# God's Common Grace



## James Hosie

No man knoweth either love or hatred by outward mercy or misery; for all things come alike to all, to the righteous and to the unrighteous, to the good and to the bad, to the clean and to the unclean. The sun of prosperity shines as well upon brambles of the wilderness as upon fruit-trees of the orchard; the snow and hail of adversity lights upon the best garden as well as upon the stinking dunghill or the wild waste.

Thomas Brooks - Precious Remedies Against Satan’s Devices


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon

That's not common grace. Its God's indiscriminate providence. And that is a BIG difference. Grace is not "in things", grace is ONLY in Christ.

Reactions: Like 5 | Informative 1


----------



## timfost

Sounds like common grace to me...

Thanks for sharing!

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon

There is nothing _common_ about grace.

Westminster was careful on this.

In a committee looking at this question they asked:

Q. Do all men equally partake of the benefits of Christ?

A. Although from Christ some common favors redound to all mankind, and some special privileges to the visible Church, yet none partake of the _principal_ benefits of His mediation but only such as are members of the Church invisible.

Common _favors_, i.e. indiscriminate providence. Not grace. Grace is only found in Christ unless one is advocating Arminianism, Semi Pelagianism or Amyraldianism.

Reactions: Like 2 | Amen 1


----------



## NaphtaliPress

The doctrine or rather the branch of the doctrine we left at, was (and it is exclusive) _that Christ’s death is only intended to be a price for the sins of God’s elect people and was laid down with respect to them._ His death and sufferings are to be looked upon and considered only as a price and satisfaction for their sins and for the sins of none other. Or thus: _Jesus Christ in His suffering and in the laying down of His life, had a respect to the elect and intended the removing of the sins and transgressions of God’s elect people
only and of none other.
_
We know nothing that we can make of these words, nor of the prophet’s scope in them, but this; who as he has been describing Christ’s sufferings in all other respects, so does he in this, to wit, in respect of the persons for whom He suffered and of the meritorious cause and end of His sufferings; for says the text, _For the transgressions of my people, _that is, of God’s elect people, _was he stricken_.

This branch of the doctrine is of great weight and concernment in the whole strain of grace; for if this march-stone [_boundary stone_] be lifted and removed, grace becomes common and as some call it, _universal_, and so to be in effect no grace at all. For grace has a peculiar channel of its own, wherein it runs towards a certain select number and not towards all. I do not mean of grace taken in a large sense, for so all men as they are partakers of any mercy or of common favors, may be said to have grace extended to them; but I mean God’s special grace, favor and good-will, which is extended only to the elect, for whose sins Christ suffered. The right bounding of which doctrine shows forth both God’s sovereignty in the dispensing of grace and the freeness thereof in communicating and manifesting of it to whom He will; and which, thus considered, is especially engaging of the hearts of them on whom He pleases to manifest it.​
James Durham, Sermon 33 on Isaiah 53:8, _Collected Sermons
of James Durham, Christ Crucified: or, The Marrow of the Gospel
in Seventy-Two Sermons on the Fifty-Third Chapter of Isaiah_ (Naphtali Press and Reformation Heritage Books, 2017), 404-405.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Ryan&Amber2013

C. Matthew McMahon said:


> That's not common grace. Its God's indiscriminate providence. And that is a BIG difference. Grace is not "in things", grace is ONLY in Christ.



I first learned about this from A.W. Pink in the Attributes of God. He pointed out that grace is only in reference to the elect, while kindness is something God shows to all people.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## timfost

Westminster divine Robert Harris:

"There are graces of two sorts. First, common graces, which even reprobates may have. Secondly, peculiar, such as accompany salvation, as the Apostle has it, proper to God’s own children only. The matter is not whether we have the first sort of graces, for those do not seal up God’s special love to a man’s soul, but it must be saving grace alone that can do this for us."

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## timfost

Westminster divine Samuel Rutherford:

"But, as the seed and the growing tree differ not gradually only, but in nature and specifically; as a thing without life, is not of that same nature and essence, with a creature that hath a vegetative life and growth; so the preparatory good affections of desire, hunger, sorrow, humiliation, going before conversion, differ specifically from those renewed affections which follow after; the former being acts of grace, but not of saving grace..."

https://books.google.com/books?id=PONCAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA280&lpg=PA280&dq="growing+tree+differ+not+gradually"&source=bl&ots=UMizLQE-Aa&sig=voMyMqy7LMCaSV6R7ybVqIuOkYg&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi08--Ar8fXAhUMJiYKHTceBWEQ6AEIJjAA#v=onepage&q=%22growing%20tree%20differ%20not%20gradually%22&f=false

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## timfost

John Owen:

"Concerning grace itself, it is either common or special. Common or geneal grace consisteth in the external revelation of the will of God by his word, with some illumination of the mind to perceive it, and correction of the affections not too much to contemn it; and this, in some degree or other, to some more, to some less, is common to all that are called. Special grace is the grace of regeneration, comprehending the former, adding more spiritual acts, but especially presupposing the purpose of God, on which its efficacy doth chiefly depend."


----------



## TylerRay

In my opinion, the debate over common grace among Presbyterians (I am excluding Protestant Reformed folks here--they hold a different view) is pointless. Both teach that God is kind to all. One calls this common grace, another says that it should be called general kindness or benevolence. Their doctrine only differs in name.

The people who argue against using the term _common grace_ do so on the basis that the Scriptures do not use the term _grace_ to refer to common benefits; but are we bound to use the very language of the Scriptures in our doctrinal formulations? We don't mind using non-Scriptural language in other areas of doctrine--why make a big deal of it here?

Why not just admit that we are confessing the same thing, albeit with different language, and bear with one another in our various preferences?

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## OPC'n

TylerRay said:


> In my opinion, the debate over common grace among Presbyterians (I am excluding Protestant Reformed folks here--they hold a different view) is pointless. Both teach that God is kind to all. One calls this common grace, another says that it should be called general kindness or benevolence. Their doctrine only differs in name.
> 
> The people who argue against using the term _common grace_ do so on the basis that the Scriptures do not use the term _grace_ to refer to common benefits; but are we bound to use the very language of the Scriptures in our doctrinal formulations? We don't mind using non-Scriptural language in other areas of doctrine--why make a big deal of it here?
> 
> Why not just admit that we are confessing the same thing, albeit with different language, and bear with one another in our various preferences?



