# Is it actually gracious for God to allow the reprobate to live?



## De Jager (Feb 13, 2019)

I have heard it said that God exhibits "common grace" to all mankind by allowing them to enjoy benefits in this world apart from being saved.

I have heard of God's love being divided into a "special" love for his elect and a "general" love for all mankind. 

This of course leads into the whole common grace / offer discussion.

I want us to consider a couple things:

----------------------------------------

1) When Jesus commented on the upcoming betrayal by Judas, he (Jesus) said that it would be better for him (Judas) if he (Judas) had _never been born.
_
2) Judas got to "enjoy" being one of Jesus' closest disciples for 3 years. Surely of all the possible "common graces" bestowed on mankind, this was the supreme one.

3) It is well reasoned from scripture that each person daily increases their guilt before God, and this is also taught by the Heidelberg Catechism in Lord's Day 5. It stands to reason that a 90-year old man has committed many more sins than a 5 year old child.

4) The Bible teaches degrees of punishment in Hell.

----------------------------------------

Based on those 4 things, I have 3 questions:

1. Can someone please inform me as to how one can possibly conclude that it is "gracious" of God to allow a reprobate person to be born, live, fill up their cup with iniquity, and then be sent to hell to be punished not only for their original sin but also for their actual sin? In the grand scheme of things, would it not be more gracious if he would simply snuff out that life before it had a chance to indulge itself in the sinful nature?

2. When we consider that "grace" is essentially unmerited favour, what "favour" is being shown to these people? Surely for each of the reprobate it would be better if they _had never been born_.

3. How can we in good conscience say to someone that "God loves you" considering the above? After all, this person _may be_ reprobate, a person who in His Sovereignty God has ordained should be born, commit iniquity, daily increase their debt, and ultimately go to hell. Surely at best it is unbiblical presumption to make such a statement.


----------



## earl40 (Feb 13, 2019)

Does the sinner in hell continue to sin? I believe so, and in thinking this way it makes no difference if one continues to sin here or there.

Reactions: Like 3 | Informative 1


----------



## VictorBravo (Feb 13, 2019)

God's thoughts are not our thoughts, of course. But one gracious consequence might be found in looking at how the church benefits from the material contributions of unbelievers. Commerce, communication, trade, etc. have done wonders in the spread of our Lord's Gospel.

Reactions: Like 3 | Amen 1


----------



## De Jager (Feb 13, 2019)

VictorBravo said:


> God's thoughts are not our thoughts, of course. But one gracious consequence might be found in looking at how the church benefits from the material contributions of unbelievers. Commerce, communication, trade, etc. have done wonders in the spread of our Lord's Gospel.



With all due respect, that didn't really address the OP.

Of course, we know that _all_ things work together for the good of the called.

However, I am not referring to the called here, but those who are not called. Is it right, or is it not right, to say that it is God is being gracious _towards_ the non-elect by allowing them to be born, live, and die, filling up their portion of iniquity?


----------



## ZackF (Feb 13, 2019)

Hell is worse than earth so any delay of that would be a mercy it seems.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## VictorBravo (Feb 13, 2019)

De Jager said:


> 1. Can someone please inform me as to how one can possibly conclude that it is "gracious" of God to allow a reprobate person to be born,





De Jager said:


> Is it right, or is it not right, to say that it is God is being gracious _towards_ the non-elect



I was trying to answer the first question, how God would be gracious.

As you noted, grace is unmerited favor. Wondering about the object of the favor seems to be looking at it backwards. 

I'm aware of the difficulties in dealing with "common grace." I take the term to be a short hand term meaning something along the lines of Matthew 5:45 and don't try to press it further. Enemies of God are there to be blessed by his people, "that ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven...."

In order for there to be such enemies, God must sustain them.


----------



## Pergamum (Feb 14, 2019)

The motivation for giving a kind gift may be good even if the recipient uses it for evil and the end result is evil. 

We should never charge God with evil motives for prolonging the lives of the wicked. Especially since He calls to them to repent and grants them many years to do so.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Alan D. Strange (Feb 14, 2019)

Romans 9 makes clear that, _ultimately_, all things glorify God, the salvation of the elect glorifies His mercy and grace and the condemnation of the reprobate His wrath and justice.

