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You might not be able to see how God can love a person who is nothing more than wicked and sinful... but Scripture plainly says that he loves his elect with an everlasting love. One reason you can't understand this is because you're finite, just like me and you have never elected anyone, something God did before the foundation of the world. I can't understand it, either, but Scripture is clear about the relationship between God and His elect, and that he LOVES them prior to their being regenerate. When Scripture speaks, we must listen, whether our finite brains can wrap themselves around the concept or not.
> 
> Furthermore, you're not quite correct when you say there is nothing more to an unregenerate than sin. If that unregenerate is elect, then there IS more to him than simply sin... there is election... and calling... and justification...and sanctification...and glorification - all fruit of the eternal electing love of God. FAR MORE than sin - God's mark was placed on that unregenerate prior to the foundation of the World. To say that there is nothing more than sin to that unregenerate elect person is to denigrate God's eternal purpose and miss a fundamental truth about God's redemptive work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And I do believe God loves the elect with an everlasting love, simply from the point at which that love was out poured in a personal way, which is at the moment of regeneration/justification.
Click to expand...


On what basis do you believe this? Where in Scripture is this kind of thing spoken of? (I don't mean regeneration/justification, but this "turning on" of love).



> Not to confuse the two, they're just so instantaneous and close in the happening.
> 
> I would also like Scripture supporting as to where God has a personal love for the elect before the point of justification. I am only aware of demonstrations of love, but not a true personal love.
> 
> And where as you're technically correct regarding your second paragraph. I would still suggest that even though there are elect reprobates, before the moment of conversion of the reprobate occurs, there is no justification or glorification.



There is no such thing as an elect reprobate. Reprobation is the diametric opposite of election. You meant unregenerate, of course, but your confusion of terms makes discussing this very challenging. 



> Justification being the required act for a true personal love from God the Father, in my opinion.



Justification is a fruit of God's love, not the other way around. God's love is as true and as personal as it can be - he knows his elect from conception, as Jeremiah says. 



> I'm trying to remain open minded in this, so if I seem difficult I apologize. I am trying hard to explain my points in clarity.



I would suggest taking a look at something like Sproul's "What is the Reformed Faith" and/or other books before going too much further on in this conversation. There are a lot of places wherein statements you've made conflict with themselves, or with important fundamentals of the Reformed Faith.


----------



## Reformed Rush

SoliDeoGloria said:


> That's what makes grace grace. God does not love us as a result of anything good in us, but only because He has freely chosen to do so. There is absolutely nothing in us that would prompt God to love us. It is His choice.
> 
> 
> 
> And I agree, and I believe that because of grace which declares us righteous in the eys of God which permits God to love us fully and unconditionally. I'm just suggesting that before justification such a pure act of love is not conceivable for it creates a separation from God judicially, at least until justification occurs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then what does it mean when the Bible says that God loved Jacob, yet hated Esau, before either were born or had done good or bad? What does it mean when the Scriptures say that God has loved us with an everlasting love? When has God's disposition changed toward His elect?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am not aware of the "before the birth" aspect being recorded, I (quickly) just skimmed Malachi 1 and Romans 9. And for what reason did God love Jacob? My answer would be a form of justification which would enable this. But that's actually getting a little too technical for me to strongly stand and debate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You might not be able to see how God can love a person who is nothing more than wicked and sinful... but Scripture plainly says that he loves his elect with an everlasting love. One reason you can't understand this is because you're finite, just like me and you have never elected anyone, something God did before the foundation of the world. I can't understand it, either, but Scripture is clear about the relationship between God and His elect, and that he LOVES them prior to their being regenerate. When Scripture speaks, we must listen, whether our finite brains can wrap themselves around the concept or not.
> 
> Furthermore, you're not quite correct when you say there is nothing more to an unregenerate than sin. If that unregenerate is elect, then there IS more to him than simply sin... there is election... and calling... and justification...and sanctification...and glorification - all fruit of the eternal electing love of God. FAR MORE than sin - God's mark was placed on that unregenerate prior to the foundation of the World. To say that there is nothing more than sin to that unregenerate elect person is to denigrate God's eternal purpose and miss a fundamental truth about God's redemptive work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And I do believe God loves the elect with an everlasting love, simply from the point at which that love was out poured in a personal way, which is at the moment of regeneration/justification. Not to confuse the two, they're just so instantaneous and close in the happening.
> 
> I would also like Scripture supporting as to where God has a personal love for the elect before the point of justification. I am only aware of demonstrations of love, but not a true personal love.
> 
> And where as you're technically correct regarding your second paragraph. I would still suggest that even though there are elect reprobates, before the moment of conversion of the reprobate occurs, there is no justification or glorification. Justification being the required act for a true personal love from God the Father, in my opinion.
> 
> I'm trying to remain open minded in this, so if I seem difficult I apologize. I am trying hard to explain my points in clarity.
Click to expand...


The very source of divine love abides within the Godhead; specifically consisting of the love the Father has for the Son. The elect chosen by the Father are loved only because they are "accepted in the Beloved." Thus, this love and this election is completely unconditional upon the elect's actions or decisions or any virtues or merit. The "reason" God loves us is because He loves His Son, and has willed to bless us, in Him.

"Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ, just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before Him, in love having predestined us to adoption as sons by Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the good pleasure of His will, to the praise of the glory of His grace, by which He made us accepted in the Beloved." Ephesians 1:3-6

-----Added 6/30/2009 at 05:19:24 EST-----



steven-nemes said:


> I am inclined to believe that God does not love the reprobate. They have clearly turned their backs on him, spit on him, and disregarded his commands, though they carry authority in themselves.



God does not love the reprobate, because they are not blessed and chosen in the Son. They remain rejected by God, and are not "accepted in the Beloved," as are the elect sons of God. (See Ephesians 1:3-6) 



> One common objection I receive from various friends when discussing the subject is: what about the fact that God doesn't just destroy the reprobate upon creating them? He lets them live, enjoy life, have children, have earthly pleasures, and so on.



God has purpose for allowing reprobates to live; namely, the salvation of His people, and making a full "measurement of sin" in order to forever eliminate all sin:

". . The Lord knows how to deliver the godly out of temptations and to reserve the unjust under punishment for the day of judgment . . .the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation . . ." II Peter 2:9; 3:15

". . Who killed both the Lord Jesus and their own prophets, and have persecuted us; and they do not please God and are contrary to all men, forbidding us to speak to the Gentiles that they may be saved, so as always to fill up the measure of their sins; but wrath has come upon them to the uttermost." I Thessalonians 2:15-16

"Fill up, then, the measure of your fathers' guilt. Serpents, brood of vipers! How can you escape the condemnation of hell?" Matthew 23:32-33




> My response is that it is not love nor grace to allow a desperately wicked person to live on, continuously breaking God's commands and bringing more and more hell upon himself.



Correct. In actuality, God is heaping coals upon their heads! (e.g. Romans 12:20)


----------



## SoliDeoGloria

> On what basis do you believe this? Where in Scripture is this kind of thing spoken of? (I don't mean regeneration/justification, but this "turning on" of love).


I do not have a verse in particular. Although I can not off the top of my head think of instances where God has personally loved those whom He has neither "found favor in," nor justified by some instance.



> There is no such thing as an elect reprobate. Reprobation is the diametric opposite of election. You meant unregenerate, of course, but your confusion of terms makes discussing this very challenging.


I apologize, I have never used the term "reprobate" prior to this forum. I always assumed it was synonymous with just unregenerate, so I apologize for my misuse of the terms. I simply have always seen people as saved or sinner, reprobate has never been a term I've needed to use I suppose.



> Justification is a fruit of God's love, not the other way around. God's love is as true and as personal as it can be - he knows his elect from conception, as Jeremiah says.


I would agree to a sense. That justification is an act of God's love and grace, although I would still adhere to that because people are justified as a fruit/act of God's love it does provide a more real way for God to love man to a more full extent.



> I would suggest taking a look at something like Sproul's "What is the Reformed Faith" and/or other books before going too much further on in this conversation. There are a lot of places wherein statements you've made conflict with themselves, or with important fundamentals of the Reformed Faith.


Would you please send me a PM with a few examples of these? I am not always the best communicator on paper, when I verbally debate I am more collected and I can explain things more. I'm sure for every seemingly confliction I have a means to clarify it by some manner.



> The elect chosen by the Father are loved only because they are "accepted in the Beloved." Thus, this love and this election is completely unconditional upon the elect's actions or decisions or any virtues or merit. The "reason" God loves us is because He loves His Son, and has willed to bless us, in Him.


I think this is what I am saying... That we're only loved at the point of justification/regeneration _because_ at that point we are adopted into the family and accepted in the Beloved, where as formerly while in our transgressions we are not.


----------



## Confessor

SoliDeoGloria said:


> That's what makes grace grace. God does not love us as a result of anything good in us, but only because He has freely chosen to do so. There is absolutely nothing in us that would prompt God to love us. It is His choice.
> 
> 
> 
> And I agree, and I believe that because of grace which declares us righteous in the eys of God which permits God to love us fully and unconditionally. I'm just suggesting that before justification such a pure act of love is not conceivable for it creates a separation from God judicially, at least until justification occurs.
Click to expand...


...that means you don't agree.  Jake, it's fairly simple: God loves us and therefore acts towards our good. Countless times in Scripture is the love of God the _reason_, the *cause*, why God helps us. There is simply no Scripture anywhere that supports the notion that God loves us as a result of our putting faith in Him. It's not as if He grudgingly regenerates us so He can get a good "payoff" at the end.

Otherwise, if you want to keep refusing the points being made here, please provide Scriptural evidence why God cannot love an unregenerate -- why something _in the sinner_ must prompt God's love. (And if you can do that, please explain how you're still a Calvinist. )



SoliDeoGloria said:


> I am not aware of the "before the birth" aspect being recorded, I (quickly) just skimmed Malachi 1 and Romans 9. And for what reason did God love Jacob? My answer would be a form of justification which would enable this. But that's actually getting a little too technical for me to strongly stand and debate.



No, the text says that it was "in order that God's purpose in election might stand" and it was irrespective of any good or bad they had done (which would include putting faith in a coming Messiah and being justified thereby). The reason was wholly within Himself; His grace was completely and utterly free.



SoliDeoGloria said:


> I would also like Scripture supporting as to where God has a personal love for the elect before the point of justification. I am only aware of demonstrations of love, but not a true personal love.



There can be no distinction between "demonstrations of love" and a "true personal love." God does not have non-volitional dispositions. There is no such thing as God acting lovingly without actually loving.

-----Added 6/30/2009 at 05:41:13 EST-----



steven-nemes said:


> 1 John 4:19 says "We love because he first loved us." From this we can draw the principle that there are persons that God does not love:
> 
> 1. If S loves, then God first loved S.
> 2. S does not love. (Think of any person who is not loving.)
> 3. Therefore, God did not first love S.



I think you meant to have 1. be "If God first loved S, then S loves." Otherwise you'd be denying the antecedent.

If I say that I do X because of Y, then I am saying that Y is the sufficient cause of X; i.e. "if Y then X." Therefore 1 John 4:19 should teach "If God first loved S, then S loves."

That being said, God's first loving us is also a _necessary_ cause of our loving Him, and therefore your 1. is not false. But nonetheless that's not the premise you want for your argument.


----------



## steven-nemes

Ah thanks Ben; I appreciate your correction.


----------



## Confessor

No prob.


----------



## Nomad

SoliDeoGloria said:


> I would also like Scripture supporting as to where God has a personal love for the elect before the point of justification.



It would appear that verses 4 & 5 are just what the doctor ordered. 