Because when you start giving grace any old definition you want then the doctrine of grace is diminished or even changed. The doctrine of grace is the most important doctrine we have


----------



## earl40

OPC'n said:


> Because when you start giving grace any old definition you want then the doctrine of grace is diminished or even changed. The doctrine of grace is the most important doctrine we have



Understood, though when one dispels of God giving favor to all (grace) one has to use words like "indiscriminate providence" which makes God giving good things based on what exactly? in my opinion this takes away the thought that God can love all men in some sense.


----------



## Parakaleo

TylerRay said:


> One calls this common grace, another says that it should be called general kindness or benevolence. Their doctrine only differs in name.



We who prefer _not_ to use the label "common grace" are wary of Kuyperian tendencies to want to redeem sinful culture and "plunder the Egyptians" by retaining that which is "good", owing to "common grace".

I say all this also knowing there are plenty of people who use the words "common grace" without straying into those tendencies.


----------



## TylerRay

OPC'n said:


> Because when you start giving grace any old definition you want then the doctrine of grace is diminished or even changed. The doctrine of grace is the most important doctrine we have


Not so. The difference is merely terminological. The sharp distinction between saving graces and common graces is maintained.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## timfost

TylerRay said:


> In my opinion, the debate over common grace among Presbyterians (I am excluding Protestant Reformed folks here--they hold a different view) is pointless. Both teach that God is kind to all. One calls this common grace, another says that it should be called general kindness or benevolence. Their doctrine only differs in name.
> 
> The people who argue against using the term _common grace_ do so on the basis that the Scriptures do not use the term _grace_ to refer to common benefits; but are we bound to use the very language of the Scriptures in our doctrinal formulations? We don't mind using non-Scriptural language in other areas of doctrine--why make a big deal of it here?
> 
> Why not just admit that we are confessing the same thing, albeit with different language, and bear with one another in our various preferences?



Well said, brother.

I quoted some divines only to prove that some of them used grace in this way. I should have started with the clarification you made.

Thanks!


----------



## TylerRay

Parakaleo said:


> We who prefer _not_ to use the label "common grace" are wary of Kuyperian tendencies to want to redeem sinful culture and "plunder the Egyptians" by retaining that which is "good", owing to "common grace".
> 
> I say all this also knowing there are plenty of people who use the words "common grace" without straying into those tendencies.


Right. That's why clear definitions must be put forward. When I use the term, I only mean to say that God is good to all. Personally, though, I have no strong preference for either manner of speaking--my concern is that right doctrine be maintained and that charity be extended.

Reactions: Like 1 | Amen 1


----------



## TylerRay

timfost said:


> Well said, brother.
> 
> I quoted some divines only to prove that some of them used grace in this way. I should have started with the clarification you made.
> 
> Thanks!


The quotations you provided were very helpful, brother. They show that at least some of the eminent divines of the past used this kind of language.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon

All of this, again, is about God's *intention.
*
_What does God intend to the reprobate when he gives them apples, families, rain, sunshine and such things?_
*
There is no "grace" in this.
*
Does God intend _*good *_to the reprobate in being "merciful" or "gracious" to them? (Those terms should be reserved for grace in Christ.) It would be a contradiction otherwise based on the manner in which Scripture uses the terms "grace" and "mercy." Or is his indiscriminate providence, something which intends them something else. (i.e. in light of the goodness of God leading them to repentance... and such Scriptural ideas.)

It's not simply semantics. It is the line of thought and where that line goes, which is right into the Arminian and Amyraldian camp. (Which is the reason my 800 page Ph.D. dissertation was on this subject and surveyed Calvin, Perkins, Turretin, Augustine, Owen, Edwards, Greenhill and Bunyan on these ideas, as well as how they preached the Gospel.)

Turretin and Edwards (and yes Calvin) say it best in view of the reprobate's ultimate demise and God's intention for them.

Turretin: "Rather _*the question is *_whether the disparity of the event does not prove a disparity of intention in the caller. Or whether all are called with the intention and purpose that they should partake of salvation. This they assert; we deny." (i.e. the Reformed deny.) Turretin, F. Institutes of Elenctic Theology (Vol. 2) 505. He says the difficulty of dealing faithfully (i.e. Scripturally) with common grace is an Arminian idea which flows into the question of justification and faith, "This question about the difference between temporary and justifying faith was raised by the Remonstrants." Turretin, F. (n.d.). Institutes of Elenctic Theology (Vol. 2). 589.

Edwards: The filling up of men’s sins is the direct result of the decree of God’s good pleasure. He has ordained a certain and set limit to their sin and when that sin reaches that limit, they are judged. John Gerstner quotes and explains Edwards on this when he says, “Edwards preached that all that happens to the wicked in this “world prepares ‘em” for the pit (Isaiah 30:33). In his “improvement” of the sermon on Proverbs 29:25, Edwards warns his people that while they rejoice in their prosperity, they do not all know but that they are _*being fed for the slaughter.*_ (McMahon, C. M. (n.d.). THE TWO WILLS OF GOD: Does God Really Have Two Wills?)

And this is also where responsibility must be made with thinking about hermeneutics, or the compound and divided sense.

Reactions: Like 2 | Informative 1 | Amen 1


----------



## TylerRay

C. Matthew McMahon said:


> All of this, again, is about God's *intention.
> *
> _What does God intend to the reprobate when he gives them apples, families, rain, sunshine and such things?_
> *
> There is no "grace" in this.
> *
> Does God intend _*good *_to the reprobate in being "merciful" or "gracious" to them? (Those terms should be reserved for grace in Christ.) It would be a contradiction otherwise based on the manner in which Scripture uses the terms "grace" and "mercy." Or is his indiscriminate providence, something which intends them something else. (i.e. in light of the goodness of God leading them to repentance... and such Scriptural ideas.)
> 
> It's not simply semantics. It is the line of thought and where that line goes, which is right into the Arminian and Amyraldian camp. (Which is the reason my 800 page Ph.D. dissertation was on this subject and surveyed Calvin, Perkins, Turretin, Augustine, Owen, Edwards, Greenhill and Bunyan on these ideas, as well as how they preached the Gospel.)
> 
> Turretin and Edwards (and yes Calvin) say it best in view of the reprobate's ultimate demise and God's intention for them.
> 
> Turretin: "Rather _*the question is *_whether the disparity of the event does not prove a disparity of intention in the caller. Or whether all are called with the intention and purpose that they should partake of salvation. This they assert; we deny." (i.e. the Reformed deny.) Turretin, F. Institutes of Elenctic Theology (Vol. 2) 505. He says the difficulty of dealing faithfully (i.e. Scripturally) with common grace is an Arminian idea which flows into the question of justification and faith, "This question about the difference between temporary and justifying faith was raised by the Remonstrants." Turretin, F. (n.d.). Institutes of Elenctic Theology (Vol. 2). 589.
> 
> Edwards: The filling up of men’s sins is the direct result of the decree of God’s good pleasure. He has ordained a certain and set limit to their sin and when that sin reaches that limit, they are judged. John Gerstner quotes and explains Edwards on this when he says, “Edwards preached that all that happens to the wicked in this “world prepares ‘em” for the pit (Isaiah 30:33). In his “improvement” of the sermon on Proverbs 29:25, Edwards warns his people that while they rejoice in their prosperity, they do not all know but that they are _*being fed for the slaughter.*_ (McMahon, C. M. (n.d.). THE TWO WILLS OF GOD: Does God Really Have Two Wills?)
> 
> And this is also where responsibility must be made with thinking about hermeneutics, or the compound and divided sense.