God does, _proximately_, both send his rain on the unjust and call him to believe and repent, i.e., He shows kindnesses to the reprobate that are unmerited and are part of his benevolence to all His creatures.

The whole of WCF 3 treats this in a balanced, biblical way, certainly one that does not suggest, in any measure, that God is a moral monster or has in any way wronged the reprobate. We must resist any such suggestions as Satanic, whether we understand God's kindness to the reprobate as something that can be called "grace" or denominate it by some other name.

If our theology in any way prompts us to blacken God's name or character, we have gone astray. The last section of WCF 3 (section 8) is helpful to remind us that the doctrine of predestination is for our comfort and not for vain speculation:

*8. The doctrine of this high mystery of predestination is to be handled with special prudence and care, that men, attending the will of God revealed in his Word, and yielding obedience thereunto, may, from the certainty of their effectual vocation, be assured of their eternal election. So shall this doctrine afford matter of praise, reverence, and admiration of God; and of humility, diligence, and abundant consolation to all that sincerely obey the gospel.
*
Peace,
Alan

Reactions: Like 3 | Amen 1


----------



## De Jager (Feb 14, 2019)

Pergamum said:


> The motivation for giving a kind gift may be good even if the recipient uses it for evil and the end result is evil.
> 
> We should never charge God with evil motives for prolonging the lives of the wicked. Especially since He calls to them to repent and grants them many years to do so.



Who ever charged God of evil? I certainly didn't. If God wishes to raise someone up to ultimately throw them down, who am I to find fault in that? This is essentially the message in Romans 9. My question is, is it _gracious_ of him to do so - to _that person?_ Was God showing _grace_ to Pharaoh when he raised him up in order to throw him down? 

Could Moses have said to Pharoah: "Pharoah, God loves you and has graciously blessed you with so many good things...please repent of your sins and turn to him, recognizing his goodness towards you!"


----------



## VictorBravo (Feb 14, 2019)

De Jager said:


> Could Moses have said to Pharoah: "Pharoah, God loves you and has graciously blessed you with so many good things...please repent of your sins and turn to him, recognizing his goodness towards you!"



I suppose he could have said such a thing, but he didn't, and I don't think he even thought such a thing.

I'm still wondering where the concern comes from. Who has been saying God showed grace to Pharaoh or those like him? (other than acknowledging the sun and rain on the unjust and just).

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## timfost (Feb 14, 2019)

De Jager said:


> 1) When Jesus commented on the upcoming betrayal by Judas, he (Jesus) said that it would be better for him (Judas) if he (Judas) had _never been born._



It would have been better. This really has nothing to do with the question at hand. Judas was shown incredible mercy, yet in unthankfulness he wilfully rejected the Savior with whom he walked.



> 2) Judas got to "enjoy" being one of Jesus' closest disciples for 3 years. Surely of all the possible "common graces" bestowed on mankind, this was the supreme one.



True.



> 3) It is well reasoned from scripture that each person daily increases their guilt before God, and this is also taught by the Heidelberg Catechism in Lord's Day 5. It stands to reason that a 90-year old man has committed many more sins than a 5 year old child.



Correct.



> 4) The Bible teaches degrees of punishment in Hell.



Yes.



> ---------------------------------------
> 
> Based on those 4 things, I have 3 questions:
> 
> 1. Can someone please inform me as to how one can possibly conclude that it is "gracious" of God to allow a reprobate person to be born, live, fill up their cup with iniquity, and then be sent to hell to be punished not only for their original sin but also for their actual sin? In the grand scheme of things, would it not be more gracious if he would simply snuff out that life before it had a chance to indulge itself in the sinful nature?



Keep in mind that God's ways are not our ways. Remember that God's sovereignty does not negate the freedom of the will. Our reasoning needs to derive from Scripture. In this vein, consider the following:

"*Let grace be shown to the wicked,
Yet he will not learn righteousness*;
In the land of uprightness he will deal unjustly,
And will not behold the majesty of the Lord." (Is. 26:10)

Not all grace/mercy is saving grace, otherwise the wicked would "learn righteousness" when shown grace.

