# Common grace due to love (not merely God giving reprobates more sticks for burning)



## Pergamum (Feb 2, 2016)

I am looking for quotes to illustrate that common grace does, in fact, stem from the love of God. It is God meaning them well, rather than merely a vengeful God with the intention of giving the reprobate more rope by which they hang themselves (though this be the result).

It is God's true kindness...not a trap. God's disposition is to bless his creatures, not fatten them up for the slaughter. Now, there are some verses that speak in an ironic tone of how the wicked set a trap for others and God leads them into it (they dig a pit but themselves fall in). Yet, these verses do not seem to contradict God's general kindness towards all.


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Feb 2, 2016)

You might find Matthew McMahons discussion of common of grace in his "Two wills of God" helpful, though he does not like the term common grace. He argues that grace in its true sense is only given to the elect. But you might find discussions in the book helpful for your question.


----------



## earl40 (Feb 2, 2016)

"Our God is allowed and does give temporal mercies without giving eternal ones. The former is based on His love of His creatures as His creation the latter is based on the love through His Son."


----------



## MW (Feb 2, 2016)

Thomas Watson: “Wicked men have mercies by Providence, not by virtue of a covenant; with God’s leave, not with his love. But such as are in covenant have their mercies sweetened with God’s love, and they swim to them in the blood of Christ.” A Body of Divinity (Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1958), pp. 107, 110.

Thomas Manton: “we can draw no argument of love or hatred from outward things. Many ungodly men may prosper in this world; they cannot say therefore that God loves them. Prisoners have an allowance till the time of their execution, so have carnal men; God in the bounty of his providence gives them a great many comforts and mercies in the present life.” (Works, 14:382.)

Reactions: Amen 1


----------



## Pergamum (Feb 2, 2016)

MW said:


> Thomas Watson: “Wicked men have mercies by Providence, not by virtue of a covenant; with God’s leave, not with his love. But such as are in covenant have their mercies sweetened with God’s love, and they swim to them in the blood of Christ.” A Body of Divinity (Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1958), pp. 107, 110.
> 
> Thomas Manton: “we can draw no argument of love or hatred from outward things. Many ungodly men may prosper in this world; they cannot say therefore that God loves them. Prisoners have an allowance till the time of their execution, so have carnal men; God in the bounty of his providence gives them a great many comforts and mercies in the present life.” (Works, 14:382.)



Thank you. Those are good quotes.


----------



## Cymro (Feb 2, 2016)

Today we hear a lot about common grace,whereas in former days they spoke of God's benevolence and goodness displayed to all through His providential dealings with mankind. To my mind there is only saving grace, and that bestowed upon the subjects of His everlasting love.


----------



## KMK (Feb 2, 2016)

Cymro said:


> Today we hear a lot about common grace,whereas in former days they spoke of God's benevolence and goodness displayed to all through His providential dealings with mankind. To my mind there is only saving grace, and that bestowed upon the subjects of His everlasting love.





If all of the elect were translated to heaven at the same time, leaving the reprobate alone on earth, would God's grace toward earthly creatures continue? It seems to me your answer to this question will determine whether you believe in common grace.


----------



## ZackF (Feb 2, 2016)

Both Luther and Calvin have some but I don't know where.


----------



## Cymro (Feb 3, 2016)

Your hypothesis maybe reversed and state, that if all the reprobates were consigned to hell and the elect left on earth then His true grace would continue. The facts are,"the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with His mighty Angels, In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God,and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ: Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of His power: When He shall come to be glorified in His saints."


----------



## earl40 (Feb 3, 2016)

KMK said:


> Cymro said:
> 
> 
> > Today we hear a lot about common grace,whereas in former days they spoke of God's benevolence and goodness displayed to all through His providential dealings with mankind. To my mind there is only saving grace, and that bestowed upon the subjects of His everlasting love.
> ...



Of course that "if" happens at the consummation of the earthly ministry of Jesus.  For what happens is that those who are who are not changed shall not receive any more common "grace" for "In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed."

As one who had a problem accepting common "grace" at one time I now understand Our God does indeed treat the reprobate kindly according to a love that is temporal according to His mercy toward those that are His creatures. Maybe we ought to spell that type of grace with a small g and the saving Grace the elect receive with a capitol G.


----------



## KMK (Feb 3, 2016)

My point is simply that any good that befalls the reprobate should not be called 'grace' at all.

LBC Chapter 5



> Paragraph 6. As for those wicked and ungodly men whom God, as the righteous judge, for former sin does blind and harden;17 *from them He not only withholds His grace, whereby they might have been enlightened in their understanding, and wrought upon their hearts;*18 but sometimes also withdraws the gifts which they had,19 and exposes them to such objects as their corruption makes occasion of sin;20 and withal, gives them over to their own lusts, the temptations of the world, and the power of Satan,21 whereby it comes to pass that they harden themselves, under those means which God uses for the softening of others.22



A better word might be 'providence'.