> Eph 2:1 And you were dead in the trespasses and sins
> Eph 2:2 in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience--
> Eph 2:3 among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind.
> Eph 2:4 *But God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us,*
> Eph 2:5 *even when we were dead in our trespasses,* made us alive together with Christ--by grace you have been saved--


----------



## Confessor

Also, I'd like to correct what I previously said about Psalm 5:5. It is not the case that Psalms generally refer to the elect as "righteous" and the reprobates as "wicked"; rather, they refer to _regenerates_ as "righteous" and _unregenerates_ as "wicked." You were right about this, Jake, and in retrospect it seems foolish for me to say that "righteous" comprises both regenerate and unregenerate elected individuals. (I know *I* wasn't righteous in any sense before conversion!)

In this case, it would mean that God loves the unregenerate elect in some sense (Romans 5:8 etc.), yet He hates the unregenerate elect in another sense (Psalm 5:5). My distinction between actions and persons does not do justice to the text.

So then, in what respects does God love the unregenerate elect? Well, ultimately, He brings them to repentance and justification. In what respects does He hate them? Prior to their conversion, wrath still looms over their heads (they are "children of wrath") and legally speaking they are the ones who have to pay for their own sins -- i.e., until they put their faith in Christ. I think the foremost aspect of God's hatred for the unregenerate elect is that He punishes them for their sin, perhaps "breaking their jaws" (cf. Psalm 3:7) as a means of bringing them to repentance. And ultimately, that is what I would say God's "hatred" of the unregenerate elect is referring to.

But of course, this does not mean that there is some ambivalence or dissonance in the Godhead; it merely entails that the sense in which God hates unregenerates (as noted in the Psalms) is that He brings punishment upon them. His eternal love of the elect and His eternal hatred of the reprobates are different from the "hate" mentioned in Psalm 5:5.

At least, that is the best way I see that avoids contradiction. Again, though, I am up for correction if I am in error.

-----Added 6/30/2009 at 06:02:09 EST-----

 Nomad!


----------



## Nomad

Confessor said:


> Nomad!


----------



## SoliDeoGloria

Confessor said:


> Also, I'd like to correct what I previously said about Psalm 5:5. It is not the case that Psalms generally refer to the elect as "righteous" and the reprobates as "wicked"; rather, they refer to _regenerates_ as "righteous" and _unregenerates_ as "wicked." You were right about this, Jake, and in retrospect it seems foolish for me to say that "righteous" comprises both regenerate and unregenerate elected individuals. (I know *I* wasn't righteous in any sense before conversion!)
> 
> In this case, it would mean that God loves the unregenerate elect in some sense (Romans 5:8 etc.), yet He hates the unregenerate elect in another sense (Psalm 5:5). My distinction between actions and persons does not do justice to the text.
> 
> So then, in what respects does God love the unregenerate elect? Well, ultimately, He brings them to repentance and justification. In what respects does He hate them? Prior to their conversion, wrath still looms over their heads (they are "children of wrath") and legally speaking they are the ones who have to pay for their own sins -- i.e., until they put their faith in Christ. I think the foremost aspect of God's hatred for the unregenerate elect is that He punishes them for their sin, perhaps "breaking their jaws" (cf. Psalm 3:7) as a means of bringing them to repentance. And ultimately, that is what I would say God's "hatred" of the unregenerate elect is referring to.
> 
> But of course, this does not mean that there is some ambivalence or dissonance in the Godhead; it merely entails that the sense in which God hates unregenerates (as noted in the Psalms) is that He brings punishment upon them. His eternal love of the elect and His eternal hatred of the reprobates are different from the "hate" mentioned in Psalm 5:5.
> 
> At least, that is the best way I see that avoids contradiction. Again, though, I am up for correction if I am in error.
> 
> -----Added 6/30/2009 at 06:02:09 EST-----
> 
> Nomad!


This is something I can agree with you on.

What are your thoughts concerning this and reprobates?


----------



## Marrow Man

Welcome, Nomad. As a new PB member (first post!), you will need to add a signature to your posts. If you click on the link in my signature below, you will see how to do that (it's easy). Please do so, so that we can find out more about you!


----------



## Confessor

Not yet, Josh. I want to answer the question Jake just asked me.


----------



## SoliDeoGloria

Joshua said:


> Would we all agree that this topic has been exhausted?



I would appreciate it if at least Ben could get his input in, then you may act accordingly, please.


----------



## Confessor

SoliDeoGloria said:


> This is something I can agree with you on.
> 
> What are your thoughts concerning this and reprobates?



First, as I implied above, I would say the hatred spoken of in the Psalms is towards unregenerates indiscriminately (i.e. towards both elect and reprobate unregenerates). Therefore the eternal love and hatred of the Father towards the elect and reprobate, respectively, is not really in the scope of such passages as Psalm 5:5. And, lastly, I would say that every single event on earth, every action in God's perfect providence, proceeds to further the glory of the elect (including unregenerates) and the destruction of the reprobate, and in that sense are God's eternal love and hatred manifested.


----------



## SoliDeoGloria

Not to further prolong this threads surely nearing demise, may I ask how God is loving towards reprobates then?


----------



## py3ak

SoliDeoGloria said:


> Now excuse me as this is my first "real" thread and I did not take the time to search for anything regarding this, but I would care to ask the question:
> 
> Does God hate unrepentant sinners?
> 
> My answer resides as _yes_.
> This is why:
> 
> What does God hate?
> Wickedness
> Sin
> Those who perform iniquity. (Psalm 5:5)
> (I am assuming) The suppression of truth and His righteousness (Romans 1)
> 
> Now, what do unrepentant sinners do?:
> Wickedness
> Sin
> All things against God
> Iniquity
> Suppress the truth and His righteousness.
> 
> Furthermore:
> What more is there for God to live in the individual? What good is there to an unrepentant sinner? Absolutely nothing, nothing but wickedness and everything God hates. What can God possibly _personally_ love towards a person who is nothing short of _everything_ He hates?
> 
> For purpose of my arguments, as I see that I am perhaps the youngest poster on this forum, you all seem to be in seminary and college and far wiser and intelligent than me. I suppose I don't have to bring up the Greek text of John 3:16 which is only a _demonstration_ of God's love towards ill deserving sinners such as you and me, and the same goes for Romans 5:8.
> 
> I have never seen a verse in the Bible suggesting God has a _personal_ love for unrepentant sinners.
> 
> And this "hatred" I am attempting to debate is not one of our comprehension for any such hatred would be pure, perfect, righteous, and just in every way beyond ways our fallible, sinful selves and comprehend.
> 
> Thoughts?



I'm not going to get sidetracked into the discussion of common grace. But I should point out to you that the elect, before their conversion, are everything you describe above. You must be careful of positing an _impossibility_ in God personally loving a sinner (I realize you said unrepentant, but until the moment we repent we are all unrepentant), because the elect are sinners. And so Paul, the chief of sinners, can say that Christ loved him, personally. Our predestination springs from God's love, and it is because God loves sinners that Christ died for them.


----------



## Confessor

Jake,

He's not. He may give them gifts, but God does it only for the purpose of their destruction. I believe it was John Gill who likened it to fattening cattle for the slaughter.


----------



## SoliDeoGloria

Confessor said:


> Jake,
> 
> He's not. He may give them gifts, but God does it only for the purpose of their destruction. I believe it was John Gill who likened it to fattening cattle for the slaughter.



Er.. I guess I am a little confused. Are you saying God loves them to destroy them?


----------



## Confessor

No, I am saying that God does not love the reprobates in any sense.


----------



## SoliDeoGloria

Confessor said:


> No, I am saying that God does not love the reprobates in any sense.



Oh.
Then we are in agreement, I think.
Sounds good to me!

Josh, the thread is dispensed to your will.


----------



## Peairtach

There were/are many reprobates in the Covenant. Does God not love them in any sense?

God expressed His love for Old Covenant Israel many times, of which many were reprobate. Christ wept over Jerusalem (circa A.D. 30); how many of them were elect?

Someone might say that in His human nature Christ loved the regenerate, while in His divine nature He had nothing but hatred for them. But surely His human nature reflects and reveals something of the divine?

_Philip saith unto him, Lord, shew us the Father, and it sufficeth us. Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father? (John 14:8-9)._

Van Til wrote a book defending Common Grace, "Common Grace and the Gospel". In the light of the present discussion, I hope to get a copy. Gary North disagreed with Van Til and said that God had nothing but hatred for the reprobate from all eternity.

Just because we can't understand how God can hate the wicked elect in some sense before they are converted, and love the wicked reprobate in some sense before they are punished in Hell, does not mean that such love and hate in God is not possible.

Are we trying to put God's love/hate in theological boxes?


----------



## Confessor

Van Til could offer no cogent argument to support his notion that God loves reprobates in some sense. As regarding the well-meant offer, it is an outright contradiction to say that God desires that which He has decreed will not occur. It is likewise a contradiction to say that God has benevolent intentions when He adds to reprobates' condemnation.

Otherwise, if you think Scripture teaches it in places, please cite the verses.


----------



## Spinningplates2

SoliDeoGloria said:


> Spinningplates2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think it could be said that God hates the "non-Elect" only. Because we were all sinners and scripture is clear that "While we were still in our sins He loved us first; then Called us, then changed us." ( I know this is a mix of two verses.)
> 
> God loving the elect is noting to be proud or a reason to boast. He has every right to hate me. I hate myself when I think how unpure and imperfect I am when compared to Him and His example of love.
> 
> That is why we can say, "I know that God hates the wicked, I thank God for Grace because without it He would hate me too."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *To clarify, are you saying that before the elect are regenerated, they are not hated by God?*If this is what you are saying, I would disagree. Regardless if one is elect, before one is regenerated, they are everything God hates.
> 
> And I believe you are mixing Romans 5:8 with Ephesians 1:3-7 in multiple parts.
> God performed an act of gracious love towards us, yet the question was does God personally hate unregenerated people? And I answered with a yes.
> At least that's my take on this.
Click to expand...


Being as we were Elect before the foundations of time I do not worry about when God placed His undeserving love upon me. I am always remided though that God loves me for no reason of my own. Anything a personal God does is by definition personal.


----------



## kalawine

Ivan said:


> Reformed Christianity weak in evangelism. Ever hear of Judson, Carey, Whitefield, Spurgeon, Lloyd-Jones? How 'bout MacArthur, Mohler, Piper, Duncan, etc.?



Yep. And Carey is considered to be the Father of Modern Missions.

-----Added 6/30/2009 at 10:59:35 EST-----



> There is only so far as I can go, it does extend into philosophy as I stated in my original post.
> 
> What is an unregenerate Christian but everything God hates? A worker of iniquity, wicked, sinful, a person who commits deeds as good as menstrual cloths, self righteous, a person who walks in the flesh.
> THese are all things God hates, and this is all an unregenerate Christian is, what is there for God to love in a person who is everything He hates and has nothing of Himself in there?
> 
> The main source of this statement is based in Psalm 5:5 "You hate those who perform iniquity."?





Romans 9 Young's Literal Translation

10 And not only so, but also Rebecca, having conceived by one -- Isaac our father -- 11 _*(for they being not yet born, neither having done anything good or evil, that the purpose of God, according to choice, might remain; not of works, but of Him who is calling,)*_ it was said to her -- 12 'The greater shall serve the less;' 13 according as it hath been written, 'Jacob I did love, and Esau I did hate.'

It seems to me to get into the whole counsel of God. If I may sum it up without the intention of rewriting the Scripture: He hates those (unelect) who perform iniquity.

Is that over simplifying it guys?


