# On what basis does God give good gifts to the unelect?



## earl40 (Aug 17, 2012)

Below is a question I have directed at me.....

"The real good gifts that the unbeliever gets. Does the unbeliever get them because God loves them, or because God hates them?"

This arose because I explained that God can love the unelect as a creature He created, and not as an object of His redemption. So if God loves a unelect person what purpose is a loving God in giving good gifts if they only fatten the calf for the day of judgment?


----------



## Loopie (Aug 18, 2012)

Well, it certainly shows that God is patient and long-suffering. No doubt that these gifts also bring condemnation to those who refuse to bow the knee to Christ. Also, the gifts that the unbeliever receives are also sometimes a benefit for believers. I cannot deny that even though many new gadgets, businesses, services, and products in this nation are provided by unbelievers (by the common grace of God), those things benefit me and other believers as well. In the end I would say that God does indeed have a general love and affection for all mankind, but a special love for his Elect.


----------



## earl40 (Aug 18, 2012)

I appreciate the responce. I am attempting to avoid becoming a "Hyper"calvinist. I just am having a problem in knowing that God gives good gifts to the unelect all the while knowing they will result in greater punishment because of an ungrateful heart. Of course I also realize that some of these gifts result in less punishment also.


----------



## py3ak (Aug 18, 2012)

Earl, it might be helpful to think of this in terms of Acts 14. When God give rain from heaven and fruitful seasons, it is a witness. Now that witness certainly leaves men without excuse; but the witness itself is of goodness. We should have no hesitation in affirming that God's tender mercies are over all his works


----------



## earl40 (Aug 18, 2012)

py3ak said:


> Earl, it might be helpful to think of this in terms of Acts 14. When God give rain from heaven and fruitful seasons, it is a witness. Now that witness certainly leaves men without excuse; but the witness itself is of goodness. We should have no hesitation in affirming that God's tender mercies are over all his works



I hear you, that is why I did say the gifts are indeed good. This is the problem in that He does indeed give good gifts that result in greater punishment (maybe I am wrong here) and is this motivation based on his "general" love? If so how?


----------



## py3ak (Aug 18, 2012)

I suspect it's a question with too many assumptions built into it. Good gifts result in greater punishment only as they are made the occasion of sin - as they are perverted, in other words. I don't think there's any difficulty in saying that God gives good gifts because he is good; he is also good in punishing the perversion of them.


----------



## earl40 (Aug 18, 2012)

py3ak said:


> I suspect it's a question with too many assumptions built into it. Good gifts result in greater punishment only as they are made the occasion of sin - as they are perverted, in other words. I don't think there's any difficulty in saying that God gives good gifts because he is good; he is also good in punishing the perversion of them.



Ok I will make an example to narrow down some assumptions which I may be making. God gives the good gift of a nutritious meal to an unelect person. He benefits and realizes this meal was indeed good for him and he is ungrateful because he has no faith. So when he dies The Lord will judge his ungratefulness for the good meal He provided, and as a result of this ungrateful attitude God will punish him. Now we both agree the food given by God was good, but the end result of supplying this food ended upon punishment for the ungrateful receiver. Now stop me if I am making assumptions, but if you agree these assumptions may be correct how can we say God loved this man knowing that the good gift given to him will only result in punishment?


----------



## Andrew P.C. (Aug 19, 2012)

earl40 said:


> py3ak said:
> 
> 
> > I suspect it's a question with too many assumptions built into it. Good gifts result in greater punishment only as they are made the occasion of sin - as they are perverted, in other words. I don't think there's any difficulty in saying that God gives good gifts because he is good; he is also good in punishing the perversion of them.
> ...



Earl, 

I see what you are saying. My question to you: is God's common grace the same as God loving? Is there a passage of scripture that you could point to me that tells us that God loves the wicked? I do believe there is common grace. Such as rain, sunshine, nutritious meals, family, etc. However, I'm not sure grace and love are synonymous.