Dr. McMahon,

I think your doctrine is a tinge unbalanced here. God's goodness to all his creatures is explicated well by Calvin in his comment on Psalm 145:9:


> [God] is good to all without discrimination, as he makes his sun to rise upon the good and upon the wicked. (Matthew 5:45.) Forgiveness of sin is a treasure from which the wicked are excluded, but their sin and depravity does not prevent God from showering down his goodness upon them, which they appropriate without being at all sensible of it. Meanwhile believers, and they only, know what it is to enjoy a reconciled God.



God deals in kindness toward even the reprobate. While their lack of gratitude for his kindness does, indeed, increase their guilt, it is still kindness that God shows to them. That is not to say that God doesn't intend their ultimate damnation--it simply means that even the reprobate have the opportunity to "taste and see that God is good." Indeed, it is _because _God gives them the opportunity to taste of his goodness that their guilt is increased by their lack of gratitude.

Reactions: Amen 2


----------



## timfost

C. Matthew McMahon said:


> It is the line of thought and where that line goes, which is right into the Arminian and Amyraldian camp.



Were Harris, Rutherford and Owen leaning towards Amyraldianism???



C. Matthew McMahon said:


> Turretin



Here's Turretin:

"The reasons are (1) saving faith differs from temporary faith in origin and foundation. The former flows from the special grace of election when it is called “the faith of the elect” (Tit. 1:l); which is given only to those who are called according to his purpose (_kataprothesin_), Rom.8:28) and were ordained to eternal life (Acts 13:48). On the contrary, the latter depends upon *common grace which bestows even on the reprobate certain blessings: not only external and temporal, but also spiritual and initial gifts (although not saving) as a testification of a certain general love and to increase their guilt on the supposition of their contumacy*. Hence Paul , speaking of the apostasy of Hymenaeus and Philetus, says, “Nevertheless the foundation of God standeth sure” (2 Tim. 2:19), i.e., not on this account does the faith of true believers waver, being built upon the immovable foundation of the election of God."

Turretin, _Institutes of Elenctic Theology_, 2:588.

Rev. Matthew, I say this respectfully. I think you are blowing this one way out of proportion. It's fine you don't like the term common grace, but please don't repeal history.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon

TylerRay said:


> Dr. McMahon,
> 
> I think your doctrine is a tinge unbalanced here. God's goodness to all his creatures is explicated well by Calvin in his comment on Psalm 145:9:
> 
> 
> God deals in kindness toward even the reprobate. While their lack of gratitude for his kindness does, indeed, increase their guilt, it is still kindness that God shows to them. That is not to say that God doesn't intend their ultimate damnation--it simply means that even the reprobate have the opportunity to "taste and see that God is good." Indeed, it is _because _God gives them the opportunity to taste of his goodness that their guilt is increased by their lack of gratitude.



So it _does _damn them further or it _doesn't_ damn them further? Which is better?

(This is the question that Edwards in the corpus of all his preaching and writing wrestles with. What I'm pointing out is that is not by far not as cut and dry as you are making it seem. Again, the disparity of the event proves the intention of God. Does God _intended them good_, or does he intend them further judgment and damnation?).

Is Calvin speaking in the compound sense or divided sense? And why does _that _matter?

_"Were Harris, Rutherford and Owen leaning towards Amyraldianism???"_
If they hadn't explained in the fullness of their writings and preaching what they meant, it could very well have been that they were. But they did not, (knowing this after having read all their works. We don't want to proof text the Puritans and such. Keep them in their overall context).

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon

timfost said:


> Were Harris, Rutherford and Owen leaning towards Amyraldianism???
> 
> 
> 
> Here's Turretin:
> 
> "The reasons are (1) saving faith differs from temporary faith in origin and foundation. The former flows from the special grace of election when it is called “the faith of the elect” (Tit. 1:l); which is given only to those who are called according to his purpose (_kataprothesin_), Rom.8:28) and were ordained to eternal life (Acts 13:48). On the contrary, the latter depends upon *common grace which bestows even on the reprobate certain blessings: not only external and temporal, but also spiritual and initial gifts (although not saving) as a testification of a certain general love and to increase their guilt on the supposition of their contumacy*. Hence Paul , speaking of the apostasy of Hymenaeus and Philetus, says, “Nevertheless the foundation of God standeth sure” (2 Tim. 2:19), i.e., not on this account does the faith of true believers waver, being built upon the immovable foundation of the election of God."
> 
> Turretin, _Institutes of Elenctic Theology_, 2:588.
> 
> Rev. Matthew, I say this respectfully. I think you are blowing this one way out of proportion. It's fine you don't like the term common grace, but please don't repeal history.



I'm not. It's the use of proper language and proper theological constructs, as well as a matter of heremeneutics. No, I don't like term. It's sloppy language the bible never uses in the same way. But Turretin takes a very long time and lots of pages to explain what he _means_. It's not set in a single paragraph. And, he takes considerable time explain this in the compound and divided sense, which in this thread and the other thread its not even being considered.

I'll ask here what I asked elsewhere....

_Does God intend to do the reprobate good in common grace?
What is that good?
Do they receive that good?
Does God actually get what he desires?_

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## timfost

C. Matthew McMahon said:


> _Does God intend to do the reprobate good in common grace?_



Would we expect any less from the fountain of all good?

Would you prefer that He is fattening them for the slaughter?


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon

timfost said:


> Would we expect any less from the fountain of all good?
> 
> Would you prefer that He is fattening them for the slaughter?



I would prefer sticking to what Scripture teaches based on understanding it and not twisting it to fit illogical or unbiblical ideas.

So, clarify, God intends them good, but doesn't get what he intends.