> Paragraph 7. As *the providence of God does in general reach to all creatures*, so after a more special manner it takes care of His church, and disposes of all things to the good thereof.23


----------



## mvdm (Feb 3, 2016)

Fascinating that Calvin Seminary professor John Bolt has recently reassessed "common grace", suggesting Hoeksema got it right and the CRC got in wrong in 1924:

http://standardbearer.rfpa.org/articles/hoeksema-and-1924-reappraised-2


----------



## rickclayfan (Feb 3, 2016)

Another quote by Manton: "It they [the wicked] receive anything, they cannot look upon it as coming by promise, or as a return of prayers. When the children are fed, the dogs may have crumbs: all their comforts are but the spillings and overflowings of God's bounty" (Works, 4:53).


----------



## earl40 (Feb 3, 2016)

KMK said:


> My point is simply that any good that befalls the reprobate should not be called 'grace' at all.
> 
> LBC Chapter 5
> 
> ...



I also rather use the words "good providence" though the line of thinking that Our Lord is good over all His creation in my mind speaks loudly that He is gracious to that creation. No doubt many can take this too far and without our Lord restraining evil I cannot imagine how hot the lake of fire would have been to the impenitent.


----------



## timfost (Feb 3, 2016)

Cymro said:


> Today we hear a lot about common grace,whereas in former days they spoke of God's benevolence and goodness displayed to all through His providential dealings with mankind. To my mind there is only saving grace, and that bestowed upon the subjects of His everlasting love.



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.


----------



## Reformed Dutchman (Feb 4, 2016)

See also the first article in in the November 2015 PRCA Theological Journal: "The Unfinished Business of 1924," by John Bolt. The article is the adaptation of a speech he delivered at the Protestant Reformed Seminary last year. In his speech Bolt not only asserts that Hoeksema may have been treated unfairly, but he also provides a revision of the 3 Points of Common Grace that he believes 1)better represent what the CRC meant to say and 2)Hoeksema would have been okay with. In essence, his revision shifts the focus from an operation of grace by the Holy Spirit to an operation of providential care by the Father.

http://www.prca.org/Seminary/PRTJournal/Nov2015-49-1.pdf


----------



## mvdm (Feb 4, 2016)

Reformed Dutchman said:


> See also the first article in in the November 2015 PRCA Theological Journal: "The Unfinished Business of 1924," by John Bolt. The article is the adaptation of a speech he delivered at the Protestant Reformed Seminary last year. In his speech Bolt not only asserts that Hoeksema may have been treated unfairly, but he also provides a revision of the 3 Points of Common Grace that he believes 1)better represent what the CRC meant to say and 2)Hoeksema would have been okay with. In essence, his revision shifts the focus from an operation of grace by the Holy Spirit to an operation of providential care by the Father.
> 
> http://www.prca.org/Seminary/PRTJournal/Nov2015-49-1.pdf



Thank you, Bryce.


----------



## Cymro (Feb 4, 2016)

There is a tendency to confuse the universal Goodness of God, and misinterpret is as universal common grace. There is no grace outside of Christ. But it is God's Goodness that is over all His works. God as Creator rules by His Goodness, and through His Providence bestows temporal blessings to all men and creatures. All things temporal manifest His Goodness. Even His judgments on men are Good. 
But the rule of God as Saviour, reveals His love and grace to His elect, and all things are ordered for their good. Goodness displayed to all, grace and love to His elect through the blood of the everlasting covenant. David Dickson on Ps73, "Whence learn,to the wicked, God for His own holy ends useth to give health of body, long life, little sickness and a quiet death,-yet God doth not love them, nor approve any whit more of them." And Plumer wrote, unsanctified prosperity is a curse.


----------



## timfost (Feb 4, 2016)

Cymro said:


> There is a tendency to confuse the universal Goodness of God, and misinterpret is as universal common grace. There is no grace outside of Christ.



I'm not overly concerned about the exact terminology used. Do we interpret the Hebrew _hesed_ as grace, mercy or kindness? The LXX translates _hesed_ twice as grace, although mercy more commonly. Luther translated _hesed_ as _gnade_, the German word for grace.

If common grace becomes a distraction in a conversation, I think I could do without it, but it seems difficult to separate God's goodness from His grace, since it is all unmerited.


----------



## Toasty (Feb 8, 2016)

Jerry Walls, an Arminian professor at a Christian university, believes that if God did not elect someone to salvation, then God does not have any kind of love towards that person. Walls thinks that for God to give someone food, clothing, and shelter, but not salvation, is not really love.


----------



## timfost (Feb 8, 2016)

Toasty said:


> Jerry Walls, an Arminian professor at a Christian university, believes that if God did not elect someone to salvation, then God does not have any kind of love towards that person. Walls thinks that for God to give someone food, clothing, and shelter, but not salvation, is not really love.