Scripture does tell us that God hates "all evildoers" (ps 5:5) and He hates "the wicked" (ps 11:5). I know that scripture tells us "God so loved the world" (John 3:16) but what is this passage telling us? What scripture would point to us about God's love to the reprobate?


----------



## py3ak (Aug 19, 2012)

It sounds like you are asking about the relationship between the love of beneficence and the love of benevolence. If beneficence results in greater punishment, is it actually due to malevolence?
(I mean these words in a manner worthy of God: so that here benevolence means "willing good to" and malevolence means "willing evil to" rather than "cruel".)
Is that a fair statement of your question?


----------



## earl40 (Aug 19, 2012)

py3ak said:


> It sounds like you are asking about the relationship between the love of beneficence and the love of benevolence. If beneficence results in greater punishment, is it actually due to malevolence?
> (I mean these words in a manner worthy of God: so that here benevolence means "willing good to" and malevolence means "willing evil to" rather than "cruel".)
> Is that a fair statement of your question?





py3ak said:


> It sounds like you are asking about the relationship between the love of beneficence and the love of benevolence. If beneficence results in greater punishment, is it actually due to malevolence?
> (I mean these words in a manner worthy of God: so that here benevolence means "willing good to" and malevolence means "willing evil to" rather than "cruel".)
> Is that a fair statement of your question?



Yes In other words,...Does God giving good gifts have to be based on benevolence if there is no “sweet complacency” towards the unelect? We seem to be saying that God can have a loving dispostion towards the unelect which in my mind seems to say God is double minded if He shows real beneficence.

For instance I can give a child a good gift all the time knowing it will harm him. I could be said to be malevolent. How de we avoid this charge againt us when we say all the gifts God gives to the unelect result in punishment without the charge of us following a malevolent God. Which BTW I have run across a few times when we say the good gifts God gives to the unelect result in punishment.


----------



## earl40 (Aug 19, 2012)

Andrew P.C. said:


> earl40 said:
> 
> 
> > py3ak said:
> ...



The rich young ruler for starters, and the various scriptures that state God wishes that all SHOULD come to repentance.


----------



## Peairtach (Aug 19, 2012)

earl40 said:


> py3ak said:
> 
> 
> > I suspect it's a question with too many assumptions built into it. Good gifts result in greater punishment only as they are made the occasion of sin - as they are perverted, in other words. I don't think there's any difficulty in saying that God gives good gifts because he is good; he is also good in punishing the perversion of them.
> ...



It's love on God's part that He doesn't immediately cast the non-elect into Hell, but gives them time to repent. It's not electing and saving love, but it is love.

You'd be as well asking what it means that God is longsuffering towards the non-elect, when He has already determined that they will go to Hell:



> The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance. (II Pet 3:9)



God is longsuffering, giving men - including the reprobate - time to repent. But the reprobate are not going to repent.

The mysterious relationship between God's sovereignty and yet Man's responsibility isn't one that can necessarily be placed in tidy theological boxes. Even although God elects some and reprobates others, men aren't chess pieces, but have personal moral responsibility before God.

The question of common grace has been discussed many times on the PB. Some believe that God has nothing but unmitigated hatred towards the reprobate from all eternity, while others believe that a distinguishing in His love helps to account for the Scriptural data:

http://www.puritanboard.com/google....ww.puritanboard.com/forum/&ss=3786j1428822j12

Robert Dabney, the great Southern Presbyterian theologian, in his _Systematic Theology_, even traced common grace to the Cross.


----------



## toddpedlar (Aug 19, 2012)

earl40 said:


> Andrew P.C. said:
> 
> 
> > earl40 said:
> ...



What Scriptures are those that teach that God wishes that all come to repentance, Earl? If you have in mind 2 Peter 3:9, you need to go deeper than that verse, which is much better understood in terms of God's intent to save all his elect, not willing that any of them perish.


----------



## Andrew P.C. (Aug 19, 2012)

earl40 said:


> Andrew P.C. said:
> 
> 
> > earl40 said:
> ...