"Would you prefer that He is fattening them for the slaughter?" This is the _scriptural doctrine of reprobation_.

(Keep in mind, all of this (in both threads) is why preaching today is terrible by most preachers who don't know how to preach the Gospel. They misunderstand what God's intends, or desires, etc., and therefore ruin Theology Proper and the supremacy of God in preaching. All this has PROFOUND practical application.)

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## timfost

C. Matthew McMahon said:


> "Would you prefer that He is fattening them for the slaughter?" This is the _scriptural doctrine of reprobation._



No, this is hyper-Calvinism. You don't seem to have a Puritan's mind on this...


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon

timfost said:


> No, this is hyper-Calvinism. You don't seem to have a Puritan's mind on this...



Ad hominem. Great work.

Keep in mind, you are _charging _an ordained minister of the Gospel in this, with your false and poorly thought out assertion, (which is against not a few commandments and instructions). Tread more carefully (moderators O moderators where art thou?); I'm not holding that against you. Your threads have become more emotional than theological. And I do understand that having spoken with a myriad of people who believe what you have been trying to say.) As a matter of history, the reason I wrote Two Wills was sparked by a reformed baptist group of ministers preaching what you have been saying, but with a Murry / Dabney twist (go figure that) - they said - _we don't really know how all this works, but we are still going to tell people that God intends things he doesn't get and desires things he never has fulfilled, like the salvation of souls._ I'm not being facetious here. A friend of mine and I, while sitting in the pew, listen to them rattle off on this for weeks, and we finally sat with them, for over a month, and they just didn't want to change that idea. They wanted it to be thrown into _the box of mystery_, _a la _Dabney and Murray. Really, its the box of illogicity and contradiction. It was a forthright denial of things we know to be true in Theology Proper and with God's decrees of election and reprobation. (It was about 20 years ago).

In any case, so, now you are showing you may not understand either God's decree, and certainly have a wrong view of what the false teaching of hyper Calvinism is. _That's not helpful in the overall discussion when you are giving advice to other people._ (This is part of the problem of simply winging ideas out over the intenet.) Honestly, I have to say, without being disrespectful, I beleived at some point you would go there. And what it comes down to is a fundamental flaw in understanding the attributes and intentions of God, i.e. Theology Proper (which others have already pointed out to you).

As I said in the other thread, and I don't have time to untwist all that you need untwisted on this - its just too much to do in typing it all out. I've already typed it all out in Two Wills. Check there if you are really searching for the truth of this _hermeneutical _question. The implications you haven't thought through are in fact staggering to me and saddening, but not surprising in the church today; even in that your now _accusing a minister _of what you believe is hyper Calvinism (which the doctrine of reprobation is not a hyper-Calvinist doctrine - keep in mind, when you asked the question back to me, you were QUOTING EDWARDS. Its not hyper-calvinism, which _is _complete nonsense, (and I think to many reading the thread. No disrespect intended.)

(Listen to some of my recent sermons and tell me if they are hyper-Calvinist. Could it be that you may just be misunderstanding some important foundational principles in theology and hermeneutics?)

Reactions: Like 4 | Informative 1


----------



## Parmenas

Quotes on God's Uncommon Grace (incl. words from Thomas Watson, Samuel Rutherford, John Owen, John Calvin, and Francis Turretin).

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 1


----------



## timfost

Elisha said:


> Quotes on God's Uncommon Grace (incl. words from Thomas Watson, Samuel Rutherford, John Owen, John Calvin, and Francis Turretin).



Wyatt,

We all agree that saving faith is not common.


----------



## Parmenas

timfost said:


> Wyatt,
> 
> We all agree that saving faith is not common.



Mr. Foster, I am most glad that we do. We are Christian brethren. However, that is not what these quotations address.


----------



## TylerRay

C. Matthew McMahon said:


> So it _does _damn them further or it _doesn't_ damn them further? Which is better?


Yes, it absolutely does. I tried to make that clear. However, the acts, in themselves, are acts of kindness. God gives the reprobate things that are inherently good. 



> (This is the question that Edwards in the corpus of all his preaching and writing wrestles with. What I'm pointing out is that is not by far not as cut and dry as you are making it seem. Again, the disparity of the event proves the intention of God. Does God _intended them good_, or does he intend them further judgment and damnation?).


I confess that I am not as well studied as you are. I haven't read Edwards. However, I see no problem with saying that God intends them to have some temporal good, and ultimate damnation.



> Is Calvin speaking in the compound sense or divided sense? And why does _that _matter?


I'm not sure just what you mean by "the compound sense or divided sense." Would you enlighten me?

My understanding of the "two wills" is this:
1. God's will, in the proper sense of the term, is a single creative act by which he decrees all things. This is sometimes called God's _decretive will_.

2. God, in his condescension to man, reveals certain principles about his character in terms of volition. In this sense, we may speak of God "wanting" man to obey this or that commandment--when he may or may not have decreed it to come to pass. This, sometimes called God's _revealed will_, is actually a figurative use of the language of volition, and implies no act of volition in God.

I really don't like the language of "two wills." Like I said above, God only has one will, in the proper sense. However, he is so kind as to allow for the figurative use of volitional language, when it really isn't descriptive of his actual will any more than anthropomorphisms are descriptive of an actual body.


----------



## timfost

Elisha said:


> Mr. Foster, I am most glad that we do. We are Christian brethren. However, that is not what these quotations address.



Perhaps I'm missing something? I quoted Samuel Rutherford, John Owen, and Francis Turretin to the contrary. Can you point me to specific places where they denied any kind of grace to those non-elect? I did not have enough time to read the whole web page you posted.

Thanks in advance!


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon

Tyler,

I dont like the language of "two wills" either, which is why the title of the work includes the question, _Does_ God have Two Wills? The idea being, if God desires things he does not get, that winds up being an affront to God's character. He is the ever blessed, -ever frustrated God. We cannot have that. The title was on purpose.

Your #1, good. Your #2, good. Both of these, though, are not at the heart of the question.

Lets use the idea of apples. Are apples inherently good with a moral quality of their own? In themselves, not exactly, but attached to God as part of his creation, yes. "...and all was very good..."

When God gives apples to the elect, he has a certain intention _to them_ in giving good things like apples, based on his covenant.

Equally, when God gives the reprobate apples, a good thing in and of itself as created by God, he _intends_ something else entirely; to fill up the measure of their sin.