Shedd from _Calvinism, Pure and Mixed_ Ch. 4:



> The number of those to whom the offer of salvation is made is unlimited; of those to whom the promise of the Spirit to “make them willing” is made, is limited by “ordination to life” or election. It is clear that God may desire that to be done by man under the influence of his common grace in the common call, which he may not decide and purpose to make him do by the operation of his special grace in the effectual call. His desire that sinners would hear his universal call to repentance may be, and is unlimited; but his purpose to overcome their unwillingness and incline them to repentance may be, and is limited. God offers Christ’s sacrifice to every man, without exception, and assures him that if he will trust in it he shall be saved, and gives him common grace to help and encourage him to believe. This is a proof that God loves his soul and desires its salvation. But God does not, in addition to this universal offer of mercy, promise to overcome every man’s aversion to believe and repent and his resistance of common grace. Election and preterition have no reference to the offer of salvation or to common grace. They relate only to special grace and the effectual application of Christ’s sacrifice. The universal offer of mercy taught in this section evinces the universality of God’s compassion towards sinners.



I know that a number on this board wouldn't agree with this quote, but it is interesting to contrast this branch of reformed thought with that of the Arminian, since the Arminian believes that though God may have the power and authority to change the will, He does not. 

According to the Arminian, God leaves man to his own (sinful) will. According to reformed theology, such language of leaving one to his own will is called preterition, with which the Arminian really can't disagree. But somehow preterition is supposedly unjust under the reformed system but not the Arminian system.

I propose that a God who not only offers Himself but effectively changes the will of some surpasses in mercy any construction that the Arminian can create!

I say this not to start a debate, but to represent one branch of reformed thought in contrast to Arminianism.


----------



## MW (Feb 8, 2016)

> It is clear that God may desire that to be done by man under the influence of his common grace in the common call, which he may not decide and purpose to make him do by the operation of his special grace in the effectual call.



Only the call is not as "common" as "common grace" by those who maintain this strain of teaching because the call is not sent to every one at one time whereas His mercies are over all His works. By not sending the call to some sinners is God manifesting a desire not to save those particular people? Of course not; He may yet call them. Once again, connecting desire with only one side of God's dealings with men compromises the powerful grace of the gospel with weak human sentimentality.


----------



## timfost (Feb 8, 2016)

MW said:


> > It is clear that God may desire that to be done by man under the influence of his common grace in the common call, which he may not decide and purpose to make him do by the operation of his special grace in the effectual call.
> 
> 
> 
> Only the call is not as "common" as "common grace" by those who maintain this strain of teaching because the call is not sent to every one at one time whereas His mercies are over all His works. By not sending the call to some sinners is God manifesting a desire not to save those particular people? Of course not; He may yet call them. Once again, connecting desire with only one side of God's dealings with men compromises the powerful grace of the gospel with weak human sentimentality.



Calvin commentary on Acts 17:27:



> 27. _That they might seek God_. This sentence hath two members; to wit, that it is man's duty to seek God; secondly, *that God himself cometh forth to meet us, and doth show himself by such manifest tokens, that we can have no excuse for our ignorance*. Therefore, let us remember that those men do wickedly abuse this life, and that they be unworthy to dwell upon earth, which do not apply their studies to seek him; as if every kind of brute beasts should fall from that inclination which they have naturally, which should for good causes be called monstrous. *And, surely, nothing is more absurd, than that men should be ignorant of their Author, who are endued with understanding principally for this use. And we must especially note the goodness of God, in that he doth so familiarly insinuate himself, that even the blind may grope after him.* For which cause the blindness of men is more shameful and intolerable, who, in so manifest and evident a manifestation, are touched with no feeling of God's presence. *Whithersoever they cast their eyes upward or downward, they must needs light upon lively and also infinite images of God's power, wisdom, and goodness. For God hath not darkly shadowed his glory in the creation of the world, but he hath everywhere engraven such manifest marks, that even blind men may know them by groping. Whence we gather that men are not only blind but blockish, when, being helped by such excellent testimonies, they profit nothing*. Yet here ariseth a question, whether men can naturally come unto the true and merciful knowledge of God. For Paul doth give us to understand, that their own sluggishness is the cause that they cannot perceive that God is present; because, though they shut their eyes, yet may they grope after him. I answer, that their ignorance and blockishness is mixed with such frowardness, that being void of right judgment, they pass over without understanding all such signs of God's glory as appear manifestly both in heaven and earth. Yea, seeing that the true knowledge of God is a singular gift of his, and faith (by which alone he is rightly known) cometh only from the illumination of the Spirit, it followeth that our minds cannot pierce so far, having nature only for our guide. Neither doth Paul intreat in this place of the ability of men, but he doth only show that they be without excuse, when as they be so blind in such clear light, as he saith in the first chapter to the Romans, (Romans 1:20.) *Therefore, though men's sensesfail them in seeking out God, yet have they no cloak for their fault, because, though he offer himself to be handled and groped, they continue, notwithstanding, in a quandary*; concerning which thing we have spoken more in the fourteenth chapter, (Acts 14:17).