Maybe I'm missing something, but i don't see where you get that God loves the unelect from the rich young ruler:

16 And behold, a man came up to him, saying, “Teacher, what good deed must I do to have eternal life?” 17 And he said to him, “Why do you ask me about what is good? There is only one who is good. If you would enter life, keep the commandments.” 18 He said to him, “Which ones?” And Jesus said, “You shall not murder, You shall not commit adultery, You shall not steal, You shall not bear false witness, 19 Honor your father and mother, and, You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” 20 The young man said to him, “All these I have kept. What do I still lack?” 21 Jesus said to him, “If you would be perfect, go, sell what you possess and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me.” 22 When the young man heard this he went away sorrowful, for he had great possessions.

Also, first, the "all should come to repentance" passage is being taken out of context. Second, if God desires men to become saved, that is a salvific love. Third, if God desires someone to be saved, yet they don't become saved, are you stating that God is powerless? I would hope not.


----------



## earl40 (Aug 19, 2012)

toddpedlar said:


> earl40 said:
> 
> 
> > Andrew P.C. said:
> ...



I understand what you are asking and am only giving the contra evidence of benevolence given to the nonelect by many well respected Pastors here. 

PS. I have no trouble saying 2 Peter 3:9 is directed toward the elect only. Though I will add ALL SHOULD come to repentance as in His prescriptive will.


----------



## earl40 (Aug 19, 2012)

Andrew P.C. said:


> earl40 said:
> 
> 
> > Andrew P.C. said:
> ...





Mar 10:21 And Jesus, looking at him, loved him, and said to him, "You lack one thing: go, sell all that you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me.


----------



## earl40 (Aug 19, 2012)

Peairtach said:


> The question of common grace has been discussed many times on the PB. Some believe that God has nothing but unmitigated hatred towards the reprobate from all eternity, while others believe that a distinguishing in His love helps to account for the Scriptural data:
> 
> 
> Robert Dabney, the great Southern Presbyterian theologian, in his _Systematic Theology_, even traced common grace to the Cross.



Yes those are some good threads. The question is not that God gives good gifts to the unelect (He does) but on what basis does He do so. If we think He gives them because of His hate of them we have the charge of a malevolent God. If we say it is based on His love of one of his creatios we have God having true benvelonce towards the unelect, which appears to say their is some type of Godly affection. Granted this distintion is based on the unelect being only a work of His hands. Maybe He loves the "vessels fitted for destruction" for what they are...."vessels fitted for destruction".


----------



## py3ak (Aug 19, 2012)

earl40 said:


> py3ak said:
> 
> 
> > It sounds like you are asking about the relationship between the love of beneficence and the love of benevolence. If beneficence results in greater punishment, is it actually due to malevolence?
> ...



You can probably sort a lot of this out by distinguishing between immediate and ultimate ends. God's immediate end is to give a testimony of his goodness; how could he do that apart from genuinely manifesting goodness? 
The way from the immediate end of manifesting goodness to the ultimate end of exhibiting justice in condemnation is through the perversity of man. It is therefore on the perversity of man that all blame rests, including the blame for heightened condemnation. In itself, the goodness of God has a tendency to lead us to repentance; in itself, the bestowing of good should by nature elicit gratitude: it is only through perversity that it produces an effect improper to itself.
If someone feels that this makes God malevolent there may be a defect in how it is presented to them; there may be an attempt to bind God to a standard of justice that they've developed from their own mind instead of from the word of God; or they may not understand that the justice and wrath of God are good. In any case, the starting point, I think, has to be that God is goodness itself. Until you see that, and stop proposing your own feelings as a standard for him, it is very difficult to say "whate'er my God ordains is right" or to boldly affirm that the will of God is the primary rule of justice.