----------



## kvanlaan

Sorry to backtrack a bit, and I don't mean to sidetrack either, but I don't understand how the rain on the just and unjust can be counted as grace (proponents of easy grace seem to constantly point to this example).

That both prosper due to the rain is not common grace; many a man has drowned with his pockets full of gold - the rain on the unjust may easily be a judgment in that it both fulfills and causes him to focus on his temporal goals. He follows that rabbit trail to its end in damnation. Where's the grace? To me, it's an odd example, and denigrates what 'grace' really conveys.

Mr. Henry's opinion on the matter:



> v. 45. Note, First, Sunshine and rain are great blessings to the world, and they come from God. It is his sun that shines, and the rain is sent by him. They do not come of course, or by chance, but from God. Secondly, Common mercies must be valued as instances and proofs of the goodness of God, who in them shows himself a bountiful Benefactor to the world of mankind, who would be very miserable without these favours, and are utterly unworthy of the least of them. Thirdly, These gifts of common providence are dispensed indifferently to good and evil, just and unjust; so that we cannot know love and hatred by what is before us, but by what is within us; not by the shining of the sun on our heads, but by the rising of the Sun of Righteousness in our hearts. Fourthly, The worst of men partake of the comforts of this life in common with others, though they abuse them, and fight against God with his own weapons; which is an amazing instance of God’s patience and bounty. It was but once that God forbade his sun to shine on the Egyptians, when the Israelites had light in their dwellings; God could make such a distinction every day. Fifthly, The gifts of God’s bounty to wicked men that are in rebellion against him, teach us to do good to those that hate us; especially considering, that though there is in us a carnal mind which is enmity to God, yet we share in his bounty. Sixthly, Those only will be accepted as the children of God, who study to resemble him, particularly in his goodness.


----------



## kalawine

kvanlaan said:


> Sorry to backtrack a bit, and I don't mean to sidetrack either, but I don't understand how the rain on the just and unjust can be counted as grace (proponents of easy grace seem to constantly point to this example).
> 
> That both prosper due to the rain is not common grace; many a man has drowned with his pockets full of gold - the rain on the unjust may easily be a judgment in that it both fulfills and causes him to focus on his temporal goals. He follows that rabbit trail to its end in damnation. Where's the grace? To me, it's an odd example, and denigrates what 'grace' really conveys.



Yep! Should this thread have been called, "What is Grace?" 



kvanlaan said:


> many a man has drowned with his pockets full of gold



A death row inmate may have steak and lobster as a last meal but it may as well be sardines and crackers.


----------



## Romans 8 Verse 28

Marrow Man said:


> Much of the disagreement here is over the use of the term "grace" when discussing what has come to be called "common grace." While I agree whole-heartedly with the concept (as stated above by brothers Josh and Jim) of God's general and providential goodness, the term "grace" itself is misleading and I would shy away from its usage because it can imply something that was not intended by the term. A term such as "common goodness" might actually be more helpful.





I've seen the term "common grace" used numerous times to promote man-centred theology (and that's one of the reasons I shy away from using it).

-----Added 7/1/2009 at 12:19:03 EST-----



Joshua said:


> XBlackWaterX said:
> 
> 
> 
> Common Grace anyone?
> 
> 
> 
> If, by _Common Grace_, you mean that God brings rain on the just and the unjust alike, that He grants temporal gifts to the reprobate as well as the elect, so on and so forth, I can agree with you (though I wouldn't call it _grace_). However, all of those "gifts" simply serve to fit the reprobate for destruction and make them all the riper for judgment. So I believe _Common Grace_ is an insufficient term to describe the temporal "good things of the earth" God gives to all creatures made in His image.
> 
> If you're interested, there's a very good article that touches upon this briefly by our very own Rev. Winzer (armourbearer):
> 
> http://www.puritanboard.com/f71/there-free-offer-just-command-repent-believe-46402/#post588587
Click to expand...



Well said, In my humble opinion. I'd also side with Pastor Winzer against Professors Murray and Stonehouse on this subject.

-----Added 7/1/2009 at 12:25:02 EST-----



kalawine said:


> Here's an audio debate on the subject. Is the Doctrine of Common Grace Reformed?



Dr. Richard Mouw is an example of someone that has used the term "common grace" to promote un-Biblical teachings, In my humble opinion.


----------



## Peairtach

Joshua said:


> Richard Tallach said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are we trying to put God's love/hate in theological boxes?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. Tallach,
> 
> 1. Have you read Rev. Winzer's review of John Murray's _The Free Offer of the Gospel_? I think it touches upon your questions here in a most adequate manner.
> 
> 2. In response to the quoted question above. No, I'm not _trying_ to do any such thing. God has been pleased to reveal to us His attributes concerning His love for the elect and His hatred for the reprobate. There is simply nothing in Scripture indicating an inner conflict within God that He has decreed something He does not also desire, intend, want. God is pleased with all His does, and He does all His good purpose, and His good purpose is an act borne from what He desires, wants, etc.
> 
> So we're not here talking about what's _possible_, we're here saying what the Scriptures have said. And nowhere have the Scriptures ever shown God showing _grace_, in the biblical definition of the term, to the reprobate.
Click to expand...


Dear Joshua,
Feel free to call me Richard. 

I don't think there is any inner conflict within God, along with the many Reformed theologians who believe/have believed in Common Grace.

I haven't read Rev. Winzer's review, and will be interested to do so.

Regarding Common Grace being gifts of God's hate to fatten the reprobate for the slaughter, I think if the reprobate abuse/misuse gifts of God's grace some of which were designed for the salvation of sinners e.g. the preaching of the Gospel, they are then more truly fattened for the slaughter.

"Some prefer to say that they are expressions of His goodness, kindness, benevolence, mecy, or longsuffering, but seem to forget that He could not be good, kind or benevolent to the sinner unless He were first of all gracious." -Berkhof

If you want to challenge that and say how can God be gracious to those he doesn't intend to save, I'd say I don't know.

Common grace is undeserved favour e.g. sparing a reprobate to live on this earth for seventy years and letting him hear the gospel many times. If it does not result in that person's conversion we learn that it was not intended to lead to that person's and God did not have an eternal saving love for that person. If what God showers on someone is blessed by the Spirit to their salvation then we learn that God had an eternal saving love for that person.

You seem to be positing that God can only have one type of love/grace for the sinner, and it has to be saving love. This leads you to redefine gifts of God's grace so portrayed in Scripture e.g. long life, food, etc, as "gifts" of God's hate. Since the reprobate could be/should be cast immediately into Hell, however long they are on Earth is of God's grace (not saving grace unless it results in salvation, and then they wouldn't be reprobate).

Re Arminianism, we know that they have a different doctrine of Common Grace, whereby the sinner can co-operate with the Holy Spirit's common operations in the soul to manufacture his/her salvation. This is completely erroneous, and the Reformed should make clear that they are talking about something different.


----------



## TeachingTulip

Richard Tallach said:


> Common grace is undeserved favour e.g. sparing a reprobate to live on this earth for seventy years and letting him hear the gospel many times.



I have been taught that allowing reprobates their earthly lives, is a matter of patience and long-suffering on the part of God, not grace. (Romans 9:22)

For the very definition of "reprobate" is one rejected by God, and one that is consigned to death and hell without hope of grace or favor at all. For this strong reason, a Christian should be very careful about judging others as "reprobate," for it is terribley serious, and really not in our province to judge the eternal fate of others. Only God knows these things . . .

(Entering the fray, here, being the wife of Jim, aka REFORMED RUSH, along with whom I have fought a battle lasting several years against the teachings of a supposed "common grace." Together, we have been accused of hyper-calvinism for doing so, more times than we can count.)


----------



## Confessor

Richard Tallach said:


> "Some prefer to say that they are expressions of His goodness, kindness, benevolence, mecy, or longsuffering, but seem to forget that He could not be good, kind or benevolent to the sinner unless He were first of all gracious." -Berkhof



This in my opinion is the one chance that common grace has to stand as a doctrine.

But in my opinion the argument is flawed, for it is built off a human notion. Humans cannot legitimately and truly give gifts and act kindly without also intending another human's good. But God can. And I say that if God has intended from all eternity to give gifts to reprobates for the purpose of heaping more condemnation upon them (and only God is capable of giving gifts for the purpose of destruction), then certainly no well-meant grace is involved.

-----Added 7/1/2009 at 12:51:42 EST-----



TeachingTulip said:


> I have been taught that allowing reprobates their earthly lives, is a matter of patience and long-suffering on the part of God, not grace. (Romans 9:22)



The argument is whether longsuffering necessitates true graciousness. (See his Berkhof quote.) I deny this, BTW.



TeachingTulip said:


> (Entering the fray, here, being the wife of Jim, aka REFORMED RUSH, along with whom I have fought a battle lasting several years, against the teachings of a supposed "common grace." Together, we have been accused of hyper-calvinism for doing so, more times than we can count.)



Praise God for your fortitude! It's also nice to see that you got your own profile on the PB.


----------



## TeachingTulip

Confessor said:


> The argument is whether longsuffering necessitates true graciousness. (See his Berkhof quote.) I deny this, BTW.




Peter taught that the long-suffering of God, is purposed to work salvation . . .God allows the wicked to continuing living, while all His elect are being born and gathered into the kingdom. (II Peter 3:15-18)

It is the same spiritual principle of Genesis 50:20 and Romans 8:28.


----------



## a mere housewife

> The LORD is good to all: and his tender mercies are over all his works.



I hope no one would argue that a sinner is not part of creation, or that this is an inaccurate description of the Creator.

Surely God is very good to many unregenerate people in keeping them from the outer limits of sin, for which they would have greater punishment. If His goodness to the reprobate were only a means of fattening for destruction, then its a bit ineffectual as the reprobate would often be more fattened for destruction without it.


----------



## Confessor

a mere housewife said:


> Surely God is very good to many unregenerate people in keeping them from the outer limits of sin, for which they would have greater punishment. If His goodness to the reprobate were only a means of fattening for destruction, then its a bit ineffectual as the reprobate would often be more fattened for destruction without it.



I don't think it's ineffectual at all. A reprobate whom God has providentially prospered will use that prosperity to augment his own pride and rebellion, and therefore he will be more condemned than otherwise (as one example). Every gift a reprobate receives from God is used against Him and therefore heaps more condemnation upon the reprobate.

Second, the fact that the Lord is good to all does not mean He intends good for all.


----------



## a mere housewife

Ben, I wasn't speaking of material prosperity. I was speaking of the fact that not all unregenerate people are allowed morally to degenerate to states in which they would receive even greater damnation. If God's goodness to the reprobate can only fit into the terms you are willing to accept, then it is ineffectual in its intent that regard.


----------



## Confessor

That's a good point; reprobates will receive less punishment if and when their moral characters are augmented by God.

I'll have to think about this more. I keep going through all these thoughts in my head and I need to sort this out.

Thanks for bringing up the idea.


----------



## a mere housewife

Ben, I certainly haven't worked through all of this either. I wonder if there may be a distinction to be made between the way God interacts with man as Creator, because man is a work of His Hands (someone asked, what is there for God to love in the reprobate? -- what is there for God to love in a Zebra? He made it; He cares for it; it displays His glory even in a ruined state. So Beethoven can write incredible music because He is one of God's amazing creations) and the way God interacts with men under the covenant of works? (I don't believe that creation is covenant)
Calvin seems to support such a distinction being able to to be made in the way He deals with the doctrine of God, first as Creator and only afterwards in the sphere of sin and redemption?
And Scripture seems to be speaking of God more as Creator in passages about His goodness to the non-elect.