Romans tells us that the goodness _OF GOD_ should lead to repentence. But if it doesnt, based on God's intention, it leads to preparing vessels of wrath for wrath. His _intention_ is that he fattens them for the slaughter, as Edwards preached, and Turretin and Calvin vividly explain. God has a single intention, i.e. will, in bringing him as Trinity the most pleasure, which is the glorification of himself in both vessels of wrath and vessels of mercy.

God does intend the reprobate to have the temporal good _of the physical apple_, but with the _intention_ that the disparity of reprobation shows his intent in their preparation for _glorifying him as vessels of wrath._ He does this until they fill up the measure of their sin, then calls them to judgment to serve glorifying his justice in hell.

Compound sense, God's will as considered in His decree.

Divided sense, God's will as considered in his preceptive will. (A further level of your #2).

Example, a man stands at the base of a towering hotel to look across the parking lot into the woods. He sees trees.

He gets onto an elevator, goes to the top of the building, and stands on the roof and sees the lake on the other side of the trees.

He sees the same thing from two different senses. He perceives them differently based on his perception.

Its an exceedingly important hermeneutical tool.

Otherwise one will wonder why God doesnt get what he desires, or they just ignore it as mysterious, which destroys the doctrine of God. Or that he tells humans, do not kill, then ordains a wife to take her three children and drown them in the local river, or to have a suicide bomber kill 30 in an explosion.

Tyler, you said, "God gives the reprobate things that are inherently good," but this is not really the issue. The question remains, when God gives apples to either group, what does he intend by it?

If he intends to damn them further, is this grace?
Much less, common grace?

If he intends his people covenant blessing, is this "common" or is it special in Christ?

I think in both accounts it negates the overarching hermeneutical tragedy (eisogesis) of the term _common grace.

(And notice, the WCF standards dont use that term.)_


----------



## TylerRay

C. Matthew McMahon said:


> Tyler,
> 
> I dont like the language of "two wills" either, which is why the title of the work includes the question, _Does_ God have Two Wills? The idea being, if God desires things he does not get, that winds up being an affront to God's character. He is the ever blessed, -ever frustrated God. We cannot have that. The title was on purpose.
> 
> Your #1, good. Your #2, good. Both of these, though, are not at the heart of the question.
> 
> Lets use the idea of apples. Are apples inherently good with a moral quality of their own? In themselves, not exactly, but attached to God as part of his creation, yes. "...and all was very good..."
> 
> When God gives apples to the elect, he has a certain intention _to them_ in giving good things like apples, based on his covenant.
> 
> Equally, when God gives the reprobate apples, a good thing in and of itself as created by God, he _intends_ something else entirely; to fill up the measure of their sin.
> 
> Romans tells us that the goodness _OF GOD_ should lead to repentence. But if it doesnt, based on God's intention, it leads to preparing vessels of wrath for wrath. His _intention_ is that he fattens them for the slaughter, as Edwards preached, and Turretin and Calvin vividly explain. God has a single intention, i.e. will, in bringing him as Trinity the most pleasure, which is the glorification of himself in both vessels of wrath and vessels of mercy.
> 
> God does intend the reprobate to have the temporal good _of the physical apple_, but with the _intention_ that the disparity of reprobation shows his intent in their preparation for _glorifying him as vessels of wrath._ He does this until they fill up the measure of their sin, then calls them to judgment to serve glorifying his justice in hell.
> 
> Compound sense, God's will as considered in His decree.
> 
> Divided sense, God's will as considered in his preceptive will. (A further level of your #2).
> 
> Example, a man stands at the base of a towering hotel to look across the parking lot into the woods. He sees trees.
> 
> He gets onto an elevator, goes to the top of the building, and stands on the roof and sees the lake on the other side of the trees.
> 
> He sees the same thing from two different senses. He perceives them differently based on his perception.
> 
> Its an exceedingly important hermeneutical tool.
> 
> Otherwise one will wonder why God doesnt get what he desires, or they just ignore it as mysterious, which destroys the doctrine of God. Or that he tells humans, do not kill, then ordains a wife to take her three children and drown them in the local river, or to have a suicide bomber kill 30 in an explosion.
> 
> Tyler, you said, "God gives the reprobate things that are inherently good," but this is not really the issue. The question remains, when God gives apples to either group, what does he intend by it?
> 
> If he intends to damn them further, is this grace?
> Much less, common grace?
> 
> If he intends his people covenant blessing, is this "common" or is it special in Christ?
> 
> I think in both accounts it negates the overarching hermeneutical tragedy (eisogesis) of the term _common grace.
> 
> (And notice, the WCF standards dont use that term.)_



Dr. McMahon,

Thank you for your response. I think it's clear that we're in very close agreement.

The only difference, so far as I can tell, is on the question of whether there is an element of kindness in God giving the apple to the reprobate to enjoy.

Note that God has decreed (willed) the pleasure that the reprobate takes in eating the apple. He has decreed the satisfaction that the reprobate experiences. He has decreed the nourishment which the reprobate receives. Thus, he has decreed that the reprobate have temporal good. God has given him something good--that is a kindness. Ultimately, God has decreed his damnation, and part of the grounds of that damnation is his lack of gratitude for the apple. However, in the short run, God gave him something good to enjoy. Would you agree?


----------



## timfost

C. Matthew McMahon said:


> _"Were Harris, Rutherford and Owen leaning towards Amyraldianism???"_
> If they hadn't explained in the fullness of their writings and preaching what they meant, it could very well have been that they were. But they did not, (knowing this after having read all their works. We don't want to proof text the Puritans and such. Keep them in their overall context).



You started out by opposing the very word grace in reference to the non-elect, but you are fine with these men using it with enough qualification. Do you oppose the use of the word or the meaning associated with it? If the meaning, why did your first post oppose the word? If the word, why not disagree with these theologians for using the word? Something isn't adding up...


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon

TylerRay said:


> However, in the short run, God gave him something good to enjoy. Would you agree?



Here is the difference, its not a big one, but it is a move that's crucially important because our theology can't be contradictory. Its just applying the wider brand of thoughtful hermeneutics. We need to know what and how we are saying things theologically.

(Keep in mind, we are theoretically speaking of the reorobate).

In the _divided sense _you and I should tell this fellow, repent and believe the Gospel, because God shows you HIS goodness in ordering your life, has given you apples, famies, a job, even the very next heartbeat and added breath. (Choose any Edwardian or Calvin sermon in commanding men everwhere to repent and run with such exhortations). In OUR perspective, we dont know the outcome. Maybe they will repent? They should. But even our perspective we are held accountable to _how_ we say what we say to them.

Jesus loves you, God loves you, and like ideas are covenant of grace concepts we cant yet apply to him. We cant say that to someone we meet house to house preaching. But we can exhort him to believe because God has given him good things, i.e. things God deems are good from His creation.