----------



## earl40 (Aug 19, 2012)

py3ak said:


> You can probably sort a lot of this out by distinguishing between immediate and ultimate ends. God's immediate end is to give a testimony of his goodness; how could he do that apart from genuinely manifesting goodness?
> The way from the immediate end of manifesting goodness to the ultimate end of exhibiting justice in condemnation is through the perversity of man. It is therefore on the perversity of man that all blame rests, including the blame for heightened condemnation. In itself, the goodness of God has a tendency to lead us to repentance; in itself, the bestowing of good should by nature elicit gratitude: it is only through perversity that it produces an effect improper to itself.
> If someone feels that this makes God malevolent there may be a defect in how it is presented to them; there may be an attempt to bind God to a standard of justice that they've developed from their own mind instead of from the word of God; or they may not understand that the justice and wrath of God are good. In any case, the starting point, I think, has to be that God is goodness itself. Until you see that, and stop proposing your own feelings as a standard for him, it is very difficult to say "whate'er my God ordains is right" or to boldly affirm that the will of God is the primary rule of justice.




Yes I see what you are saying and the people that bring the charge of malevolence refuse to see how the temporal good given to the unelect is really to manifest His justice which is good for God but bad for them. What's interesting is that we all say, in some instances, that the end result justifies the means.For example I got a flat tire on the way to the WTC on the morning of 9 -11. Getting the flat tire was good because it prevented me from that horrible day. The end result justified the "bad" thing as being really a good thing.


----------



## a mere housewife (Aug 19, 2012)

The teaching that there are degrees of eternal punishment ('it will be more tolerable for Sodom in the day of judgment' etc) means that one of the temporal goodnesses God shows to totally depraved people is to keep them from being as bad as they could be. Punishment when people have corrupted his gifts is a good, the gifts themselves are good, and in so many cases, the fact that people do not corrupt his gifts as much as they could is also a good God shows to unsaved men. That last seems to me pretty definitive re: God's goodness to the nonelect always tending to greater damnation, and being only a fattening for judgment.


----------



## earl40 (Aug 19, 2012)

a mere housewife said:


> The teaching that there are degrees of eternal punishment ('it will be more tolerable for Sodom in the day of judgment' etc) means that one of the temporal goodnesses God shows to totally depraved people is to keep them from being as bad as they could be. Punishment when people have corrupted his gifts is a good, the gifts themselves are good, and in so many cases, the fact that people do not corrupt his gifts as much as they could is also a good God shows to unsaved men. That last seems to me pretty definitive re: God's goodness to the nonelect always tending to greater damnation, and being only a fattening for judgment.



I have read you say this before and could not agree more. Your post of only brings me more thought in that those that receive more goodness in this life will be punished more harshly than those that received less goodness. This is why I asked if this is true benevolence if those that did receive more get punished worse? In other words, the greater temporal benevolence only results in more punishment...which sounds and appears just not right. That is the point the people I am in discussion with.


----------



## a mere housewife (Aug 19, 2012)

Earl, I can understand that response. Essentially the objection is that what those cities which received greater judgment had that Sodom didn't, were good gifts: the preaching of the gospel attended by signs. Hence good gifts always increase damnation?

But I don't think we can posit this without a lot of assumptions we aren't warranted in making. In Matthew 11:21 Christ says that if the mighty works done in Chorazin and Bethsaida had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented. Yet surely without the work of the Spirit, none of us could repent from the heart because of any mighty work: the repentance would have been in keeping with their natural superstitions and how far they had already been given over to hardness of heart. Only the elect repent to salvation. In other words, in this case, at least on that view, Tyre and Sidon were spared light which would ultimately have made them more accountable for not repenting from the heart.

(edit: I should probably have expressed more clearly that then surely the good gifts they received from God will not just fit into the insufficient paradigm of punishment: trying to explain all God's dealings in that light winds up in convolutions that don't fit. I find that conception of the goodness of God as if it had being for the end of wrath [rather than wrath being His 'strange work' as some people I have read call it], instead of God *being* good, goodness itself, His eternal self existent being, which all His creatures have reason to praise Him for, a bit appalling. In truth, it reminds me of nightmares.)