----------



## TeachingTulip

a mere housewife said:


> Ben, I wasn't speaking of material prosperity. I was speaking of the fact that not all unregenerate people are allowed morally to degenerate to states in which they would receive even greater damnation. If God's goodness to the reprobate can only fit into the terms you are willing to accept, then it is ineffectual in its intent that regard.



Heidi,

The fact that God restrains sin in this world, is not a matter of grace towards the reprobate; lessening their sentence of death or consignment to hell, in any degree, but is a matter of grace towards His elect.

God restrains sin from reaching its uttermost on this earth, for the protection, well-being, and survival of His elect. 

God's truth and providential workings are like a two-edged sword; at the same time wielding judgment against the wicked non-elect, and blessings for the elect.

This is seen throughout the O.T. in the prophets' warnings to ungodly peoples about suffering the wrath of God for their unbelief, through punishments and judgments, while always including promises of perseverance, blessings, and salvation to the faithful, spiritual seed.


----------



## a mere housewife

Thanks for the response Ronda.

I think the problem still remains though that they do experience the goodness of God in restraint of their sin, and this experience is one that actually leaves them less fattened for destruction.

I also don't think that the view does justice to verses like Psalm 145:9. I think there are probably more distinctions involved in that the sinner experiences God as a good Creator (and creation - even of himself - as a good).


----------



## Confessor

Josh,

How would you respond to Heidi's earlier point that God restrains the moral rebellion of reprobates and thereby _lightens_ their punishment?


----------



## a mere housewife

I won't quibble about terms. Not with Josh. I never quibble about terms with my friends.

(However, if I were to accidentally unbefriend Josh by merest accident . . .)

By the way Josh, you can call me 'Mrs. Zartman'.


----------



## Confessor

I ask in fear and trepidation, for I do not want you to lose any friendships. 

But if God is restraining them as a means to heap _less_ condemnation on them, then what is it if not grace?


----------



## a mere housewife

I can settle for 'goodness' or 'tender mercies' .


----------



## TeachingTulip

Joshua said:


> In reality, though, that's all it is: restraint. It's a part of God's decree. It's not _grace_.



The words "restraint" and "grace" are not synonomous terms, nor to be taken lightly. 

If God's temporal restraint of the wickedness of ungodly men does not alter their eternal destiny, where is the "grace?"

* "For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?" Mark 8:36*


----------



## a mere housewife

Joshua said:


> a mere housewife said:
> 
> 
> 
> By the way Josh, you can call me 'Mrs. Zartman'.
> 
> 
> 
> I did!
> 
> 
> Joshua said:
> 
> 
> 
> . . . but only because it's Mrs. Zartman and she would revoke my PB Friendship if I countered her.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


er . . . well . . . um, Keep up the good work.

(You foul deceiver.)


----------



## Confessor

But the question then is, What exactly did God want when He decreed to restrain the rebellion of a reprobate? Did He do it to ultimately punish the reprobate less? If so, then how is it not grace?

Actually, I think I've got it: first, we can distinguish between restraint and actual gifts. The gifts are used to "fatten" reprobates, while restraint is not. Seeing as both are used ultimately for God to punish reprobates eternally with perfect justice, it follows that it's not grace.

So, then, to answer Heidi's objection earlier: she is right that not all divine benevolence goes towards "fattening" the reprobates -- only divine benevolence that is _not restraint_ does. The restraint is still used by God so that He may punish the reprobates in hell exactly as He wants to.

There, I think that does it.


----------



## Confessor

TeachingTulip said:


> Joshua said:
> 
> 
> 
> In reality, though, that's all it is: restraint. It's a part of God's decree. It's not _grace_.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The words "restraint" and "grace" are not synonomous terms, nor to be taken lightly.
> 
> If God's temporal restraint of the wickedness of ungodly men does not alter their eternal destiny, where is the "grace?"
> 
> * "For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?" Mark 8:36*
Click to expand...


The point is that it _does_ alter a reprobate's destiny to some extent; there is less condemnation on him than there would be otherwise.

But otherwise, I think I solved this wee dilemma above.


----------



## a mere housewife

I don't actually think that's the distinction that does most justice to all the biblical statements, Ben. I think the reprobate experiences God goodness not just for purposes of fattening up, but because he is the creation of a good Creator.


----------



## Confessor

a mere housewife said:


> I don't actually think that's the distinction that does most justice to all the biblical statements, Ben. I think the reprobate experiences God goodness not just for purposes of fattening up, but because he is the creation of a good Creator.



Are you referring to benevolences of good other than moral restraint?


----------



## TeachingTulip

Confessor said:


> TeachingTulip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Joshua said:
> 
> 
> 
> In reality, though, that's all it is: restraint. It's a part of God's decree. It's not _grace_.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The words "restraint" and "grace" are not synonomous terms, nor to be taken lightly.
> 
> If God's temporal restraint of the wickedness of ungodly men does not alter their eternal destiny, where is the "grace?"
> 
> * "For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?" Mark 8:36*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The point is that it _does_ alter a reprobate's destiny to some extent; there is less condemnation on him than there would be otherwise.
> 
> But otherwise, I think I solved this wee dilemma above.
Click to expand...


What is "less condemnation?"

A soul is either consigned to everlasting punishment, or a soul is saved by faith in Jesus Christ and inherits everlasting life.

How can a sentence imposing death be lessened? Or hell lightened? Or condemnation altered, if the guilt and curse remains upon the reprobate soul?

Whose interest is central to God's purposes and intents? The elect or the non-elect?


----------



## Confessor

Ronda,

There are degrees of punishment in hell and reward in heaven. Hitler will be punished more than a reprobate dying in infancy.


----------



## TeachingTulip

a mere housewife said:


> I don't actually think that's the distinction that does most justice to all the biblical statements, Ben. I think the reprobate experiences God goodness not just for purposes of fattening up, but because he is the creation of a good Creator.



*"The Lord has made all for Himself, yes, even the wicked for the day of doom." Proverbs 16:4

"The wicked shall be a ransom for the righteous, and the transgressor for the upright." Proverbs 21:18*

-----Added 7/1/2009 at 02:36:59 EST-----



Confessor said:


> Ronda,
> 
> There are degrees of punishment in hell and reward in heaven. Hitler will be punished more than a reprobate dying in infancy.




Sorry, Ben, but you just introduced "works" into the discussion . . .which will take you down a rabbit trail.


----------



## Confessor

TeachingTulip said:


> Confessor said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ronda,
> 
> There are degrees of punishment in hell and reward in heaven. Hitler will be punished more than a reprobate dying in infancy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, Ben, but you just introduced "works" into the discussion . . .which will take you down a rabbit trail.
Click to expand...


Are you honestly disagreeing with the fact that we have degrees of reward and punishment?

Luke 12:47-48 - _That servant who knows his master's will and does not get ready or does not do what his master wants will be beaten with many blows. But the one who does not know and does things deserving punishment will be beaten with few blows._

Matthew 11:21-24 - _Woe to you, Korazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! If the miracles that were performed in you had been performed in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes. But I tell you, it will be more bearable for Tyre and Sidon on the day of judgment than for you. And you, Capernaum, will you be lifted up to the skies? No, you will go down to the depths. If the miracles that were performed in you had been performed in Sodom, it would have remained to this day. But I tell you that it will be more bearable for Sodom on the day of judgment than for you._

-----Added 7/1/2009 at 02:49:12 EST-----

Also...

Matthew 16:27 - _For the Son of Man is going to come in his Father's glory with his angels, and then he will reward each person according to what he has done._


----------



## a mere housewife

Ben, I think the unbeliever experiences God's goodness manifested in various ways as true goodness, that is, that God is good not for ulterior motives but because He _IS_, the fountain of life, ulterior goodness. The unbeliever will be responsible for not worshipping God aright for what he has truly experienced in this regard, but God's goodness does in many instances really lessen his damnation, and keep his heart from being hardened; and I see no biblical evidence that would say that God's purpose in sending the rain on the unjust is the same as God's purpose in sending the plagues on Pharoah (or that I have to look at the rain today and think of it as so much fire and brimstone later).

God is not at cross purposes with regard to the wicked certainly. But the verses Ronda quoted do not lessen the fact that the creations of God do all experience His tender mercies as a Creator, and I would like to understand more of whatever distinctions may be able to be made along those lines.

I'm going to bow out though as I've put forward my objection to views I think do not account for all the biblical data, as best as I can.


----------



## Confessor

a mere housewife said:


> Ben, I think the unbeliever experiences God's goodness manifested in various ways as true goodness, that is, that God is good not for ulterior motives but because He _IS_ the fountain of life, of ulterior goodness. The unbeliever will be responsible for not worshipping God aright for what he has truly experienced in this regard, but God's goodness does in many instances really lessen his damnation, and keep his heart from being hardened; and I see no biblical evidence that would say that God's purpose in sending the rain on the unjust is the same as God's purpose in sending the plagues on Pharoah (or that I have to look at the rain today and think of it as so much more fire and brimstone later).



Well, the fact is that any benevolence from God that lessens their damnation is only restraint. And God uses restraint only for His elect's good. Seeing as God would not punish someone more than they deserve, it lessens their punishment. But God does not restrain people's rebellion for the _purpose_ of lessening their punishment; it is only because of His love for His elect.

Lastly, I'm not trying to say that God has ulterior motives. It is hard to conceive, since we are humans, that God can be kind to someone without intending their good. But that is only because humans must intend someone's good in order to be kind to that person. The rule does not apply to our sovereign God. God is the only being who can be legitimately kind for the purpose of destruction, without showing grace.


----------



## Prufrock

If I can be permitted to jump into this conversation quickly and piggy-back off of Heidi's posts, I would recommend reading this post by Matthew Winzer on Samuel Rutherford, which addresses a love which God has toward all creatures which is not ineffectual in its purpose. A parallel would be the usage of our scholastics of a three-fold love of God: 1.) Love of the creature; 2.) Love of man; 3.) The special love toward the elect.


----------



## jandrusk

Here are three scriptures that shows how God hates the reprobate. I think it's also important to note that you cannot separate the sinner from the sin. The object that is referenced is the acting agent, which is the sinner. He certainly loves the elect and _knows_ that they will repent and come to salvation at the appointed time. 

1. Psalm 11:5 "The Lord tests the righteous, but *his soul hates the wicked *and the one who loves violence."

2. Deu 12:31 You shall not worship the Lord your God in that way, for every abominable thing that *the Lord hates they *have done for their gods, for they even burn their sons and their daughters in the fire to their gods. 

3. "Your new moons and your appointed feasts *my soul hates*; they have become a burden to me; I am weary of bearing them. "


----------



## timmopussycat

a mere housewife said:


> I think the reprobate experiences God goodness not just for purposes of fattening up, but because he is the creation of a good Creator.



God's goodness to those not yet and those never to be his elect also has another purpose. It proclaims his goodness for those with eyes to see.


----------



## Confessor

Prufrock said:


> If I can be permitted to jump into this conversation quickly and piggy-back off of Heidi's posts, I would recommend reading this post by Matthew Winzer on Samuel Rutherford, which addresses a love which God has toward all creatures which is not ineffectual in its purpose. A parallel would be the usage of our scholastics of a three-fold love of God: 1.) Love of the creature; 2.) Love of man; 3.) The special love toward the elect.



In that post Rev. Winzer speaks of an effectual yet non-salvific love, and basically states that Rutherford's point is the same as Berkhof's above: "Some prefer to say that they are expressions of His goodness, kindness, benevolence, mecy, or longsuffering, but seem to forget that He could not be good, kind or benevolent to the sinner unless He were first of all gracious." Contra Berkhof, I have argued above that God alone can be kind and give gifts without being loving or gracious -- unlike humans.