Switch senses.

In the compound sense, consider, after we walk away from exhorting him, (say we are going door to door and preaching), we say, if he doesnt repent, he's going to hate judgment day. Not only is he going to have a stricter judgment because we gave him the Gospel, but he's going to pay for all those acts of God's benevolence which will be damning him further, and heating hell hotter.

Here on the forum, we are even going a bit further because we are talking about God's decreed _intention_ towards "a reprobate". The intention he has in his benevolence which follows all men (see Tuuretins explanation of the 3 forms of love towards creation which is helpful) we say God intended to damn him further for his glory with an apple.

Keep in mind, all this talk never includes _grace_.


----------



## OPC'n

earl40 said:


> Understood, though when one dispels of God giving favor to all (grace) one has to use words like "indiscriminate providence" which makes God giving good things based on what exactly? in my opinion this takes away the thought that God can love all men in some sense.



But God doesn't love all men in any sense. The Bible says that God hates the wicked (Psalm 11:5). What they get here on earth isn't for their benefit but for the purpose of God's plan to continue on this earth. God has to make earth livable for his people. If God didn't restrain the wicked, then utter depravity would reign on earth making earth hell and God's people could not thrive or survive. So the wheat grows with the tares and God sends rain/sunshine etc etc to all mankind. He also gives the wicked things that the wicked think are blessings like fame, money, power etc. But God will demand recompense from them one day. 

Luke 12:13 Someone in the crowd said to him, “Teacher, tell my brother to divide the inheritance with me.” 14 But he said to him, who made me a judge or arbitrator over you?” 15 And he said to them, "Take care, and be on your guard against all covetousness, for one's life does not consist in the abundance of his possessions.” 16 And he told them a parable, saying, “The land of a rich man produced plentifully, 17 and he thought to himself, ‘What shall I do, for I have nowhere to store my crops?’ 18 And he said, ‘I will do this: I will tear down my barns and build larger ones, and there I will store all my grain and my goods. 19 And I will say to my soul, “Soul, you have ample goods laid up for many years; relax, eat, drink, be merry.”’ 20 But God said to him, ‘Fool! This night your soul is required of you, and the things you have prepared, whose will they be?’ 21 *So is the one who lays up treasure for himself and is not rich toward God*.”

Now this might be about covetousness, but it shows that God gives great amounts of "wealth" to some of the the wicked then charges them for it with their very life and soul.


----------



## TylerRay

C. Matthew McMahon said:


> Here is the difference, its not a big one, but it is a move that's crucially important because our theology can't be contradictory. Its just applying the wider brand of thoughtful hermeneutics. We need to know what and how we are saying things theologically.
> 
> (Keep in mind, we are theoretically speaking of the reorobate).
> 
> In the _divided sense _you and I should tell this fellow, repent and believe the Gospel, because God shows you HIS goodness in ordering your life, has given you apples, famies, a job, even the very next heartbeat and added breath. (Choose any Edwardian or Calvin sermon in commanding men everwhere to repent and run with such exhortations). In OUR perspective, we dont know the outcome. Maybe they will repent? They should. But even our perspective we are held accountable to _how_ we say what we say to them.
> 
> Jesus loves you, God loves you, and like ideas are covenant of grace concepts we cant yet apply to him. We cant say that to someone we meet house to house preaching. But we can exhort him to believe because God has given him good things, i.e. things God deems are good from His creation.
> 
> Switch senses.
> 
> In the compound sense, consider, after we walk away from exhorting him, (say we are going door to door and preaching), we say, if he doesnt repent, he's going to hate judgment day. Not only is he going to have a stricter judgment because we gave him the Gospel, but he's going to pay for all those acts of God's benevolence which will be damning him further, and heating hell hotter.
> 
> Here on the forum, we are even going a bit further because we are talking about God's decreed _intention_ towards "a reprobate". The intention he has in his benevolence which follows all men (see Tuuretins explanation of the 3 forms of love towards creation which is helpful) we say God intended to damn him further for his glory with an apple.
> 
> Keep in mind, all this talk never includes _grace_.


Dr. McMahon,

I pretty much agree with you 100%. I just have one caveat to add, and one terminological difference.

The caveat: when you say, "he's going to pay for all those acts of God's benevolence which will be damning him further"--properly speaking, it is not God's benevolence that he is paying for; it is his lack of due gratitude, etc. in response to God's benevolence that he is paying for. I think you would agree.

The terminological difference: I have no problem calling what you term "benevolence" and "goodness" _grace_. I have no problem using the terms _benevolence _or _goodness_, either. I don't see why these three terms cannot be used synonymously.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon

TylerRay said:


> Dr. McMahon,
> 
> I pretty much agree with you 100%. I just have one caveat to add, and one terminological difference.
> 
> The caveat: when you say, "he's going to pay for all those acts of God's benevolence which will be damning him further"--properly speaking, it is not God's benevolence that he is paying for; it is his lack of due gratitude, etc. in response to God's benevolence that he is paying for. I think you would agree.
> 
> The terminological difference: I have no problem calling what you term "benevolence" and "goodness" _grace_. I have no problem using the terms _benevolence _or _goodness_, either. I don't see why these three terms cannot be used synonymously.



Yes, I agree where you asked the question.

But, the term _grace_, properly speaking, cannot be applied biblically except by way of Christ's work and benefits toward the elect. Scripture doesn't use that term open ended. It reserves it for concepts in dealing with the benefits of being salvifically in Christ. To me, it muddies the waters.

Keep in mind, on this topic, there are a myriad of important practical applications that often are misunderstood. Consider just browsing this thread again to see the varied questions and clarifications that confessional Christians have on it.

This is why it really is a biblical / hermeneutical question, which then gives way to logic, which then gives way to practical ideas in its outworking.

It raises, then, even more questions that deal with command and intention too. (I.e. God tells US to love our enemies, but does God love his enemies? How can he tell us to love ours if he doesnt love his? If Jesus is God, does he love his enemies? How does the incarnation reconcile God's intention with Christ's outward actions, like weeping over Jerusalem? Etc. And _many_ others. This is why I think my work on Two Wills is important in this regard. Pastors who teach never dying souls need to get this right.)

Ill say, unpopularly, people today are infected with an irrational hermeneutic that affects their doctrine of God, like John Murray and RL Dabney. It will in turn affect their preaching, or even the practical way they deal with the lost. 