I think the simple ramification of degrees of punishment stands. If everything God gave the unconverted were for the sake of showing them wrath, there would be no need for degrees of punishment. In one way or another, we would all be manifesting our depravity to the utmost. There is a goodness involved in restraining sin, which simply won't fit into the category of God's goodness to unbelievers viewed solely as ending in greater judgment.


----------



## py3ak (Aug 19, 2012)

earl40 said:


> Yes I see what you are saying and the people that bring the charge of malevolence refuse to see how the temporal good given to the unelect is really to manifest His justice which is good for God but bad for them. What's interesting is that we all say, in some instances, that the end result justifies the means.For example I got a flat tire on the way to the WTC on the morning of 9 -11. Getting the flat tire was good because it prevented me from that horrible day. The end result justified the "bad" thing as being really a good thing.



I suspect that even for the non-elect it is ultimately better to live in God's universe than in some hypothetical universe where justice was not maintained.
I would not use the phrase "the end justifies the means." I think that is a philosophy that we oppose insufficiently (e.g., we judge of the rightness or not of a decision by how it worked out - but that's not the criterion). A flat tire is not morally bad.


----------



## earl40 (Aug 20, 2012)

py3ak said:


> earl40 said:
> 
> 
> > Yes I see what you are saying and the people that bring the charge of malevolence refuse to see how the temporal good given to the unelect is really to manifest His justice which is good for God but bad for them. What's interesting is that we all say, in some instances, that the end result justifies the means.For example I got a flat tire on the way to the WTC on the morning of 9 -11. Getting the flat tire was good because it prevented me from that horrible day. The end result justified the "bad" thing as being really a good thing.
> ...



Of course I mean God can use bad means to bring about good. He is allowed to do that.  So far as an example as a bad moral example I can think of scores of examples where The Lord has used my sin for my good. (Romans 8:28) Which goes without saying that all that all things work for the bad for the unelect. The degree of bad as Heidi pointed out is by the benevolence of God.


----------



## a mere housewife (Aug 20, 2012)

Dear Earl, I think you've misunderstood what I was trying to say, but that it is my fault. What I said is very unclear. I had a fever yesterday so perhaps it was delirium . I won't comment further than this, because I'm unsure that I can speak very clearly about a subject that I do find somewhat distressing.

What I mean is that the whole approach to seeing wrath behind all the good things the wicked receive is inadequate. If one sees wrath behind all goodness, then one has to wind up seeing goodness behind all the evils, including not having the gospel. I don't want to be the one to try to follow out the logic of believing that it is a mercy for sinners not to have the gospel: this is nowhere the attitude we are taught to have in Scripture. The point I was trying to make in a very convoluted fashion is that even on that kind of logic, one has to acknowledge some sort of good in God's dealing with unsaved men that does not result in greater condemnation: hence the paradigm is incapable of accounting for the goodness God displays to the non-elect.

Not only is the approach inadequate, I think it ventures into things which are not revealed, in making blanket determinations about the amount of restraint of sin involved in different circumstances, and the degree of abuse to which men turn their good gifts, and the amount of goodness displayed in any of God's dealings with men. These things are better left to the sovereign judge and ruler of the world, with faith in His goodness and justice. Your reading of Romans 8:28 seems to me to be a statement about something non-revelatory: 'all things work together for bad' to the non-elect is not what the verse says, I don't believe. It says that only those who have Christ have the precious hope that everything they experience here, even the evils, will work out for good.

It is sufficient for me to believe what Scripture says: that God is good ('His tender mercies are over all his works'), and that the wicked experience this, but they do not turn to him. God is good even in judgment. Wrath is not the ulterior motive for His being good. Good is His being: wrath is a form His goodness takes, when men abuse His good gifts to evil ends.