But I don't see how God's sustaining one person's existence for the purpose of heaping punishment upon them is somehow an act of _love_ or _grace_.

It seems that Rev. Winzer is arguing that we can make distinctions in God's love (e.g. towards His creation, towards His elect, towards rational beings), lower the bar of what they entail (e.g. it is "loving" to provide someone existence) and then declare the love to be effectual. But I think that distorts the notion of divine love too much. If we can lower the standards of love, then what use is it to say that God "loves" a reprobate by providing him existence to feel eternal torments?


----------



## TeachingTulip

Prufrock said:


> If I can be permitted to jump into this conversation quickly and piggy-back off of Heidi's posts, I would recommend reading this post by Matthew Winzer on Samuel Rutherford, which addresses a love which God has toward all creatures which is not ineffectual in its purpose. A parallel would be the usage of our scholastics of a three-fold love of God: 1.) Love of the creature; 2.) Love of man; 3.) The special love toward the elect.



I believe distinction should always be made between temporal, earthly blessings received by the creation generally, and eternal salvation unto life, which comes only by the grace of God in Christ.

Just as I believe distinction should be kept between law and gospel, so should reprobation be kept distinct from election; Godly wrath against wickedness distinguished from eternal reward; and providence from love and grace.

For if the source of love is in Jesus Christ, then those outside of Jesus Christ cannot know the love of God, or even be known by God. (Matt. 7:21-23)

It is the law that condemns men to death and hell. It is the love of God that rescues men from death and hell.

Maybe I think too black and white, but I cannot comprehend a mingling of divine love and everlasting condemnation. Such makes my brain hurt!


----------



## steven-nemes

There have been a few pages of posts that, of course, I don't want to look over; if this argument _did_ appear already, then my apologies, just disregard it I guess.

I heard an argument yesterday while discussing this very topic:

1. Jesus fulfilled the entirety of the law.
2. Fulfilling the law involves loving your neighbor.
3. Your neighbor would involve reprobates.
4. Therefore, Jesus loved reprobates.

And of course by extension that involves God loving reprobates, I guess.

Any thoughts?


----------



## Confessor

steven-nemes said:


> There have been a few pages of posts that, of course, I don't want to look over; if this argument _did_ appear already, then my apologies, just disregard it I guess.
> 
> I heard an argument yesterday while discussing this very topic:
> 
> 1. Jesus fulfilled the entirety of the law.
> 2. Fulfilling the law involves loving your neighbor.
> 3. Your neighbor would involve reprobates.
> 4. Therefore, Jesus loved reprobates.
> 
> And of course by extension that involves God loving reprobates, I guess.
> 
> Any thoughts?



First, He can love them _qua_ human (i.e. rather than _qua_ God), without actually striving for their eternal salvation.

Second, His love can be spoken of as volitional, acting kindly to all, even if for the purpose of destruction. And as I said above, only God is able to be kind for the purpose of destruction.


----------



## TeachingTulip

steven-nemes said:


> There have been a few pages of posts that, of course, I don't want to look over; if this argument _did_ appear already, then my apologies, just disregard it I guess.
> 
> I heard an argument yesterday while discussing this very topic:
> 
> 1. Jesus fulfilled the entirety of the law.
> 2. Fulfilling the law involves loving your neighbor.
> 3. Your neighbor would involve reprobates.
> 4. Therefore, Jesus loved reprobates.
> 
> And of course by extension that involves God loving reprobates, I guess.
> 
> Any thoughts?




Sir, #1 speaks of Christ . . . #2 speaks of men.

Yes, Christians are to love their enemies and all men, because sinners cannot know exacty who are elect and "accepted in the Beloved." 

That is why I said believers do not have the privilege of labelling anyone else a "reprobate." We just don't know. Someone really sinning bad today, may be saved tomorrow, by the grace of God; proving to have been elect all along.

But God knows, and I do not believe those He has ordained to hell and reprobated in this life, receive His love and grace at all. And I do not see in Scripture where God is obligated to love any sinner at all. 

The fact that He has chosen to save any of us in Christ, is the only definition of efficacious and amazing grace.


----------



## Peairtach

How do you make threads "printer friendly" on PB?

I was wanting to print out this thread to study it more closely in greater comfort.


----------



## regener8ed

Quick question: Does God love the elect because He has elected them, or does God elect the elect because He loves them?


----------



## Peairtach

SoliDeoGloria said:


> Joshua said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can't adequately define the term _common grace_ because I don't believe _grace's _application is referred to as _common_ in scripture.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I suppose perhaps not by name, but to evaluate:
> 
> What lets us breathe? God's grace
> What lets us live? God's grace
> Why do we have food? God's grace.
> 
> Essentially all things we have are found as being as a gift of God which can be considered an act of grace, displayed towards all people.
> 
> Whereas we have _saving grace_ which would include God's electing grace, financial, persevering, justifying, glorifying and so forth.
> 
> Do you understand the point I am attempting to make?
Click to expand...


What do you mean by God's _financial_ grace, Jake? I assume that's an error


----------



## Confessor

regener8ed said:


> Quick question: Does God love the elect because He has elected them, or does God elect the elect because He loves them?



That's a good question. My tentative answer is that God freely chose to love His people and as a result elected them unto eternal life.


----------



## Peairtach

Such things as appropriate rain and sunshine on unbelievers/reprobate are not portrayed in Scripture as bad things in themselves but as good gifts. It is the evil, unregenerate will of the reprobate which by its response to God's goodness turns good things into evil. 

The reprobate will not spend eternity able to blame God for the fact that they are in Hell because God reprobated them, or for sending "bad, gifts of hatred" to them such as wholesome food and water, but they will blame _themselves_ for sinfully abusing/misusing any such _good_ gifts.

How do you make this thread printer friendly?


----------



## Confessor

No one is saying the gifts from God are "bad" or "of hatred"; the point is that God gives reprobates legitimately good things -- He truly does act kindly towards them -- but this cannot be seen as an example of divine _grace_, primarily because God is acting only to heap more condemnation upon them.

You may ask in response, How can God act kindly as a means towards augmenting their condemnation? And I reply that only God can do that. For humans, it is essential that we wish a creature's good when we act kindly; for the One who sovereignly ordains and foreknows all events, it is not essential.

And sorry, I don't know about making this printer-friendly.


----------



## historyb

Under thread tools at the top is an option to print the thread, I just found it.


----------



## Peairtach

Confessor said:


> No one is saying the gifts from God are "bad" or "of hatred"; the point is that God gives reprobates legitimately good things -- He truly does act kindly towards them -- but this cannot be seen as an example of divine _grace_, primarily because God is acting only to heap more condemnation upon them.
> 
> You may ask in response, How can God act kindly as a means towards augmenting their condemnation? And I reply that only God can do that. For humans, it is essential that we wish a creature's good when we act kindly; for the One who sovereignly ordains and foreknows all events, it is not essential.
> 
> And sorry, I don't know about making this printer-friendly.


 
Thanks _ historyb_ for that technical help. 

Dear Ben.

But that still leaves the point that God acting kindly and giving good things is grace if its directed towards a sinner. It may turn out not to be grace in the end but sometimes some Reformed folks look at things only from the perspective of the ultimate purposes of God and not the proximate purposes which He has on the way to achieving His ultimate purposes.

If you don't like the word "grace" being applied to anyone but the elect, surely that just depends on how you define it?

Is mercy not not visiting judgment on someone who deserves it and is grace not giving good things to someone who deserves judgment?

Was it not of God's grace and mercy that the Israelites were taken out of Egypt into the Promised Land? Many of them abused that grace and mercy and proved themselves to be reprobate. It was _them _that turned gifts of God's grace and mercy into a rod for their backs. Of course God ultimately knew that this would be the case, but that does not mean that in history He also intended to be good, gracious and merciful to the Covenant offspring of Abraham, and that the responsibility for rejecting the Gospel was theirs that rejected it and not God's.


----------



## Reformed Rush

Richard Tallach said:


> Is mercy not not visiting judgment on someone who deserves it



When, under God's sovereign rule, has this ever happened?




> and is grace not giving good things to someone who deserves judgment?



No, grace has nothing to do with receiving good things in this life. Good things do not replace Godly justice.

Grace describes Jesus Christ suffering the deserved judgments of His people, which far exceeds mere "mercy." The Christian's excape from deserved judgment, only comes according to the ransom paid by Jesus Christ, which far exceeds "good things."





> Was it not of God's grace and mercy that the Israelites were taken out of Egypt into the Promised Land?



No, it was a matter of covenant fulfillment, sanctification, and baptism. All of which were non-salvific.




> Many of them abused that grace and mercy and proved themselves to be reprobate.



Most of them abused God's sanctification of the race, because they proved to be reprobate of God. Most never received the Abrahamic promises, and most died in the wilderness or as unfaithful children.




> It was _them _that turned gifts of God's grace and mercy into a rod for their backs.



Reprobation is a result of God's sovereign decision; not of mens' actions. Yes, reprobates prove to be unrepentant and unfaithful sinners, but that is because God has left them reprobate and accursed, not because they had an optional choice to refuse the goodness of God. (Can you not see the Arminian supposition and glimmer in your remarks?)



> Of course God ultimately knew that this would be the case, but that does not mean that in history He also intended to be good, gracious and merciful to the Covenant offspring of Abraham, and that the responsibility for rejecting the Gospel was theirs that rejected it and not God's.



I do not understand this statement. Please reword your thoughts.

Meanwhile, I personally believe that the reason many reject the gospel, is because God has ordained their reprobation. Also, the only reason many believe the gospel and exhibit faith in Jesus Christ, is because God has ordained their salvation.

I believe God determines all these things as well as the fate of all souls. Reprobation or salvation is not left up to the choices of sinners, else none would ever escape death and hell.


----------



## Peairtach

*Quote from Rush*
_Reprobation is a result of God's sovereign decision; not of mens' actions. Yes, reprobates prove to be unrepentant and unfaithful sinners, but that is because God has left them reprobate and accursed, not because they had an optional choice to refuse the goodness of God. (Can you not see the Arminian supposition and glimmer in your remarks?)_

I see nothing Arminian in placing all responsibility for the reprobates' ultimate condition at their door, and for the elects' salvation solely at God's mercy and grace.


----------



## Reformed Rush

Richard Tallach said:


> *Quote from Rush*
> _Reprobation is a result of God's sovereign decision; not of mens' actions. Yes, reprobates prove to be unrepentant and unfaithful sinners, but that is because God has left them reprobate and accursed, not because they had an optional choice to refuse the goodness of God. (Can you not see the Arminian supposition and glimmer in your remarks?)_
> 
> I see nothing Arminian in placing all responsibility for the reprobates' ultimate condition at their door, and for the elects' salvation solely at God's mercy and grace.



What about the infants of the non-elect? On what basis are they sent to hell?


----------



## Peairtach

That's a whole other topic. We don't know which infants are going to Hell unless we are talking about those infants whose spiritual state we can assess before they die. Those infants who do go to Hell - a lesser Hell than some - will go because of Adam's sin (and any sins/sinful attitude of their own if they have any). God chooses the reprobate, but it is _them _who are to blame for their punishment. If it was God who was to blame for their punishment rather than them, they could take some comfort in that.

I'm open to persuasion on this topic as divines like Dabney, Shedd, Kuyper, Berkhof and Van Til have defended the doctrine of common grace, while others like Hermann Hoeksema have disagreed.