"The Lord _is_ *good to all*,
And His tender mercies _are_ over all His works...
The Lord _is_ righteous in all His ways,
*Gracious in all His works*." (Psalm 145:9,17)

Scripture tells us that God _is_ good to all and gracious in all His works. The objection of "if God knows the end from the beginning because He ordained it, these 'graces' are not really graces" only proceeds from a logic that superimposes "what we would do" rather than what God says about His own workings. If God gives good things even to those who will ultimately perish, we must also acknowledge that these same people received something undeserved from God and are recipients of His mercy _in a temporal sense_. 

"Or do you despise the riches of His goodness, forbearance, and longsuffering, not knowing that the goodness of God leads you to repentance?" (Rom. 2:4)

The goodness of God is designed to lead men to repentance. Even if man refuses to repent, it does not follow that a) God was unmerciful, and b) that man did not reject this mercy freely. (Consider reprobation in the terms of preterition.)



> 2. When we consider that "grace" is essentially unmerited favour, what "favour" is being shown to these people? Surely for each of the reprobate it would be better if they _had never been born_.



It does not follow that since it would be better not to be born that the mercy shown was not mercy. If I give someone a gift and they misuse and abuse it, does it follow that it was not a gift?



> 3. How can we in good conscience say to someone that "God loves you" considering the above? After all, this person _may be_ reprobate, a person who in His Sovereignty God has ordained should be born, commit iniquity, daily increase their debt, and ultimately go to hell. Surely at best it is unbiblical presumption to make such a statement.



A couple things need to be unpacked here.

1. Just because it may be true that God has a general love for His image bearers (see Augustine, Calvin, Berkhof among others who make this explicit), it does not mean that the gospel _necessarily_ must go out with "God loves you." Rather, the love of God that is at least partly expressed in his providential goodness is designed to lead them to repentance. The call is to faith and repentance, not that "God loves you," though this is true of itself. In other words, "God loves you" doesn't call someone to repentance. Rather, in love God is merciful to man which is designed to call them to faith/repentance. In our culture especially, the phrase normally means that "God loves you for who you are and accepts you the way you are." This is diametrically opposed to a call to faith and repentance which is a call away from "who we are" to Christ and His righteousness.

2. The gospel goes out to sinners. Yes, many sinners are reprobate, but we need not worry about what we do not know. In contrast, we do know that a) the person is a sinner, b) the person has received blessings from God (common graces), c) these mercies _should_ lead them to repentance and are designed for that purpose, d) God promises them eternal life when they repent/believe. 

Again, we need to operate on what we know about God's working, not according to what we might do if we were omniscient. When we take God on His own revealed terms, any problems that you pose are resolved.

I hope this helps...

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## timfost (Feb 14, 2019)

De Jager said:


> Who ever charged God of evil? I certainly didn't. If God wishes to raise someone up to ultimately throw them down, who am I to find fault in that?... My question is, is it _gracious_ of him to do so - to _that person?_ Was God showing _grace_ to Pharaoh when he raised him up in order to throw him down?



It was _just _for God to throw him down _on account of sin_. It as _gracious_ for God to bestow him with _providential goodness because God is good and does good_. You are linking these two things together as a single act of God and only allowing one of His attributes to be manifested in the situation. In the _totality _of Pharaoh's life, he experienced both God's goodness and wrath.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## De Jager (Feb 14, 2019)

VictorBravo said:


> I suppose he could have said such a thing, but he didn't, and I don't think he even thought such a thing.
> 
> *I'm still wondering where the concern comes from.* Who has been saying God showed grace to Pharaoh or those like him? (other than acknowledging the sun and rain on the unjust and just).



Let's bring this home then.

I have a grandmother who is not a Christian. When witnessing to her, what should we say to her?

Is it _accurate to say_: "Grandma, God loves you and has been gracious to you all your life...acknowledge that and repent of your sin and turn to Christ".