----------



## py3ak (Aug 20, 2012)

earl40 said:


> Of course I mean God can use bad means to bring about good. He is allowed to do that.  So far as an example as a bad moral example I can think of scores of examples where The Lord has used my sin for my good. (Romans 8:28) Which goes without saying that all that all things work for the bad for the unelect. The degree of bad as Heidi pointed out is by the benevolence of God.



Yes, but the badness of the means is not from God. His wisdom is displayed in making the wrath of man to praise him - but the sinfulness of man's wrath is not legitimated by the end to which it is directed.

If beneficence results in greater punishment, is it actually due to malevolence? In order to answer that question, we drew a distinction between immediate and ultimate ends. The person who cheerfully answers "yes" will soon face a similar issue. If maleficence results in lessened punishment, is it actually due to benevolence? It's not a problem (intellectually, anyway: in practice it can be harder to accept) with regard to the elect to believe that hard providences result in blessing and are themselves blessings procured by the work of Christ according to the covenant of grace: fatherly chastenings are still a sign of fatherly favor, after all; but it is an awkward question for the person who wishes to make beneficence really a subtle form of malevolence.


----------



## earl40 (Aug 20, 2012)

py3ak said:


> after all; but it is an awkward question for the person who wishes to make beneficence really a subtle form of malevolence.



Now from the WCF we have works that proceed from unregenerate men that are done according to His commands (from benevolence?) but result in sin. Yes the neglect of of doing such is worse sin (true benovolence) but the works that are done are still considered sinful and thus are going to be punished by God. This is the point of charge of malevolence if He gives commands and men still are punished for following these commands. 


VII. Works done by unregenerate men, although for the matter of them they may be things which God commands; and of good use both to themselves and others:[23] yet, because they proceed not from an heart purified by faith;[24] nor are done in a right manner, according to the Word;[25] nor to a right end, the glory of God,[26] *they are therefore sinful* and cannot please God, or make a man meet to receive grace from God:[27] and yet, their neglect of them is more sinful and displeasing unto God.[28]

Below is a quote from Rev. Wintzer that may explain what I am getting at....if we substitute the idea God is being benevolent with being merciful as it is used below I think you may see how an expression of God being benevolent may be a misnomer? Of course I understand that Rev.Wintzer does hold to a form of benevolence towards the creatures that are considered by God as creations and not adopted sons.

The action is a mercy; there is no basis for saying God is "being merciful," or expressing a disposition of mercy. If earthly favours really did flow from a disposition of mercy in God then we should call them blessed who prosper at their will and welcome the prosperity gospel with all its carnal attractiveness. But even if one were to say God shows a disposition of mercy, whence would one derive the idea that this mercy is grounded in the death of Christ? It's fictitious. Any generalisation of the death of Christ serves to undermine the particularity of grace and to throw the believer's assurance into confusion.

PS. I will work on this topic and try to clarify much better in the future. Because the charge of malevolence I can not answer as tossed at me now by the blessed Arminians.


----------



## py3ak (Aug 20, 2012)

Earl, these are quite distinct issues. The Calvinist who desires to speak of God as fattening up the reprobate for punishment, who views good gifts as being given in order to increase guilt, has to ask the question if God then withholds good gifts or sends calamity as a way to diminish guilt. They get asked that question, because of the paradigm they are operating on. Absent the claim that God's beneficence is really a subtle expression of hatred, the question doesn't need to be raised. 

Are you speaking of men doing good works from a principle of benevolence? That can never be without faith. The sufficient answer to the Arminian is that men abuse what God gives them. God gives them commands - men don't obey them from the heart and in faith, but self-righteously, hypocritically, partially. An Arminian who is dissatisfied because the higher you are elevated the more devastating is your fall really needs to meditate on the fall of Adam and the fall of Lucifer. If they can recognize the goodness and holiness of God there, then nothing else should trouble them.


----------



## Peairtach (Aug 20, 2012)

*Earl*


> PS. I will work on this topic and try to clarify much better in the future. Because the charge of malevolence I can not answer as tossed at me now by the blessed Arminians.