----------



## MW (Feb 8, 2016)

timfost said:


> Calvin commentary on Acts 17:27:



You have jumped from Shedd saying "the offer of salvation is ... unlimited," to Calvin referring to natural revelation. Surely you don't think the offer of salvation is made in natural revelation. Read Calvin's eternal predestination and you will have numerous references to quote in response to Shedd's "unlimited" offer.


----------



## Peairtach (Feb 9, 2016)

Toasty said:


> Jerry Walls, an Arminian professor at a Christian university, believes that if God did not elect someone to salvation, then God does not have any kind of love towards that person. Walls thinks that for God to give someone food, clothing, and shelter, but not salvation, is not really love.



When the Gospel comes to the reprobate and the Spirit strives with them is it in love or hate?

Or are these things beyond our understanding?


Sent from my HTC Wildfire using Tapatalk 2


----------



## timfost (Feb 9, 2016)

MW said:


> timfost said:
> 
> 
> > Calvin commentary on Acts 17:27:
> ...



Understood. Although isn't there a relationship? If faith and repentance are presupposed in the law which is written in our hearts, in this way is there a universal call to repentance? I'll try to explain my thinking below in brief statements.

1. In short, God actually commands all men to repent, though mercy and remission of sin are promised in the gospel, which you correctly point out does not reach the ears of every man.

2. Natural revelation should make every man look for the remedy offered in the gospel.

3. Even though the promise of remission of sins is not revealed by natural revelation, it does not therefore follow that God is not ready to pardon man's sin in the call to repent in natural revelation. God is always ready to pardon the sin of the repenting sinner, though this is only revealed in the gospel.

4. Though the gospel does not reach every man, natural revelation and God's provision in common grace should lead them to God, though special revelation is necessary due to their sinful condition and perversion of God as revealed in nature. 

5. Natural revelation therefore can only condemn man as his conscience communicates his guilt. It calls man to faith and repentance as components of the law alone which adds to the wrath felt by their consciences. 

6. Faith and repentance are not understood to be the instrumental cause of justification under natural revelation since mercy belongs to and is revealed in the gospel.

Is this agreeable to you at all? If not, with what would you agree and disagree?

I'm thinking out loud here. I've edited the post a number of times as I try to wrap my head around it.

Thanks! 

____________________

Shedd's book for those interested (ch. 4 on p. 24):
https://archive.org/details/calvinismpuremix00shed


----------



## Toasty (Feb 9, 2016)

Peairtach said:


> Toasty said:
> 
> 
> > Jerry Walls, an Arminian professor at a Christian university, believes that if God did not elect someone to salvation, then God does not have any kind of love towards that person. Walls thinks that for God to give someone food, clothing, and shelter, but not salvation, is not really love.
> ...



Walls thinks it would be hate. I don't agree with Walls. I think it is love.


----------



## MW (Feb 9, 2016)

timfost said:


> If not, with what would you agree and disagree?



Shedd taught some men among pagan nations may be saved by the work of the Spirit without the gospel. Please beware of his errors on this point. It is basically Socianianism dressed up in Calvinist attire.

The whole scheme is missing the one thing necessary -- Christ! I can go as far as to say that natural revelation serves a preparatory function to a limited extent. It makes men feel after God. But salvation is a matter of special revelation. It is only accomplished by Christ and it is only revealed in Christ, and is therefore the exclusive domain of the gospel. The very mention of repentance and forgiveness without the Saviour should put us on our guard.

As with a previous thread, the law commands repentance, but this is legal repentance and always leads to death. The gospel uses the law to require repentance but also promises to give what is required. This is evangelical repentance, i.e., repentance unto life.


----------



## Peairtach (Feb 9, 2016)

> Shedd taught some men among pagan nations may be saved by the work of the Spirit without the gospel. Please beware of his errors on this point. It is basically Socianianism dressed up in Calvinist attire.



Yes. I was surprsed at Banner republishing it. Maybe something was said about his errors as opposed to his good points in a preface. I can't remember.



Sent from my HTC Wildfire using Tapatalk 2


----------



## timfost (Feb 9, 2016)

MW said:


> Shedd taught some men among pagan nations may be saved by the work of the Spirit without the gospel. Please beware of his errors on this point.



Agreed, he went beyond scripture on this.



MW said:


> As with a previous thread, the law commands repentance, but this is legal repentance and always leads to death. The gospel uses the law to require repentance but also promises to give what is required. This is evangelical repentance, i.e., repentance unto life.



Calvin discusses legal and evangelical repentance (_Institutes_ 3.3.4) but 1) seems to apply it differently than you just did and 2) didn't seem to favor such terminology (3.3.5). That's not necessarily bad, I'm just not sure I understand exactly how you are defining it.

Would you say that when proclaiming the gospel we call every individual to evangelical repentance or legal repentance? Or do we omit the adjectives and cover both indefinitely? Or is it the law that calls people to legal repentance through natural revelation and the gospel that calls people to evangelical repentance through the preaching of the Word? Something completely different?

Thanks in advance for clearing this up for me.