Of the underlined, I just don't see how I could say that in good conscience when in truth I just don't know if God loves her. Or if he does, in what sense does he? Obviously I don't know if she is elect. But is there some sense in which I can say "God loves you"?

Again, please everyone I am not trying to pry into whether someone is elect or not - I know that's not my job, so please you don't need to remind me of that. Rather I am simply trying to understand what I can or cannot say to someone in a witnessing encounter. I am not interested in saying anything unbiblical.


----------



## De Jager (Feb 14, 2019)

Alan D. Strange said:


> Romans 9 makes clear that, _ultimately_, all things glorify God, the salvation of the elect glorifies His mercy and grace and the condemnation of the reprobate His wrath and justice.
> 
> God does, _proximately_, both send his rain on the unjust and call him to believe and repent, i.e., He shows kindnesses to the reprobate that are unmerited and are part of his benevolence to all His creatures.
> 
> ...



Alan,

Regarded the bolded - any Arminian would say the same thing about the very basic points of Calvinism. I think the question is not whether we _think_ it blackens God's name, but whether or not it is _biblical_. Many people think that the very doctrine of the substitutionary atonement blackens God's name - but that does not mean that they have gone astray - they simply have superimposed their own idea of what a "good God" looks like into their own thinking and are then interpreting the Bible through that lense.


----------



## Pergamum (Feb 14, 2019)

I suppose you could say the following to your grandmother:

"Believe in this Mercy, Psal. 52. 8. _I trust in the mercy of God for ever_. God's Mercy is a Fountain of Salvation, what greater Encouragement to believe than God's Mercy. God counts it his glory to be scattering Pardons; *he is desirous that sinners should touch the golden Scepter of his Mercy, and live*. And this willingness to shew Mercy appears two ways:

1. By his _intreating_ of sinners to come and lay hold on his Mercy; _Rev_. 22.17. _Whosoever will, come and take the water of life freely_. Mercy woes sinners, *it even kneels down to them*. It were strange for a Prince to entreat a condemned Man to accept Pardon. God saith, poor sinner, suffer me to love thee, be willing to let me save thee."

And also:

"Kindness is seen in this, that God hath spared the Sinner so long, and not struck him dead in the Act of Sin: Kindness in this, that though' the Sinner hath sinn'd against his Conscience, yet now, if he will repent of Sin, God will repent of his Judgments, and the white Flag of Mercy shall be held forth..."

Thomas Watson, Body of Practical Divinity_._ 55, 1003.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## chuckd (Feb 14, 2019)

Good and relevant thread:

Gods love towards those in hell?
https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/gods-love-towards-those-in-hell.76200/


----------



## Pergamum (Feb 14, 2019)

chuckd said:


> Good and relevant thread:
> 
> Gods love towards those in hell?
> https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/gods-love-towards-those-in-hell.76200/


Nobody is speaking of those in hell.

Reactions: Like 1 | Amen 1


----------



## chuckd (Feb 14, 2019)

Pergamum said:


> Nobody is speaking of those in hell.


Sorry, just thought it might be helpful.


----------



## De Jager (Feb 14, 2019)

Pergamum said:


> I suppose you could say the following to your grandmother:
> 
> "Believe in this Mercy, Psal. 52. 8. _I trust in the mercy of God for ever_. God's Mercy is a Fountain of Salvation, what greater Encouragement to believe than God's Mercy. God counts it his glory to be scattering Pardons; *he is desirous that sinners should touch the golden Scepter of his Mercy, and live*. And this willingness to shew Mercy appears two ways:
> 
> ...



Don't you think that Watson is going a little far here?

Jesus says "let him who desires come" - I do not see how this equates to God kneeling down, begging the sinner to come to him to be forgiven. That doesn't really square with "God commands all men everywhere to repent".


----------



## Pergamum (Feb 14, 2019)

De Jager said:


> Don't you think that Watson is going a little far here?
> 
> Jesus says "let him who desires come" - I do not see how this equates to God kneeling down, begging the sinner to come to him to be forgiven. That doesn't really square with "God commands all men everywhere to repent".


Not at all. I believe Watson is correct.


----------



## De Jager (Feb 14, 2019)

Pergamum said:


> Not at all. I believe Watson is correct.