It is located in the mystery of how God's sovereignty and Man's responsibility interact.


----------



## earl40 (Aug 21, 2012)

Peairtach said:


> *Earl*
> 
> 
> > PS. I will work on this topic and try to clarify much better in the future. Because the charge of malevolence I can not answer as tossed at me now by the blessed Arminians.
> ...


----------



## earl40 (Aug 21, 2012)

py3ak said:


> Are you speaking of men doing good works from a principle of benevolence? That can never be without faith.



No, I (or they) are asking from a principle of benevolence of God or His dispostion towards the unelect.

For instance as Rev. Wintzer says "The dispostion of God towards the reprobate which these temporal benefits express is conditioned by His decree of reprobation to hate the vessels of wrath and to reserve them, by means of these benefits. for everlasting damnation."

In other words, it appears that the above quote may be saying the act of benevolence is based on malvolence "dispostion of God....hate".

PS. Any Word on Pastor Winzer? He is constantly in my prayers and thoughts.


----------



## J. Dean (Aug 21, 2012)

God has that disposition because He is good to those who are not good to Him. It is in His character. Recall what Jesus said about God causing the rain to fall on the just and the unjust. And it is an example which we are to follow, not returning evil to those who do evil to us. He is merciful. He is gracious. The real question isn't "Why is God good to the unbeliever?" but "Why is God good to anybody at all either through common grace OR saving grace, seeing as how all start off as unbelievers?"


----------



## earl40 (Aug 21, 2012)

J. Dean said:


> God has that disposition because He is good to those who are not good to Him. It is in His character. Recall what Jesus said about God causing the rain to fall on the just and the unjust. And it is an example which we are to follow, not returning evil to those who do evil to us. He is merciful. He is gracious. The real question isn't "Why is God good to the unbeliever?" but "Why is God good to anybody at all either through common grace OR saving grace, seeing as how all start off as unbelievers?"



The one word answer to your question is....Love is the reason He is good to the elect. True benevolence. 


The question is what is the reason God gives temporal good gifts to the unelect. The reason can be either malevolence or benevelonce. If it is benevolenc it is based on love...if it is malevolence it is based on hate.


----------



## py3ak (Aug 21, 2012)

earl40 said:


> py3ak said:
> 
> 
> > Are you speaking of men doing good works from a principle of benevolence? That can never be without faith.
> ...



It would be easier to interact with quotes from Mr. Winzer if one had the context to compare, rather than just the snippet. I think the mistake Mr. Winzer was pointing at in the two quotes you've provided from him, and certainly the mistake I'm trying to highlight, is that of arguing from beneficence to a disposition. As you quoted from him before:


> *The action is a mercy; there is no basis for saying God is "being merciful," or expressing a disposition of mercy.* If earthly favours really did flow from a disposition of mercy in God then we should call them blessed who prosper at their will and welcome the prosperity gospel with all its carnal attractiveness. But even if one were to say God shows a disposition of mercy, whence would one derive the idea that this mercy is grounded in the death of Christ? It's fictitious. Any generalisation of the death of Christ serves to undermine the particularity of grace and to throw the believer's assurance into confusion.



The _fact_ of beneficence is repeatedly affirmed in Scripture, and confirmed daily by observation and experience: it is made a testimony to God's goodness. Consider the rich man, who in his torments was told that he received his good things in this life. The abuse of those good things certainly worked to reserve him to judgment by hiding his needs from his awareness; the decree of reprobation, just like the decree of election, is executed through means, and the whole course of a reprobate's life is a fulfilling of that decree. But good things were given to him: there was beneficence. 