----------



## MW (Feb 9, 2016)

timfost said:


> Calvin discusses legal and evangelical repentance (_Institutes_ 3.3.4) but 1) seems to apply it differently than you just did and 2) didn't seem to favor such terminology (3.3.5). That's not necessarily bad, I'm just not sure I understand exactly how you are defining it.



He was addressing a different use of the terms legal and evangelical. His laying precedence on faith before repentance and impossibility of repentance without faith is virtually the same distinction as the Marrowmen. Boston might help to show the difference a little clearer:



> (1.) That repentance is the doctrine of the gospel. I do indeed think, that it cannot be denied but that the law requires repentance as a duty, in so far as it binds the apostate sinner to return to God: but in the meantime it gives no hope of mercy to the penitent, seeing its constant voice is, "Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them." But the gospel gives the glad tidings of place for repentance, and shews how the apostate creature returning will be accepted. And there can be no true returning to God, where there is no hope of acceptance.
> 
> (2.) Repentance is a promise of the covenant of grace: Ezek. xxxvi. 31, "Then shall ye remember your own evil ways, and your doings that were not good, and shall loath yourselves in your own sight, for your iniquities, and for your abominations."
> 
> ...



This is all taught under Calvin's view of "true repentance."



timfost said:


> Would you say that when proclaiming the gospel we call every individual to evangelical repentance or legal repentance? Or do we omit the adjectives and cover both indefinitely?



A faithful teacher distinguishes with Calvin and Boston and shows the difference between repentance worked out of the sinner's own bowels and that true repentance which comes in a way of saving faith. If the distinction is not made the hearer will not be able to tell the difference between a law-work and gospel-grace.


----------



## timfost (Feb 10, 2016)

MW said:


> He was addressing a different use of the terms legal and evangelical. His laying precedence on faith before repentance and impossibility of repentance without faith is virtually the same distinction as the Marrowmen.



Thanks for clarifying. 



MW said:


> A faithful teacher distinguishes with Calvin and Boston and shows the difference between repentance worked out of the sinner's own bowels and that true repentance which comes in a way of saving faith. If the distinction is not made the hearer will not be able to tell the difference between a law-work and gospel-grace.



I have some questions below. I'm trying to understand your perspective on this. As you already know, we would have some differences on this, but these questions are solely to understand your position, not to get into the particular issues surrounding this. I also know that other reformed theologians make the distinctions that you use, so I'm in no way trying to separate your theology from reformed theology generally. 

1. If the gospel offer goes out indefinitely, it is not _actually_ offered to a non-elect person even though it might be offered to the non-elect indefinitely in the general call. Is this a correct understanding of your position? If so, if gospel grace is not _actually_ offered to each individual in the general call, can the call to repentance be any other than legal repentance to the non-elect?

2. Is evangelical repentance required of all individually in the general gospel call though salvation is not _actually_ offered to all individually in the gospel call?

3. Can the "faithful teacher" proclaim the gospel to all without explicitly referencing election?

4. As I understand it, Boston did not distinguish between the Covenant of Redemption (CoR) and the Covenant of Grace (CoG) in contrast to many others. In his thinking, are the elect always "in Christ," even prior to faith? How would you interact with the question?

5. Could you further discuss your usage of legal and evangelical repentance compared and/or contrasted to John Gill's application of the terms?

6. Does the general gospel call communicate grace _in any way_ to the non-elect?

7. What is the difference between election and the gospel?

I really appreciate your time. Thank you!


----------



## MW (Feb 10, 2016)

timfost said:


> 1. If the gospel offer goes out indefinitely, it is not _actually_ offered to a non-elect person even though it might be offered to the non-elect indefinitely in the general call. Is this a correct understanding of your position? If so, if gospel grace is not _actually_ offered to each individual in the general call, can the call to repentance be any other than legal repentance to the non-elect?



It must be actually offered to the person if it is actually offered to all. The term "indefinite" brings out the fact that elect and non-elect are not the objects of the offer. At the point of preaching elect and non-elect are not in view; sinners are in view, and that indefinitely, so that whosoever will may drink of the water of life freely. The preacher has no basis for distinguishing elect and non-elect since neither he nor the hearers could know who were the elect apart from believing the gospel which is preached.

As soon as election is brought into the call the reference must be to the effectual call. While the non-elect are genuinely called by the gospel outwardly they are never given the gifts of evangelical repentance and faith; in that sense they remain under the law which condemns them, and their refusal to repent and believe now aggravates their guilt.



timfost said:


> 2. Is evangelical repentance required of all individually in the general gospel call though salvation is not _actually_ offered to all individually in the gospel call?



I am not sure why you are pursuing this line of questioning. Are you trying to trick me into saying that it is not actual? Of course it is actual.



timfost said:


> 3. Can the "faithful teacher" proclaim the gospel to all without explicitly referencing election?