I just don't see how you get that from scripture. It sounds somewhat Arminian, to be honest.

There is no doubt that God extends an offer of mercy to all who will come - that's not up for debate. But I just don't see how you can picture that as God "on his knees" begging the sinner to be reconciled. I don't see how that picture squares with scripture. So until someone can show me, I will have to disagree with you.

Thanks,
Izaak

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## timfost (Feb 14, 2019)

De Jager said:


> I just don't see how you get that from scripture. It sounds somewhat Arminian, to be honest.
> 
> There is no doubt that God extends an offer of mercy to all who will come - that's not up for debate. But I just don't see how you can picture that as God "on his knees" begging the sinner to be reconciled. I don't see how that picture squares with scripture. So until someone can show me, I will have to disagree with you.
> 
> ...



Izaak,

You seem to pit certain truths against each other that are not mutually exclusive. The idea of God pleading with a sinner-- even if he never comes to Him-- is not inconsistent with a command to repent/believe. See Psalm 81.

Furthermore, your concept of the distinction between Calvinism and Arminianism is not well grounded historically if you believe the idea of God pleading with a sinner is contra Calvinism. 

Would you like some reading recommendations?


----------



## Dachaser (Feb 14, 2019)

De Jager said:


> I have heard it said that God exhibits "common grace" to all mankind by allowing them to enjoy benefits in this world apart from being saved.
> 
> I have heard of God's love being divided into a "special" love for his elect and a "general" love for all mankind.
> 
> ...


I also think that God saw that eternity in hell is preferable for some reason to just having the Lost snuffed out once judged by Him for their sins, so Hos ways and thoughts many times are above ours, and some times just do not seem to make seems to us.
And to me, Judas was a special case, as he knew and walk with Jesus Christ, and yet still willingly betrayed Him...


----------



## De Jager (Feb 14, 2019)

timfost said:


> Izaak,
> 
> You seem to pit certain truths against each other that are not mutually exclusive. The idea of God pleading with a sinner-- even if he never comes to Him-- is not inconsistent with a command to repent/believe. See Psalm 81.
> 
> ...



Tim, thank you for your response.

FYI, I will read through your previous response carefully later when time allows. Thank you for your time responding to this topic.

I think we need to make a distinction between the Lord addressing his covenant people vs. addressing the heathen nations?

Psalm 81 says:

_Oh that *my people* had hearkened unto me, and Israel had walked in my ways! _

Is there a similar example in scripture with God pleading with the ungodly nations around Israel to be reconciled unto him? In the context of Israel, God had already drawn near to them and claimed them for his own, and seems to be calling them to respond in faith. For a person outside of the covenant community, this is not the case.

In Acts 17, Paul is addressing pagans who are outside of the covenant community. I am wondering if there are certain things that you "can say" to the covenant people that aren't true for the one outside the covenant.

With this in mind, I am wondering if the context of the above quote from Watson would suggest something similar?

Sure, feel free to suggest a few reading recommendations.

Regards,
Izaak


----------



## VictorBravo (Feb 14, 2019)

De Jager said:


> Is there a similar example in scripture with God pleading with the ungodly nations around Israel to be reconciled unto him? In the context of Israel, God had already drawn near to them and claimed them for his own, and seems to be calling them to respond in faith. For a person outside of the covenant community, this is not the case.



Izzak, be careful about putting the cart before the horse. None of us know who the called are--it is not our job to even figure it out.

Regarding the covenant people in the OT, consider Isaiah 19. Egypt and Assyria, those great enemies of God's people, are brought into the fold. This is something is astounding to the descendants of Jacob, but there it is:

Isa 19:24 In that day shall Israel be the third with Egypt and with Assyria, even a blessing in the midst of the land:
Isa 19:25 Whom the LORD of hosts shall bless, saying, Blessed be *Egypt my people*, and Assyria the work of my hands, and Israel mine inheritance.

God calls the sinner and offers grace. I think you are right not to like the "God loves you and ...." formula because you can't know such things. But certainly you are strong ground speaking about the need for reconciliation and the clear avenue for reconciliation: trusting our Lord Christ, who with the Bride and the Spirit, says: "Come." (Rev. 22:17).