Again, if beneficence is traced to malevolence, then maleficence, even to the reprobate, can be traced to benevolence. At that point you begin to wonder if the attempt to trace God's disposition from his temporal dispensations might not be a mistake. One cannot argue that God loves the reprobate _as such_ from the fact that they receive good things in this life (though one doesn't have to deny that they have received good things, or that those good things functioned as a testimony of God's essential goodness); one cannot argue that God hates the elect from the fact that they (sometimes) don't receive good things in this life. In other words, it is illegitimate to teach anyone to argue, "This blessing means that God hates me." No, this blessing means that God is good; and the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him. It is not the temporal blessings, but Christ who reveals God's disposition towards me.


----------



## earl40 (Aug 21, 2012)

py3ak said:


> earl40 said:
> 
> 
> > py3ak said:
> ...



The quote is from his review against Murray on the Free Offer. You are correct that Rev. Wintzer does indeed believe that God gives good gifts based on beneolence as He is the Creator of the of the unelect...which article is fantastic In my most humble opinion. The problem is that even though I pulled this quote from the article it appears the context does support God giving good gifts based on His hate which speaks diretly opposite of his point against God having a "general' love of the unelect. If I rememember it is near the end of the article.


----------



## py3ak (Aug 21, 2012)

Earl, I'm not sure how I can be correct in that when I didn't say anything of the sort about Mr. Winzer's views. I know he has approvingly quoted Samuel Rutherford to the effect that God loves the reprobate even in hell, in the sense that he preserves them in being. 
But it's hard to have a discussion when there is what I say, and then there is also a phantom discussion going on with things I haven't said and might or might not think!
After years of asking what I thought were hard follow-up questions, I have found that Mr. Winzer is one of the persons least likely to contradict himself that I have ever met, so I would be very hesitant to agree with your conclusion that one thing he said speaks directly opposite to something else he said. In fact, I think what I've said above might be useful in showing how there is no contradiction. 
And I agree that the review of Murray is a brilliant bit of theology, which locates the discussion about God's dispositions in their proper context.


----------



## earl40 (Aug 21, 2012)

py3ak said:


> Earl, I'm not sure how I can be correct in that when I didn't say anything of the sort about Mr. Winzer's views. I know he has approvingly quoted Samuel Rutherford to the effect that God loves the reprobate even in hell, in the sense that he preserves them in being.
> But it's hard to have a discussion when there is what I say, and then there is also a phantom discussion going on with things I haven't said and might or might not think!
> After years of asking what I thought were hard follow-up questions, I have found that Mr. Winzer is one of the persons least likely to contradict himself that I have ever met, so I would be very hesitant to agree with your conclusion that one thing he said speaks directly opposite to something else he said. In fact, I think what I've said above might be useful in showing how there is no contradiction.
> And I agree that the review of Murray is a brilliant bit of theology, which locates the discussion about God's dispositions in their proper context.



I meant no offence at all, and I am sorry you think I implied you were commenting on Rev. Wintzer's view. I also agree Rev. Wintzer is one of the most if not most consistant posters here, and I relish when he does post. Of course since he is currently out of commision (still praying for him) I hesitate to comment further on the apparent contradiction in his article because I have little doubt I am misunderstanding what he meant.


----------



## py3ak (Aug 21, 2012)

I know you don't mean any offence, Earl - I didn't mean to imply that I thought you did, or that I was offended: merely that it seemed like extrapolations about my remarks were dialogue partners, along with hyper-calvinists, Arminians, Mr. Winzer, and what I have said: all of that can get a little confusing. 
I would suggest reviewing Mr. Winzer's article with this simple statement in mind: beneficence in the temporal realm does not imply a disposition on the part of God. I think that might make everything come clear.


----------



## earl40 (Aug 21, 2012)

py3ak said:


> I know you don't mean any offence, Earl - I didn't mean to imply that I thought you did, or that I was offended: merely that it seemed like extrapolations about my remarks were dialogue partners, along with hyper-calvinists, Arminians, Mr. Winzer, and what I have said: all of that can get a little confusing.
> I would suggest reviewing Mr. Winzer's article with this simple statement in mind: beneficence in the temporal realm does not imply a disposition on the part of God. I think that might make everything come clear.



Will do. Thank you Ruben.


----------