There are a lot of concepts to consider in this, and the applications in daily life continue to amaze me as to its importance. Good Hermeneutics in this is king. And I dont know of anyone teaching a satisfactory course in this vein.

(And as you can see, this has absolutely nothing to do with any hyper Calvinistic ideas. As a matter of fact, Two Wills obliterates the HC position, In my humble opinion. I even took time to deal personally through correspondence with David Engelsma dealing with him and his books because of his seeming HC position.)

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## TylerRay

C. Matthew McMahon said:


> Yes, I agree where you asked the question.
> 
> But, the term _grace_, properly speaking, cannot be applied biblically except by way of Christ's work and benefits toward the elect. Scripture doesn't use that term open ended. It reserves it for concepts in dealing with the benefits of being salvifically in Christ. To me, it muddies the waters.
> 
> Keep in mind, on this topic, there are a myriad of important practical applications that often are misunderstood. Consider just browsing this thread again to see the varied questions and clarifications that confessional Christians have on it.
> 
> This is why it really is a biblical / hermeneutical question, which then gives way to logic, which then gives way to practical ideas in its outworking.
> 
> It raises, then, even more questions that deal with command and intention too. (I.e. God tells US to love our enemies, but does God love his enemies? How can he tell us to love ours if he doesnt love his? If Jesus is God, does he love his enemies? How does the incarnation reconcile God's intention with Christ's outward actions, like weeping over Jerusalem? Etc. And _many_ others. This is why I think my work on Two Wills is important in this regard. Pastors who teach never dying souls need to get this right.)
> 
> Ill say, unpopularly, people today are infected with an irrational hermeneutic that affects their doctrine of God, like John Murray and RL Dabney. It will in turn affect their preaching, or even the practical way they deal with the lost.
> 
> There are a lot of concepts to consider in this, and the applications in daily life continue to amaze me as to its importance. Good Hermeneutics in this is king. And I dont know of anyone teaching a satisfactory course in this vein.
> 
> (And as you can see, this has absolutely nothing to do with any hyper Calvinistic ideas. As a matter of fact, Two Wills obliterates the HC position, In my humble opinion. I even took time to deal personally through correspondence with David Engelsma dealing with him and his books because of his seeming HC position.)


Dr. McMahon,
I have no real qualm with anything you've said here. As I said earlier, I can take or leave the language of "common grace." There are excesses in this area on the part of those who affirm common grace and on the part of those who deny it. The important thing is that we maintain a diligence in formulating our doctrine in a way that avoids painting God as passible and/or complex on the one hand, or as showing no benevolence to the reprobate on the other hand. In all of this, we must avoid lapses In our logic (which certain theologians have excused in the name of paradox). At the same time, we should extend charity to those who use slightly different language to describe the same doctrine.


----------



## Ryan&Amber2013

So, here is a thought, and please don't take it the wrong way, as I only say it in love and I say it to myself as well. So, the ditch we as reformed people can easily fall into is that of being so precise about words and theology, that we can easily overlook someone's heart and their intentions. I'm not saying any of us are doing this, but I'm just thinking about the motive of the original post and where the thread went. Many times in my life I wish I would have gleaned all of the beautiful things someone had spoken to me, but rather I chose to focus on nitpicking what they were saying for the sake of precision and theological pride.

I'm not accusing anyone of anything wrong, and I know there's a time and place for debating. I'm just trying to encourage us to be mindful of this if we aren't.

As you were, brothers

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## timfost

Ryan&Amber2013 said:


> So, here is a thought, and please don't take it the wrong way, as I only say it in love and I say it to myself as well. So, the ditch we as reformed people can easily fall into is that of being so precise about words and theology, that we can easily overlook someone's heart and their intentions. I'm not saying any of us are doing this, but I'm just thinking about the motive of the original post and where the thread went. Many times in my life I wish I would have gleaned all of the beautiful things someone had spoken to me, but rather I chose to focus on nitpicking what they were saying for the sake of precision and theological pride.
> 
> I'm not accusing anyone of anything wrong, and I know there's a time and place for debating. I'm just trying to encourage us to be mindful of this if we aren't.
> 
> As you were, brothers



Point well taken.

Thanks for your wise input, brother.


----------



## Jeri Tanner

Ryan&Amber2013 said:


> So, here is a thought, and please don't take it the wrong way, as I only say it in love and I say it to myself as well. So, the ditch we as reformed people can easily fall into is that of being so precise about words and theology, that we can easily overlook someone's heart and their intentions. I'm not saying any of us are doing this, but I'm just thinking about the motive of the original post and where the thread went. Many times in my life I wish I would have gleaned all of the beautiful things someone had spoken to me, but rather I chose to focus on nitpicking what they were saying for the sake of precision and theological pride.
> 
> I'm not accusing anyone of anything wrong, and I know there's a time and place for debating. I'm just trying to encourage us to be mindful of this if we aren't.
> 
> As you were, brothers



I think the PB is always the time and place for debate. Imprecisenesses (real noun?) in the so-called finer theological points can cause trouble to the church and diminish our understanding of God's glory. I am very thankful for the threads that debate issues like this, even when they get heated, and for the great minds and hearts on the board that care so passionately about the truth. I hold that there is charity behind the harsher expressions here when coming from a mature Christian, especially one ordained to the ministry. It often takes plain-spokenness so that those of us following along are able to consider the views expressed and hopefully align a little closer to Scripture. [emoji4]



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Alan D. Strange

I, too, have concerns with this discussion.

Not that Matthew vigorously argues the position that he does (here and on another related thread on the atonement as sufficient/efficient), but that he depicts his approach as _the Reformed tradition.
_
Dear brother, that is just not so, either from the standpoint of Dort or Westminster. Any number of original and secondary sources may be cited here, as some have, that demonstrate the tradition is broader than you construe it. There's not really a scholarly debate about the breadth of the tradition _on these points. 
_
Now you may wish to argue that the tradition should not be as broad as it is and that Scripture warrants a narrowing of it. But your arguments will have to be made from Scripture and not the tradition, since the majority report of the tradition affirms something more and quite different than the kindness of God for the reprobate being only a fattening for the slaughter.

I do not believe, to be clear, that the tradition excludes the most particular Calvinistic sorts of arguments (supralapsarianism, atonement only for the elect in every sense, etc.). One can see, at several points how carefully it was construed (Dort sets forth an infra position, for example, while not ruling out the supra). What I mean, Matthew, to be blunt, is that I don't think what you argue is outside the tradition or the standards, though I think, at points, it does not reflect the broader language of the confessions. But you want to rule others out of bounds when I think that you ought to be arguing biblically and exegetically with them, not historically and confessionally (on which grounds they, and you, are in bounds).