I'll read Rev. Winzer's article and other material, and study the Scriptures more closely. At present, I agree with Berkhof when he says,

_Another objection to the doctrine of common grace is that it presupposes a certain favourable disposition in God even to reprobate sinners, while we have no right to assuime such a disposition in God. This stricture takes its starting point in the eternal counsel of God, in His election and reprobation. Along the lines of His election God reveals His love, grace, mercy, and long-suffering, leading to salvation; and in the historical realisation of His reprobation He gives expression only to His aversion, disfavour, hatred and wrath, leading to destruction. But this looks like a rationalistic oversimplification of the inner-life of God, which does not take account of His self-revelation._

Where - for instance - are God's good gifts ever called gifts of God's hatred - to anyone, elect or reprobate? If they are gifts of God's loving-kindness, that is more heaping coals of fire on the heads of those who abuse everything good, than if they were motivated by God's hatred pure and simple. It is because they (and even the elect to some extent) abuse gifts of God's goodness (and not hate) that the sin is so abominable and deserves greater damnation.


----------



## toddpedlar

Richard Tallach said:


> Where - for instance - are God's good gifts ever called gifts of God's hatred - to anyone, elect or reprobate?



Maybe the question should be what provisions of God to people are called "gifts"? Not every provision of food, drink, clothing and shelter, I don't think, can rightly be called a "gift"...


----------



## Confessor

Richard Tallach said:


> At present, I agree with Berkhof when he says,
> 
> [...] Along the lines of His election God reveals His love, grace, mercy, and long-suffering, leading to salvation; and in the historical realisation of His reprobation He gives expression only to His aversion, disfavour, hatred and wrath, leading to destruction. But this looks like a rationalistic oversimplification of the inner-life of God, which does not take account of His self-revelation.
> 
> Where - for instance - are God's good gifts ever called gifts of God's hatred - to anyone, elect or reprobate? If they are gifts of God's loving-kindness, that is more heaping coals of fire on the heads of those who abuse everything good, than if they were motivated by God's hatred pure and simple. It is because they (and even the elect to some extent) abuse gifts of God's goodness (and not hate) that the sin is so abominable and deserves greater damnation.



I think the main point of dispute is this quote you said earlier:



Richard Tallach said:


> But that still leaves the point that God acting kindly and giving good things is grace if its directed towards a sinner. It may turn out not to be grace in the end but sometimes some Reformed folks look at things only from the perspective of the ultimate purposes of God and not the proximate purposes which He has on the way to achieving His ultimate purposes.



Your objection is basically that the non-CG view is being too simplistic, not making the distinction between God's ultimate purposes and proximate purposes. If I recall correctly this was what Bahnsen said when the topic of common grace is brought up in _Van Til's Apologetic_. He basically says that we need to keep in mind the proximate/ultimate distinction. The Gospel give to reprobates can still be seen as a mark of divine favor and graciousness, even if only proximately.

I think that distinction fails in regards to this issue, basically because of statements like this one: _"It may turn out not to be grace in the end."_ Considering that God ordains not only His actions but also all human reactions (and His "reactions" to the human reactions, etc.), and considering that God knows exactly for what purpose everything in the universe occurs, I think it's a bit awkward to state that "it may turn out not to be grace in the end." If God never intended for some specific gift to be used towards a reprobate's wellbeing, and if He ordained every step of the process to ensure that this intention was filled out perfectly, then it seems wrong to say that at the moment the gift was given it was still grace. We can say that _from a human perspective_ we can tell it's a gift from God and we ought to praise Him for it, but we can't tell _from a divine perspective_ if it is being used ultimately for blessing or for destruction. And seeing as the ultimate doesn't contradict the proximate, the ultimate must be seen as objective (from God's point of view) and the proximate as subjective (from the human's point of view). Consequently it is wrong to provide that distinction as if it can say anything about God's intentions or dispositions. If God intended from all eternity to create a reprobate for destruction, then at every step of the way that is still His intention.

Again, I must say that I believe the CG position comes up because it is hard to conceive how God may legitimately show kindness and present gifts as a means towards destruction. But this is only because He is the one Being in existence who can ordain free reactions to His actions.


----------



## Peairtach

I've been looking at some NT passages that use the word grace (charis). It seems clear that there is a grace/grace according to the NT that falls short of saving grace.

_For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ. (Jude 4)_

This passage is particularly interesting in that it explicitly mentions reprobation. Yet it still calls God's goodness to these men "grace" and says that it was their fault and responsibility for turning grace into lasciviousness.

_Looking diligently lest any man fail of the grace of God; lest any root of bitterness springing up trouble you, and thereby many be defiled; (Heb. 12:15)_

In the KJV margin we have _"lest any man fall from grace", _so it is clearly not saving grace. So we must call it something else, and Reformed people call it "common grace"

Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace? (Heb 10:29)

This shows that common grace extends further than outward things such as milk and honey/food and clothes and also includes the actings, warmings, convictings and drawings of the Spirit of God, short of salvation itself. These things are portrayed as good spiritual gifts and the God the Holy Spirit is characterised as acting in His capacity as "the Spirit of grace". It is because such influences are gracious gifts that the sin is so wicked and the punishment will be even sorer.

More later.........

-----Added 7/4/2009 at 02:20:08 EST-----

_Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace. (Galatians 5:4) _

The grace that these Galatians had experienced must have been short of saving grace otherwise they could not have abandoned the faith. Paul doesn't offer the backsliding of truly saved Christians here.

Continuing backwards through the NT...

_I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain. (Gal 2:21)_

Paul speaks of a grace that can be frustrated. Clearly it cannot be the irresistible saving grace.

We then, as workers together with him, beseech you also that ye receive not the grace of God in vain. (II Cor 6:1)

Paul speaks of a grace that can be received in vain. Clearly not salvation, which when received cannot be lost.

There are other relevant texts also, but these are sufficient to show that the New Testament teaches that God is gracious to the reprobate even to the extent of the Holy Spirit working in their hearts and lives. 

Just because our tiny minds cannot fathom it, doesn't mean that it's not true that there is genuine grace from God that falls short of irresistible saving grace. But our tiny minds can't completely understand God's sovereignty and Man's free agency/responsibility and other biblical concepts.

If words have meaning the NT teaches Common Grace, call it what you will.


----------



## ExGentibus

Brother, I have just a few comments to make while I wait for others more knowledgeable than me to add theirs. 



Richard Tallach said:


> _For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ. (Jude 4)_


Jude is saying here that those men are using the doctrine of the free grace of God in Christ as a pretext for their lasciviousness. In fact, they taught what Roman Catholic and Arminian apologists often accuse us of teaching, that under the pretense of a complete justification by faith alone, we may feel free to sin and live according to our concupiscence.



> _Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace. (Galatians 5:4) _
> 
> The grace that these Galatians had experienced must have been short of saving grace otherwise they could not have abandoned the faith. Paul doesn't offer the backsliding of truly saved Christians here.


Same as the verse in Jude. Paul is contrasting law with grace, that is, the perfect rightneousness required by the Law with the Gospel of the justification of the sinner by grace alone through faith alone in Christ. Falling from grace means renouncing the benefits of the Covenant of Grace (falling from grace), to go back to the judgment of the Law.



> _I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain. (Gal 2:21)_


Exactly. This verse is the premise to the one above: frustrating the grace of God in this context means teaching, and living, a doctrine of works righteousness instead of the doctrine of the grace. For, if we really believe that we can earn righteousness through the Law, we are frustrating, disregarding, the gospel of salvation by grace alone, as though Christ died in vain, which is impossible.

I have to say that I am a bit troubled by how the exegesis used to support common grace often seem to align with those used to deny election and irresistible grace.


----------



## TeachingTulip

ExGentibus said:


> I have to say that I am a bit troubled by how the exegesis used to support common grace often seem to align with those used to deny election and irresistible grace.


----------



## Peairtach

TeachingTulip said:


> ExGentibus said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have to say that I am a bit troubled by how the exegesis used to support common grace often seem to align with those used to deny election and irresistible grace.
Click to expand...


Well, you have to go where the Word leads you, even if you have to be more nuanced in your views than you would like. 

Election and irresistible grace are clearly taught in Scripture; but there seems evidence that the Spirit works in people without changing them, and this is also called grace (Hebrews 10:29).

We just have to be careful in how we express and explain these things. Plenty of orthodox Reformed divines have believed in Common Grace.


----------



## kalawine

Romans 8 Verse 28 said:


> kalawine said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's an audio debate on the subject. Is the Doctrine of Common Grace Reformed?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr. Richard Mouw is an example of someone that has used the term "common grace" to promote un-Biblical teachings, In my humble opinion.
Click to expand...


Correct. But I believe that walking down the "common grace" road will eventually lead to the conclusions that Mouw comes to. Mouw takes the idea and runs with it. He takes it to it's logical conclusion which leads to compromise of the Reformed Faith.


----------



## TeachingTulip

kalawine said:


> I believe that walking down the "common grace" road will eventually lead to the conclusions that Mouw comes to. Mouw takes the idea and runs with it. He takes it to it's logical conclusion which leads to compromise of the Reformed Faith.


----------



## kalawine

Richard Tallach said:


> We just have to be careful in how we express and explain these things. Plenty of orthodox Reformed divines have believed in Common Grace.



Can you name these divines? Before or after Kuyper? 

Engelsma, "I believe that the common grace doctrine that we’re talking about originated with Abraham Kuyper, and Herman Bavinck in the late eighteen hundreds and the early nineteen hundreds. And I am not afraid to claim virtually every reformed theologian prior to them, as, at the very least, not teaching and espousing that cultural common grace, which also then is supposed to take manifestation in a well-meant gospel offer on God’s part in the preaching of the gospel to everybody. And even, I wouldn’t hesitate to claim, every orthodox reformed theologian before Bavinck and Kuyper as repudiating that, if not explicitly, then by implication. When I say that, I readily acknowledge that it is common in the Reformed theologians going back to Calvin, and including Calvin, to refer to what I call, “bounties of providence,” whether Mozart’s musical ability, or Plato’s intellectual ability or whatever it may be, as a certain kind of grace. I recognize that. But that does not put those theologians in the camp of those who think that there is an operation of the Holy Spirit upon the hearts of unregenerated people restraining sin, so that they’re partially good, and can even do works that are truly good, because they’re done by God’s grace, much less, launch this project of common grace to ‘Christianize’ society. That was Abraham Kuyper’s terminology, and Abraham Kuyper was after that: ‘Christianizing’ society by a common grace of God."


----------



## kvanlaan

> and I see no biblical evidence that would say that God's purpose in sending the rain on the unjust is the same as God's purpose in sending the plagues on Pharoah (or that I have to look at the rain today and think of it as so much fire and brimstone later).



An odd comment on this: I was looking at this statement and thinking, "I can see an argument being made for the case that there was an element of grace in the plagues."

Think about it: God was displaying His might and power, revealing himself to the Egyptians through these acts of judgment. Many knew where these plagues were coming from, do we assume that there were none converted by this? We see other instances in the OT where kings were converted to the way of the Lord by the judgment of God, why not this? Is this beyond the pale in discussing the concept of grace, or is it just a different animal than grace?