At the point of the gospel offer and the call to believe there is no reference to election, but the preacher does not confine himself to these. He must explain the way of salvation in its fulness for the sake of ministering the certainty of faith. The whole counsel of God includes election, and it is necessary to preach for its own ends, but it is not the object of faith which is held out in the gospel offer.



timfost said:


> 4. As I understand it, Boston did not distinguish between the Covenant of Redemption (CoR) and the Covenant of Grace (CoG) in contrast to many others. In his thinking, are the elect always "in Christ," even prior to faith? How would you interact with the question?



First, Boston distinguished between the covenant of grace as made with Christ and the covenant as made with the elect. He saw the need to recognise these as one covenant, not two, because neonomianism had taken the covenant of redemption in the direction of conditionalism by separating redemption accomplished and applied.

Secondly, the question is irrelevant to the issue since men like Rutherford, who taught the covenant of redemption is a separate covenant, also maintained the doctrine which Boston would later teach on law and gospel.



timfost said:


> 5. Could you further discuss your usage of legal and evangelical repentance compared and/or contrasted to John Gill's application of the terms?



That would take an historical essay.



timfost said:


> 6. Does the general gospel call communicate grace in any way to the non-elect?



The gospel reveals grace.



timfost said:


> 7. What is the difference between election and the gospel?



The difference as it applies to this question has been explained above.


----------



## timfost (Feb 10, 2016)

Thanks for your answers.



MW said:


> I am not sure why you are pursuing this line of questioning. Are you trying to trick me into saying that it is not actual? Of course it is actual.



No, not at all trying to trick you. I have a lot of trouble following your reasoning of "indefinite." Below I've quoted from Haldane's commentary on Rom. 10:9. Do you agree with it or not? Perhaps in communicating my point of reference this way I can better understand yours.



> The emphasis of the second person throughout this verse should be remarked. *The Apostle does not speak indefinitely*, but he says emphatically, If thou shalt confess with thy mouth, and shalt believe in thine heart, thou shalt be saved. He speaks of every one, so that all may examine themselves, for to every one believing and confessing, salvation is promised; thus *teaching each one to apply the promise of salvation to himself by faith and confession*. Thus the Apostle shows that every believer has as much certain assurance of his salvation as he certainly confesses Christ with his mouth, and as he believes in his heart, that the Lord Jesus was raised from the dead. Our assurance of salvation corresponds with the measure of our faith, and the boldness of our confession of Christ.



Could you recommend an author who can succinctly define the way you use "indefinite"?

Thanks!


----------



## MW (Feb 11, 2016)

timfost said:


> Below I've quoted from Haldane's commentary on Rom. 10:9. Do you agree with it or not?



Haldane was evidently referring to believers, and applied the passage accordingly. Anything that refers to believers is by nature particular so as to convey the certainty of the thing promised to them. Had he applied it to the gospel offer to all men he likely would have used different terms.



timfost said:


> Could you recommend an author who can succinctly define the way you use "indefinite"?



Here are a few from my collection of quotations. They should give a good idea of what is intended.

Samuel Rutherford, Christ Dying, 509: In this grammar of the Holy Ghost, observe, we, by the way, for resolution, the wisdom of God, in framing the words of the gospel. It cannot be said that God loved all the world, in Christ his beloved; and all, and every sinner, and all the race of mankind. Yet, laying down this ground, that God keepeth up in his mind, the secrets of election and reprobation, till he, in his own time, be pleased to reveal them; the Lord hath framed the gospel-offer of Christ in such indefinite words, and so general (yet without all double-dealing, lying, or equivocating; for his own good pleasure is a rule both of his doings and speeches). As, 1. seldom doth the Lord open election and reprobation to men, till they, by grace, or in the order of his justice, open both the one and the other, in their own ways; and therefore he holdeth out the offer of Christ, so as none may cavil at the gospel, or begin a plea with Christ. 3. Seldom doth the gospel speak, who they be that are elect, who reprobate; yet doth the gospel offer no ground of presuming on the one hand, or of despairing on the other. For if thou be not a believer, nor a weak reed, nor a saint, yet thou art a sinner; if not that, thou art a man; if not that, thou art one of the world.

James Durham, Revelation, 340: Ministers warrant to preach and offer salvation, is not to preach and offer the same to the elect only, whom the Lord hath kept secret from them; but it is to preach and make offer of this gospel, to those unto whom the Lord shall send them, and whom he shall gather into a visible church-state; yet, this is done for the elect’s sake among such, whom God hath thought fit to gather out among others by this preaching of the gospel, without signifying to the minister who is elect, and whom he hath designed to believe: therefore it is suitable to this manner of administration, that the gospel be preached indefinitely in respect of its call, and that indifferently, as to these who preach; that so while the call doth reach all particularly, the elect may withal be gripped with the same.

Thomas Boston, Works, 1:336: The true way of covenanting is, to take up the covenant of grace as a free promise of life and salvation, upon condition of Christ’s obedience and death performed already; to believe that promise with particular application to the sinner himself, i.e., that the sinner believe, that he shall have life and salvation, pardon of sin, repentance, sanctification, grace, and glory, and that upon the ground of Christ’s obedience and satisfaction only, Heb. 8:10. Thus the covenant is held out, as a free and absolute promise, to sinners indefinitely, like a rope to a company of drowning men, that whoever believes it may by it be drawn forth out of the waters.