It seems to me, brother, that it is you who has brought the heat into this discussion and have alleged irrationality on the part of men in the Reformed tradition. I disagree that this has been (per a previous post) the way that we should discuss these sorts of things. I think that those of us who are confessional should be able better to discuss points that, whether we think they should be or not, are within confessional bounds.

Peace,
Alan

Reactions: Like 5 | Amen 3


----------



## Ryan&Amber2013

Jeri Tanner said:


> I think the PB is always the time and place for debate. Imprecisenesses (real noun?) in the so-called finer theological points can cause trouble to the church and diminish our understanding of God's glory. I am very thankful for the threads that debate issues like this, even when they get heated, and for the great minds and hearts on the board that care so passionately about the truth. I hold that there is charity behind the harsher expressions here when coming from a mature Christian, especially one ordained to the ministry. It often takes plain-spokenness so that those of us following along are able to consider the views expressed and hopefully align a little closer to Scripture. [emoji4]
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk



This is true as well. I always find great value in your posts.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Andrew P.C.

Parakaleo said:


> We who prefer _not_ to use the label "common grace" are wary of Kuyperian tendencies to want to redeem sinful culture and "plunder the Egyptians" by retaining that which is "good", owing to "common grace".



To be fair, Kuyper is newer to the discussion and brings a whole host of other issues that have problems.


----------



## Andrew P.C.

One should be careful in this discussion. On one hand, there is the idea that receiving rain is undeserved. I don’t think this is debatable. However, what can be brought into the discussion (either knowingly or unknowingly) is the idea of God’s Love for individuals. One should be careful to suggest that God loves this individual who is yet his enemy. The reprobate are vessels prepared for destruction. 

I don’t have a problem saying “common grace” since the old Divines used this phrase. Yet, they made it clear that there is no internal conflict where God “desires” something without it coming to fruition.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon

Alan D. Strange said:


> I, too, have concerns with this discussion.
> 
> Not that Matthew vigorously argues the position that he does (here and on another related thread on the atonement as sufficient/efficient), but that he depicts his approach as _the Reformed tradition.
> _
> Dear brother, that is just not so, either from the standpoint of Dort or Westminster. Any number of original and secondary sources may be cited here, as some have, that demonstrate the tradition is broader than you construe it. There's not really a scholarly debate about the breadth of the tradition _on these points.
> _
> Now you may wish to argue that the tradition should not be as broad as it is and that Scripture warrants a narrowing of it. But your arguments will have to be made from Scripture and not the tradition, since the majority report of the tradition affirms something more and quite different than the kindness of God for the reprobate being only a fattening for the slaughter.
> 
> I do not believe, to be clear, that the tradition excludes the most particular Calvinistic sorts of arguments (supralapsarianism, atonement only for the elect in every sense, etc.). One can see, at several points how carefully it was construed (Dort sets forth an infra position, for example, while not ruling out the supra). What I mean, Matthew, to be blunt, is that I don't think what you argue is outside the tradition or the standards, though I think, at points, it does not reflect the broader language of the confessions. But you want to rule others out of bounds when I think that you ought to be arguing biblically and exegetically with them, not historically and confessionally (on which grounds they, and you, are in bounds).
> 
> It seems to me, brother, that it is you who has brought the heat into this discussion and have alleged irrationality on the part of men in the Reformed tradition. I disagree that this has been (per a previous post) the way that we should discuss these sorts of things. I think that those of us who are confessional should be able better to discuss points that, whether we think they should be or not, are within confessional bounds.
> 
> Peace,
> Alan



I understand why you would say this, and Id refer you to Two Wills which is quite exstensive on the subject matter. Its impossible to rewrite it here, with all its intricacies.

I didnt say anything about a lesser or broader reformed viewpoint, except for mentioning Edwards, Owen, etc., though I said Murray and Dabney are in error on the topic of this hermeneutic, and that the WCF doesnt use the term common grace.

The reason I wrote Two Wills is because this very important hermeneutical principle isnt as hashed out as it ought to be. Id like to see the Reformed Community make a correction on it overall.

As for the heat...Im not sure I brought heat. Maybe just a spark or two.


----------



## earl40

I wonder if this all comes down to Our Lord gives good things to His unelect creatures based on they being His created creatures.


----------



## Polanus1561

absolutely not.

I agree with Matthew, it all comes down to God's intention. Do not just look at temporal benefits.


----------



## Alan D. Strange

Matthew:

I believe you had posts that implied that your position was that of the broader Reformed tradition, citing Augustine, Calvin, Turretin, and others as supporting you strictly, when, in fact, these can be cited in support of a proper doctrine of "common grace" or its equivalent (Westminster itself does not make nomenclature the issue, citing the covenant of works and grace as "commonly called" that--meaning that they were and rightly could be called other things). Tim Foster quoted several divines supporting some sort of common grace and you implied that he was taking them out of context; he wasn't, though.

I grant you that doesn't solve the matter. The defenders of common grace could all be wrong and you and the highest sort of Calvinists right, but that's a scriptural argument you must make. I will take your word for it that that's what you are doing in your writings (_Two Wills_; though I am particularly interested in your thesis--how is that available?).

As to heat rather than light, Matthew, this concerned me most. Your tone was so dismissory of your opponents, as if no thinking person could ever argue as they were arguing. I am particularly thankful as I look through this thread that that all appears to have been removed, especially the contemptuous noises reduced to writing that seemed wholly unworthy of you. I gather that you have strong feelings about this matter. That's fine. And I glad to see that things seem to be coming back more into bounds, although the appeal to the moderators in #26 remains, which is quite curious, given all that you had said in the debate, including the tone of your replies.

Hopefully, on this and like threads, we can have the kind of discussion that I just read back in 2007 with Matthew Winzer, Scott Clark, and others about the love of God for the reprobate. The tone was better and much more collegial on what, in any case, is a very difficult question. These are hard questions because Scripture speaks in some strong ways both about God's election and reprobation, as well as his love for and care over the whole of his creation. I don't believe that we are presented with a Procrustean bed in which we must chop off one to accommodate the other, all in the name of being consistent and rational. 

I gather that we differ here and will likely continue to. Let's try to do it amiably. 

Peace,
Alan

Reactions: Like 4 | Amen 2


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon

Alan,

I appreciate your candor and comments.

Two Wills in book form is here.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion

Ebook version here:
http://www.puritanpublications.com/...d-really-have-two-wills-by-c-matthew-mcmahon/

Reactions: Like 1


----------