----------



## timmopussycat

Richard Tallach said:


> I've been looking at some NT passages that use the word grace (charis). It seems clear that there is a grace/grace according to the NT that falls short of saving grace.
> 
> _For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ. (Jude 4)_
> 
> This passage is particularly interesting in that it explicitly mentions reprobation. Yet it still calls God's goodness to these men "grace" and says that it was their fault and responsibility for turning grace into lasciviousness.
> 
> _Looking diligently lest any man fail of the grace of God; lest any root of bitterness springing up trouble you, and thereby many be defiled; (Heb. 12:15)_
> 
> In the KJV margin we have _"lest any man fall from grace", _so it is clearly not saving grace. So we must call it something else, and Reformed people call it "common grace"
> 
> Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace? (Heb 10:29)
> 
> This shows that common grace extends further than outward things such as milk and honey/food and clothes and also includes the actings, warmings, convictings and drawings of the Spirit of God, short of salvation itself. These things are portrayed as good spiritual gifts and the God the Holy Spirit is characterised as acting in His capacity as "the Spirit of grace". It is because such influences are gracious gifts that the sin is so wicked and the punishment will be even sorer.
> 
> More later.........
> 
> -----Added 7/4/2009 at 02:20:08 EST-----
> 
> _Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace. (Galatians 5:4) _
> 
> The grace that these Galatians had experienced must have been short of saving grace otherwise they could not have abandoned the faith. Paul doesn't offer the backsliding of truly saved Christians here.
> 
> Continuing backwards through the NT...
> 
> _I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain. (Gal 2:21)_
> 
> Paul speaks of a grace that can be frustrated. Clearly it cannot be the irresistible saving grace.
> 
> We then, as workers together with him, beseech you also that ye receive not the grace of God in vain. (II Cor 6:1)
> 
> Paul speaks of a grace that can be received in vain. Clearly not salvation, which when received cannot be lost.



Sorry, but your conclusion does not follow from the premises. What you have done is a good example of eisegesis, that is reading your conclusion into the texts of Scripture rather than demonstrating that your conclusion is a good and necessary consequence of the texts. 

In each example you have cited, the word grace can refer to the full extent of saving grace when the term is meant doctrinally rather than experientially. It is the doctrine of saving grace that is twisted to derive lascivious conclusions about Christian practice (Jude); the true doctrine can be professed with the lips but not believed in the heart by a false professor (Hebrews 12) or disavower (Heb. 10, Galatians 5, 2 Cor 6) as the result. Since the subject of Gal 2. is the Apostle Paul referring to something he is not doing with reference to true saving grace, that Scripture is not relevant to a discussion of whether common grace exists or not; in fact none of these passages speak to the question of common grace.

The idea behind "grace" is that its giver gives something given to someone who doesn't deserve it, or to someone who deserves the contrary of what is received. If the reprobate (as a class) receive anything from God which they do not deserve, or anything from God that is contrary to what they deserve, than they have received, some form of a "grace" from God.

What all sinners deserve to receive from God is death (Gen 2:17, Rom 6:23a) and that immediately (Gen 2:17). If God allows the reprobate to experience anything other then immediate death for sin commited, he is giving them something they do not deserve and, in fact contrary to what they deserve. 

Whatever God's long term reasons for giving the reprobate what they do not deserve may be, or whatever the long term effects of these gifts in the lives of the reprobate may prove to have, those reasons do not change the fact that the reprobate who do not experience death immediately after sinning are experiencing some level of blessing from God, and that blessing is not what they deserve.


----------



## Peairtach

timmopussycat said:


> Richard Tallach said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've been looking at some NT passages that use the word grace (charis). It seems clear that there is a grace/grace according to the NT that falls short of saving grace.
> 
> _For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ. (Jude 4)_
> 
> This passage is particularly interesting in that it explicitly mentions reprobation. Yet it still calls God's goodness to these men "grace" and says that it was their fault and responsibility for turning grace into lasciviousness.
> 
> _Looking diligently lest any man fail of the grace of God; lest any root of bitterness springing up trouble you, and thereby many be defiled; (Heb. 12:15)_
> 
> In the KJV margin we have _"lest any man fall from grace", _so it is clearly not saving grace. So we must call it something else, and Reformed people call it "common grace"
> 
> Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace? (Heb 10:29)
> 
> This shows that common grace extends further than outward things such as milk and honey/food and clothes and also includes the actings, warmings, convictings and drawings of the Spirit of God, short of salvation itself. These things are portrayed as good spiritual gifts and the God the Holy Spirit is characterised as acting in His capacity as "the Spirit of grace". It is because such influences are gracious gifts that the sin is so wicked and the punishment will be even sorer.
> 
> More later.........
> 
> -----Added 7/4/2009 at 02:20:08 EST-----
> 
> _Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace. (Galatians 5:4) _
> 
> The grace that these Galatians had experienced must have been short of saving grace otherwise they could not have abandoned the faith. Paul doesn't offer the backsliding of truly saved Christians here.
> 
> Continuing backwards through the NT...
> 
> _I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain. (Gal 2:21)_
> 
> Paul speaks of a grace that can be frustrated. Clearly it cannot be the irresistible saving grace.
> 
> We then, as workers together with him, beseech you also that ye receive not the grace of God in vain. (II Cor 6:1)
> 
> Paul speaks of a grace that can be received in vain. Clearly not salvation, which when received cannot be lost.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, but your conclusion does not follow from the premises. What you have done is a good example of eisegesis, that is reading your conclusion into the texts of Scripture rather than demonstrating that your conclusion is a good and necessary consequence of the texts.
> 
> In each example you have cited, the word grace can refer to the full extent of saving grace when the term is meant doctrinally rather than experientially. It is the doctrine of saving grace that is twisted to derive lascivious conclusions about Christian practice (Jude); the true doctrine can be professed with the lips but not believed in the heart by a false professor (Hebrews 12) or disavower (Heb. 10, Galatians 5, 2 Cor 6) as the result. Since the subject of Gal 2. is the Apostle Paul referring to something he is not doing with reference to true saving grace, that Scripture is not relevant to a discussion of whether common grace exists or not; in fact none of these passages speak to the question of common grace.
> 
> The idea behind "grace" is that its giver gives something given to someone who doesn't deserve it, or to someone who deserves the contrary of what is received. If the reprobate (as a class) receive anything from God which they do not deserve, or anything from God that is contrary to what they deserve, than they have received, some form of a "grace" from God.
> 
> What all sinners deserve to receive from God is death (Gen 2:17, Rom 6:23a) and that immediately (Gen 2:17). If God allows the reprobate to experience anything other then immediate death for sin commited, he is giving them something they do not deserve and, in fact contrary to what they deserve.
> 
> Whatever God's long term reasons for giving the reprobate what they do not deserve may be, or whatever the long term effects of these gifts in the lives of the reprobate may prove to have, those reasons do not change the fact that the reprobate who do not experience death immediately after sinning are experiencing some level of blessing from God, and that blessing is not what they deserve.
Click to expand...


Dear Timmo,

I stand corrected, but I would dispute whether none of these passages indicate undeserved goodness on the part of God to the reprobate and even the resistable strivings of the Holy Spirit with the reprobate which fall short of regeneration (e.g. Acts 7:51)

In Jude 4, it was a grace of God that these men heard the Gospel message of grace, even if they responded by using it as an excuse for sin.

Hebrews 12:15, indicates that they had to look to themselves and their ostensible brothers to make sure that their faith was not spurious. These people had heard the Gospel by grace, if not had influences of the Spirit upon them, also by grace.

Hebrews 10:29. I would not like to be dogmatic in saying that these people had experienced nothing of the Spirit of God/Grace of God, although clearly not regeneration, especially in the light of Hebrews 6:4-6.

Galatians 5:4 In God's grace they heard the message of grace and for a time looked as if they had received it by grace - but it was temporary faith.
(See e.g. Galatians 1:6)

Galatians 2:21  Although Paul wasn't frustrating God's grace, the implication is that the Galatians were by turning to a false Gospel.

II Corinthians 6:1 They received the grace of God. Whether it involved only the outward call of the Gospel or also some influences of the Spirit that fell short of conversion, I don't know?

If you wish to correct these thoughts further, I will not demur.

_Whatever God's long term reasons for giving the reprobate what they do not deserve may be, or whatever the long term effects of these gifts in the lives of the reprobate may prove to have, those reasons do not change the fact that the reprobate who do not experience death immediately after sinning are experiencing some level of blessing from God, and that blessing is not what they deserve._

I agree. The point of contention here seems to be that because God's ultimate attitude to the reprobate is one of hatred, contempt and loathing, we should not call any of the good things that He gives to them grace/gifts of grace or common grace. Whatever the logic in that it seems to contradict the language of Scripture about these things the reprobate receive, including the "common operations of the Spirit". (WCF IX IV).

Yours,
Richard.

-----Added 7/5/2009 at 11:28:15 EST-----



kalawine said:


> Richard Tallach said:
> 
> 
> 
> We just have to be careful in how we express and explain these things. Plenty of orthodox Reformed divines have believed in Common Grace.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can you name these divines? Before or after Kuyper?
> 
> Engelsma, "I believe that the common grace doctrine that we’re talking about originated with Abraham Kuyper, and Herman Bavinck in the late eighteen hundreds and the early nineteen hundreds. And I am not afraid to claim virtually every reformed theologian prior to them, as, at the very least, not teaching and espousing that cultural common grace, which also then is supposed to take manifestation in a well-meant gospel offer on God’s part in the preaching of the gospel to everybody. And even, I wouldn’t hesitate to claim, every orthodox reformed theologian before Bavinck and Kuyper as repudiating that, if not explicitly, then by implication. When I say that, I readily acknowledge that it is common in the Reformed theologians going back to Calvin, and including Calvin, to refer to what I call, “bounties of providence,” whether Mozart’s musical ability, or Plato’s intellectual ability or whatever it may be, as a certain kind of grace. I recognize that. But that does not put those theologians in the camp of those who think that there is an operation of the Holy Spirit upon the hearts of unregenerated people restraining sin, so that they’re partially good, and can even do works that are truly good, because they’re done by God’s grace, much less, launch this project of common grace to ‘Christianize’ society. That was Abraham Kuyper’s terminology, and Abraham Kuyper was after that: ‘Christianizing’ society by a common grace of God."
Click to expand...


Well Robert Dabney's "Systematic and Polemic Theology" (1871) and Charles Hodge's "Systematic Theology" (1871-3) for a start.

*Quote from Engelsma*
_But that does not put those theologians in the camp of those who think that there is an operation of the Holy Spirit upon the hearts of unregenerated people restraining sin, so that they’re partially good, and can even do works that are truly good, because they’re done by God’s grace, much less, launch this project of common grace to ‘Christianize’ society. That was Abraham Kuyper’s terminology, and Abraham Kuyper was after that: ‘Christianizing’ society by a common grace of God._

I don't think that Hodge or Dabney would call the works of the unregenerate "truly good". More likely "outwardly good" or "good as far as they went". Neither do I think that Hodge and Dabney who were both postmillennialists would believe that society can be Christianised without large numbers of people in the society being converted and being salt and light. Nor do I think they believed in a third class of people who were "partially good"

I'd have to check up on the "well meant Gospel offer". I think Hodge and Dabney would say that when the Gospel is preached, the Spirit regenerates some, leaves others and works by common and not saving operations on others.(?)


----------



## Confessor

Richard,

This issue can very easily be solved in a systematic-theological manner without appealing to the nuanced meanings of "grace" in various passages. Even though I believe that God intends well-being for the elect only (i.e., even though I believe that all grace is grace towards the elect), it is still proper for me to speak of "grace" or "graces" that God imparts to reprobates -- so long as these "graces" are referring to gifts _irrespective of God's intentions_. It's when the term "grace" is used equivocally that problems arise in the dispute, for example when someone says that God could not sustain the existence of a sinner who deserves hell immediately except by grace, and then that person says therefore that God intends good for the creature using a second definition of "grace." I believe in "common grace" if by that you mean God imparts gifts to the reprobates; I deny it vehemently if by that you mean God desires their well-being as a result of this gift. The former is shown by many Scriptures you have provided; the latter is not.