John Colqhoun, Sermons, 96: In these passages, and many others which might be cited, we have express mention made of a free offer of Christ, and of his righteousness, to sinners of mankind, who are denominated the people, the Gentiles, the world, men, and the sons of men, &c., which are all indefinite terms; not, indeed, a giving of him in possession, else every sinner who hears the Gospel should possess him, and be saved by him; but a giving in offer, so that every sinner has hereby a right to take possession; and he is guilty of unbelief if he do not avail himself of this right.

John Colqhoun, Treatise on the Law and the Gospel, 117: The gospel, in its proper acceptation, contains likewise God’s gracious offers of Christ, in his person, righteousness, fulness, offices, and relations, and of Himself in Christ, to sinners of mankind in common. It comprehends also, his offer of all his promises in and with Christ, to sinners indefinitely. Hence we commonly style these offers, gospel-offers; because they form a main and special part of the gospel.

James Henley Thornwell, Collected Writings, 2:174: The Gospel offer is not an expression of God’s purposes or decrees, but a plain and intelligible ground of duty to man. It comes to no one and says, “You individually and particularly are included in God's purpose of saving mercy.” If this were the nature of it, none could pretend to reconcile its acknowledged universality with the doctrines of election and reprobation. But this is so far from being the case that it simply gives to sinners a right to believe; it gives them an adequate foundation, a warrantable ground for the exercise of faith. In other words, it is such a general, indefinite, unconditional grant of Christ in all His plenitude of grace as conveys to each and every sinner who hears the joyful sound an unquestionable right to appropriate and apply the Saviour in all His fullness to his own individual case without presumption or blasphemy.


----------



## timfost (Feb 11, 2016)

Thanks for the quotes. I look forward to considering them in more detail.

Question so that I can better understand your distinction of legal and evangelical repentance. Would you say that both kinds of repentance are the same in substance, or are they two completely different kinds of repentance? Is there also a legal and evangelical faith?

Thanks again!


----------



## MW (Feb 11, 2016)

timfost said:


> Would you say that both kinds of repentance are the same in substance, or are they two completely different kinds of repentance? Is there also a legal and evangelical faith?



Although they have some similarities, they have different sources which create different effects in the person. Legal repentance or faith is acted by the law or the gospel conceived as a law; evangelical repentance or faith is acted by the gospel as a pure promise. You might find the following examples to be helpful.

Edward Reynold, Works, 1:450: as sense of sin as a cursed thing (which is legal humiliation) doth arise from that faith, whereby we believe and assent to the truth of God in all his threatenings (which is a legal faith); so the abominating of sin as an unclean thing, and contrary to the image and holiness of God, (which is evangelical repentance) doth arise from evangelical faith; whereby we look upon God as most merciful, most holy, and therefore most worthy to be imitated and served.

Thomas Brooks, Works, 3:397: Look, as all legal sorrow flows from a legal faith, as you may see in Ahab’s and the Ninevites, so all evangelical sorrow flows from an evangelical faith: “They shall look upon him whom they have pierced, and mourn.” All gracious mourning flows from looking, from believing. Nothing breaks the heart of a sinner like a look of faith. All tears of godly sorrow drop from the eye of faith. Godly sorrow rises and falls, as faith rises and falls. Faith and godly sorrow are like the fountain and the flood, which rise and fall together. The more a man is able by faith to look upon a pierced Christ, the more his heart will mourn over all the dishonours that he has done to Christ. The more deep and wide the wounds are that faith shows me in the heart and sides of Christ, the more my heart will be wounded for sinning against Christ.

Thomas Boston, Works, 1:361: the law is a schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ; and the faith of the law makes way for the faith of the gospel. Not that this legal faith or legal repentance is the condition of the soul’s welcome to Christ and the covenant of grace; our access to Christ and the covenant is proclaimed free, without any conditions or qualifications required in us to warrant us sinners of mankind to believe in Jesus Christ. But they are necessary to move and excite us to make use of our privilege of free access to Christ and the covenant: so that the sinner will never come to Christ nor embrace the covenant without them.

Ralph Erskine, Sermons, 2:207 (3rd edition): As believers do perform gospel-obedience to the law, so unbelievers may have a legal faith of the gospel, a legal faith upon Christ, believing in their own strength, believing even before he see his inability to believe, before ever he sees his unwillingness to believe, before he be humbled under a sense of his absolute need of Christ, and before he see what right and warrant he hath from the word.

John Colquhoun, Treatise on the Covenant of Works, 289: While the true believer performs gospel-obedience to the law, the legalist exercises a legal faith of the gospel. He believes, before he be convinced of his unwillingness, or inability to believe; before he see from the word, his warrant to do so; and before he have a humbling discovery of his absolute need of a Saviour, either from sin, or from wrath.