If I am not mistaken the structure of this debate is exactly the same as a section of the Clark/Van Til debate: Clark's point was that the well-meant offer logically contradicts other parts of the Reformed faith (and therefore it's foolish to presume that we can find such prooftexts in Scripture), whereas Van Til's point was that he thought it _was_ taught in various texts (and therefore it's foolish to presume that we can deny it by our "human logic"; it's just an "apparent contradiction").

Therefore, Richard, if you can combat the logical difficulties that have been shown in your position, and if you can show that the Bible speaks of God's _gracious intentions_ towards reprobates (since that is what the Kuyperian doctrine of common grace is) rather than His gifts towards them, then you will have succeeded in establishing that common grace is Biblical.


----------



## Nomad

Confessor said:


> I believe in "common grace" if by that you mean God imparts gifts to the reprobates; I deny it vehemently if by that you mean God desires their well-being as a result of this gift.



That's a great observation, and a distinction that should help us avoid talking past each other.


----------



## Spinningplates2

Brothers, before we all look too hard for what God hates, (too late?)

We need to remember that God, our God has described himself as LOVE. Some of these posts including the origanal post seem to forget that if not for Grace, God would hate us too.

I think Calvin said somewhere Election is to great a thing to think about all the time because it could drive a mortal mad. Instead Calvin wrote verse by verse about what was clear and what is clear is that He loves the unworthy. Probably because that is His nature.


----------



## Peairtach

Well, I doubt I can do any better than Van Til!

But there is the point that they are called graces in Scripture, whether we're talking about the elect or not. They're not called operations of God's despite, hatred, loathing and contempt in the case of the reprobate.

There is also the case that if God can be nuanced in His attitude to the elect before they're converted and even afterwards, why may He not be nuanced in His attitude to the reprobate before the Spirit stops striving with them or they end up in Hell.

You may plead "logic" but I don't feel I am forced to choose between God both having hatred for the reprobate and God being gracious to the reprobate in this life, by Scripture, any more than I'm forced to choose between God's sovereignty and Man's genuine responsibility.

There are sometimes mysteries and paradoxes in theology. Why does the Spirit strive with men who He knows He is not going to save? An ultimate reason will be that their condemnation will be greater because of the grace they have received. Is that the only reason, or are there other proximate gracious reasons, which is why common grace is called grace

Both Hodge and Dabney held to common grace as well as Kuyper. 

The Gospel offer is well meant to all who hear it. If any who hears believes they will be saved. Because the chill is in their will rather than in something like their arms and legs, the "can't" is as much a "won't" as a "can't". It is a moral and not a metaphysical can't/won't, so they are completely responsible for what they do with the message.

If the Spirit is sometimes striving graciously with those who don't become believers this increases their guilt. Of course if the Spirit wanted to regenerate them He could. How these things are fully resolved I don't pretend to know but I am content to believe that God has compassion on sinners, even ones that are not going to Heaven. The full hatred of God will be felt by the reprobate in Hell. Those who have spurned more of God's (common) grace in this life - all other things considered -will have a sorer punishment.


----------



## Confessor

Richard,

*First*, after I made a distinction between the two meanings of grace used in arguments for common grace -- i.e., between (1) gifts irrespective of divine intentions and (2) divine intentions of well-being -- you repeated to me that the Bible verses speak of grace as if it is helpful to your argument. Please realize that I am not averse to the actual use of the words "common grace"; I am averse rather to the concept that is usually contained under the label of "common grace." Therefore pointing to verses that mention the word "grace" in some sort for reprobates does not assist your position very well, unless you can show that these verses are showing a divine _intention_ for the well-being of reprobates -- a divine intention for something that will not actually occur. In other words, if you can show only that the "graces" spoken of in Scripture towards reprobate are in the category of (1) above and not (2), then you are not proving your doctrine of common grace.

*Second*, identifying an unqualified nuance that exists in God's treatment towards the elect does not assist your proof of common grace. What is necessary is that you show specifically how the nuance involved in God's relationship with the elect allows the concept of common grace. This involves defining and qualifying God's relationship with the elect, not just stating that a nuance exists with the elect; therefore your specific nuance of common grace exists with the reprobate. You have to _define_ and _qualify_ the nuances of God's relationships with the elect and reprobate and show how the relationships are logically connected.

*Third*, if I may not plead for logical consistency, then the analogy of faith that undergirds the entirety of the Reformed faith is gone. There may be some things that are weird to understand, but there are _never_ contradictions in God. Therefore unless you can counter the charge that the concept of common grace is an absolute contradiction, you cannot plead paradox.

*Fourth*, it is certainly true that the Gospel offer is "well-meant" by the preacher (if that is what you are saying), but that is not what the doctrine of the "well-meant offer" is dealing with. That doctrine teaches specifically that *God Himself* desires for reprobates to repent, which I repudiate. This offer and the view of common grace you are espousing are intertwined if not identical.

*Fifth*, certainly it is the case that reprobates are the ones who turn God's gift unto their own destruction, but you must also realize that God ordains all the reprobates' reactions. It seems that to be consistent with your view that God really desires reprobates' good, but then they twist it to another purpose, is to allow a free-willist view of God. On the contrary, I believe that the correct view is that God's intentions are carried out not only in His actions, but in everything that occurs by His decree, including reprobate reactions. Therefore the fact that reprobates are the ones who turn God's gifts unto their destruction does not imply that the view of common grace you are espousing is true.

Ben


----------



## Peairtach

Dear Ben,

_*First*, after I made a distinction between the two meanings of grace used in arguments for common grace -- i.e., between (1) gifts irrespective of divine intentions and (2) divine intentions of well-being -- you repeated to me that the Bible verses speak of grace as if it is helpful to your argument. Please realize that I am not averse to the actual use of the words "common grace"; I am averse rather to the concept that is usually contained under the label of "common grace." Therefore pointing to verses that mention the word "grace" in some sort for reprobates does not assist your position very well, unless you can show that these verses are showing a divine intention for the well-being of reprobates -- a divine intention for something that will not actually occur. In other words, if you can show only that the "graces" spoken of in Scripture towards reprobate are in the category of (1) above and not (2), then you are not proving your doctrine of common grace._

You haven't yet explained why the Bible uses the term grace about these gifts to the reprobate if they're not gracious in any sense. God doesn't ultimately desire the well-being of the reprobate, but He does proximately for his own good reasons desire their temporal well-being. To flatten things out by saying because of the decree that in time God has nothing but hatred for the reprobate, would make God seem to be less gracious than He is. It would also be misleading to say that in time God has nothing but love for the elect. 

_*Second*, identifying an unqualified nuance that exists in God's treatment towards the elect does not assist your proof of common grace. What is necessary is that you show specifically how the nuance involved in God's relationship with the elect allows the concept of common grace. This involves defining and qualifying God's relationship with the elect, not just stating that a nuance exists with the elect; therefore your specific nuance of common grace exists with the reprobate. You have to define and qualify the nuances of God's relationships with the elect and reprobate and show how the relationships are logically connected._

I would have to do further study on this and Common Grace generally. But I don't see that in Scripture, God's relationship with the elect and with the reprobate is purely defined by the decrees to reprobate or elect. God has ultimate purposes for these groups, but he also has multiple proximate purposes in what He does. 

_*Third*, if I may not plead for logical consistency, then the analogy of faith that undergirds the entirety of the Reformed faith is gone. There may be some things that are weird to understand, but there are never contradictions in God. Therefore unless you can counter the charge that the concept of common grace is an absolute contradiction, you cannot plead paradox._

You can plead for logical consistency, but where there is a conflict we sometimes have to leave things hanging in our tiny minds. I do not believe that there is any contradiction in God, just that your solution to the apparent conflict is reductionist, simplistic and flattens the data of Scripture. You're basically saying that because you can't understand how references to grace in connection with the non-elect could be really gracious - in the sense that God desires their well-being in some sense (not savingly) - that therefore you will redefine them as hatred on God's part. Why is it important? It makes God seem less gracious than He might be for a start. If you ask me to resolve how God can intend the temporal good of the reprobate and therefore be gracious to them, I don't pretend to have a full answer to that. Who said we would understand God to perfection? Maybe we'll understand better in glory?
I'm not going to jump at a solution when I don't think its the full story.

_*Fourth*, it is certainly true that the Gospel offer is "well-meant" by the preacher (if that is what you are saying), but that is not what the doctrine of the "well-meant offer" is dealing with. That doctrine teaches specifically that *God Himself* desires for reprobates to repent, which I repudiate. This offer and the view of common grace you are espousing are intertwined if not identical._

Certainly the work of God in the hearts of the reprobate can be mysterious - e.g. the passages in Hebrews - in that He wrestles with some and brings them to conviction and other spiritual experiences, but then leaves them.
But we must never say that He intended to convert them, otherwise they would have been converted.

_*Fifth*, certainly it is the case that reprobates are the ones who turn God's gift unto their own destruction, but you must also realize that God ordains all the reprobates' reactions. It seems that to be consistent with your view that God really desires reprobates' good, but then they twist it to another purpose, is to allow a free-willist view of God. On the contrary, I believe that the correct view is that God's intentions are carried out not only in His actions, but in everything that occurs by His decree, including reprobate reactions. Therefore the fact that reprobates are the ones who turn God's gifts unto their destruction does not imply that the view of common grace you are espousing is true._

Yes. But God does no violence to the reprobate to force them to sin. Therefore their wicked use of *grace* is their own fault and responsibilty, not God's. Everything is ordained by God for the elect and reprobate. Does it follow that God has nothing but love for the elect and hatred for the reprobate? Nothing-buttery can flatten important points.

I'll bow out of this now. You've obviously read up a lot more on this subject and theology generally, than I have. I'll study it further. We don't see eye to eye, but greater men than us have disagreed about this topic.

Richard.


----------



## Confessor

Richard,

One of the main points I was trying to deliver is that there is a significant distinction between (1) the fact that God gives gifts to both elect and reprobate, and (2) God's purposes or intentions in giving those gifts. In my estimation, you have assumed that the giving of gifts always implies well-meant intentions. I believe this is evident from this quotation of yours:

_You haven't yet explained why the Bible uses the term grace about these gifts to the reprobate if they're not gracious in any sense._

If you assume that "grace" (a gift irrespective of intentions) implies "gracious" (which you take to mean good intentions), then you have assumed what you are trying to prove and therefore begged the question. On the contrary, we must remember that for God, who alone can sovereignly decree true reactions to His workings with humans, a gift does not imply a good intention of Him. You seemed to misunderstand the point I was making regarding reprobates' reactions when you said this:



Richard Tallach said:


> Yes. But God does no violence to the reprobate to force them to sin. Therefore their wicked use of *grace* is their own fault and responsibilty, not God's. Everything is ordained by God for the elect and reprobate. Does it follow that God has nothing but love for the elect and hatred for the reprobate? Nothing-buttery can flatten important points.



I am not arguing that it is God's fault that reprobates twist their God-given gifts, but I will wholeheartedly argue that it is God's intention that they do so, since that is what He decreed. And therefore it is false to claim that He intends that they do otherwise. Seeing as common grace claims exactly that, it follows that common grace is false.

As I have pointed out above, I honestly think that this entire discussion comes down to the fact that for humans, gifts imply good intentions, whereas for God, this is not necessarily true. Humans cannot foreordain reactions to their gift-giving, but God can.

Otherwise, it is also important to remember that my view does not entail that God has no hardships for the elects and no blessings (gifts) for reprobates. But I will argue that everything works for the good of the elect (Romans 8:28) and for the destruction of the reprobate.

Ben


----------