----------



## Pergamum (Feb 12, 2016)

Peairtach said:


> Toasty said:
> 
> 
> > Jerry Walls, an Arminian professor at a Christian university, believes that if God did not elect someone to salvation, then God does not have any kind of love towards that person. Walls thinks that for God to give someone food, clothing, and shelter, but not salvation, is not really love.
> ...



Yes, I would like to get back to this main point as well. 

Are God's kindnesses meant as a means of fattening up the wicked for the day of slaughter? No. It appears that God's offers are borne out of love and goodwill, even if men reject these offers and these offers thus become greater condemnation to him.


----------



## MW (Feb 13, 2016)

Pergamum said:


> It appears that God's offers are borne out of love and goodwill, even if men reject these offers and these offers thus become greater condemnation to him.



It is one thing to say that love and goodwill are indefinitely manifested to sinners; it is quite another thing to say they are manifested in particular to reprobate sinners, especially when the "reprobate" are defined as those whom God has passed by with respect to the purpose of salvation.

And if the "offer" is borne out of love, out of what is the "threatening" borne? Human sentimentality likes to contemplate one half of the ways of God with men, and shies away from the other half, but it is only by contemplating both together (justice and mercy) that we understand aright an offer of actual salvation, which does not flatter sinners with an impossible possibility of saving themselves.


----------



## timfost (Feb 13, 2016)

MW said:


> It is one thing to say that love and goodwill are indefinitely manifested to sinners; it is quite another thing to say they are manifested in particular to reprobate sinners, especially when the "reprobate" are defined as those whom God has passed by with respect to the purpose of salvation.



This is where I think you use categories in a way that is not helpful. As Henry pointed out, it is inconceivable to the Arminian that God would show kindness to someone that He does not purpose to save. But we maintain that He demonstrates goodness because He wants to. So why is it inconceivable to think that He could offer salvation to those He didn't purpose to save? Can't we answer the same way: because He wants to? Can He not reveal His character by offering salvation to those He didn't purpose to save (See Matt. 22:1-14, John 1:11, Rev. 2:21)?

Also, does the doctrine of preterition necessitate that God makes no offer of salvation to any of them? I believe that Shedd rightly states that it is God's determination to not effectively work faith in them, not that He refrains from offering Himself to them.



MW said:


> And if the "offer" is borne out of love, out of what is the "threatening" borne? Human sentimentality likes to contemplate one half of the ways of God with men, and shies away from the other half, but it is only by contemplating both together (justice and mercy) that we understand aright an offer of actual salvation, which does not flatter sinners with an impossible possibility of saving themselves.



Certainly we should not leave out justice in favor of mercy. But your logic does not follow the example of scripture. Mercy _precedes_ justice. Your argument assumes that God's will in relation to mercy and justice necessitates simultaneously employing both. Of course God desires to punish the impenitent, but this does not exclude offers of mercy unless we adopt Perkins's logic as you have on this point. Once the proper order is realized, there is no problem whatsoever.


----------



## MW (Feb 14, 2016)

timfost said:


> This is where I think you use categories in a way that is not helpful. As Henry pointed out, it is inconceivable to the Arminian that God would show kindness to someone that He does not purpose to save. But we maintain that He demonstrates goodness because He wants to. So why is it inconceivable to think that He could offer salvation to those He didn't purpose to save? Can't we answer the same way: because He wants to? Can He not reveal His character by offering salvation to those He didn't purpose to save (See Matt. 22:1-14, John 1:11, Rev. 2:21)?



It was clarified above that God actually offers salvation to those who hear the gospel. The gospel holds out a warrant to believe in Christ for salvation. Regrettably you have chosen to ignore this clarification.

As noted on previous threads, God's kindness is actual. It is not ineffectual. If the gospel offer comes to a man, it is God who has kindly provided it. But the kindness does not include an intention to save all men. To claim that God exercises an ineffectual kindness is Arminianism. The category of ineffectual goodness/kindness/grace in God is not only unhelpful, it is an outright stumbling-block to faith.



timfost said:


> Also, does the doctrine of preterition necessitate that God makes no offer of salvation to any of them? I believe that Shedd rightly states that it is God's determination to not effectively work faith in them, not that He refrains from offering Himself to them.



Again, an offer of salvation is not denied. You are arguing with a straw man.

Your doctrine of preterition would have God purposing salvation for all but holding back the means by which that salvation becomes theirs. How do you call this sincere? This is to give salvation and take it back again. Clearly this is not salvation but an impossible possibility of salvation. 



timfost said:


> Certainly we should not leave out justice in favor of mercy. But your logic does not follow the example of scripture. Mercy _precedes_ justice. Your argument assumes that God's will in relation to mercy and justice necessitates simultaneously employing both.



Read Romans. The wrath of God is revealed from heaven. Sinners are under judgment. That is why they need mercy. On your scheme sinners are in some kind of neutral state with respect to judgment. This plainly contradicts Scripture.


----------