----------



## De Jager (Feb 14, 2019)

VictorBravo said:


> Izzak, be careful about putting the cart before the horse. None of us know who the called are--it is not our job to even figure it out.
> 
> Regarding the covenant people in the OT, consider Isaiah 19. Egypt and Assyria, those great enemies of God's people, are brought into the fold. This is something is astounding to the descendants of Jacob, but there it is:
> 
> ...



Hi Victor,

I know that I am not to pry in to God's secret decree - believe, I have no interest whatsoever in doing so.

I will consider Isaiah 19. However, I believe that this refers to future things, no? Furthermore, the passages really don't comment on God's disposition towards those nations prior to him sovereignly en-grafting them into the fold. They certainly do not present God as "on his knees", "pleading" with those nations to join his covenant people.

I really don't think we can use such a passage to justify going to someone outside of the covenant people and saying "God loves you" and God is "pleading with you" to be reconciled unto him.

You quoted Rev. 22:17 - and I agree with that paragraph of your response. There is definitely a need for reconciliation. However, let me point out that when Jesus says come, he means come - he is not saying "please oh please, make my day and come to me" - in fact, the bid to "come" is aligns pretty well with what Paul says in Acts 17 - "God commands all men everywhere to repent".

Any invitation from God is also a command. We cannot proceed to present God as a God who is at the mercy of the sinner.


----------



## timfost (Feb 14, 2019)

De Jager said:


> FYI, I will read through your previous response carefully later when time allows. Thank you for your time responding to this topic.



Sounds good. 



> I think we need to make a distinction between the Lord addressing his covenant people vs. addressing the heathen nations?



Your question asks, "Is it actually gracious for God to allow the *reprobate* to live?" Since the reprobate are often in the _visible church_, it shouldn't matter whether God was speaking to His covenant people or not, at least if we interact with the question as you asked it. 



> Is there a similar example in scripture with God pleading with the ungodly nations around Israel to be reconciled unto him?



"Now the word of the Lord came to Jonah the son of Amittai, saying, 
'Arise, go to Nineveh, that great city, and cry out against it; for their wickedness has come up before Me.'" (Jonah 1:1-2)

Why would God desire the repentance of Gentile Nineveh?

"But the Lord said, 'You have had pity on the plant for which you have not labored, nor made it grow, which came up in a night and perished in a night. 
*And should I not pity Nineveh*, that great city, in which are more than one hundred and twenty thousand persons who cannot discern between their right hand and their left--and much livestock?'" (Jonah 4:10-11)

Not only did God pity the people, but also the livestock!

"But it displeased Jonah exceedingly, and he became angry. 
So he prayed to the Lord, and said, 'Ah, Lord, was not this what I said when I was still in my country? Therefore I fled previously to Tarshish; *for I know that You are a gracious and merciful God, slow to anger and abundant in lovingkindness, One who relents from doing harm*.'" (Jonah 4:1-2)

Why did Jonah not want to go to this Gentile nation? Because God is _so merciful_ and inclined to pity. If Jonah thought that God's pity only belonged to the covenant people, why did he flee to Tarshish away from Nineveh? He did not want them to repent and to be shown mercy by God! What is glaringly obvious in chapter four is that God is far more inclined to pity than Jonah!



> In Acts 17, Paul is addressing pagans who are outside of the covenant community. I am wondering if there are certain things that you "can say" to the covenant people that aren't true for the one outside the covenant.



There is truth to this statement. We can address the church as believers, the elect of God, those to whom the promises were made, etc. We cannot address those outside the church as such. However, I want to point out a few things:

1. In Acts 17, there is an acknowledgement that the call to repentance _generally_ was only to the people of Israel. Consider the wording: "Truly, these times of ignorance God overlooked, but now commands all men everywhere to repent..." In other words, Paul is saying that in contrast to the call to repent going out primarily to Israel, now this call to repent goes out to everyone everywhere. How did it go out to Israel? I think Psalm 81 is instructive in this.

2. Does God represent Himself as desirous of His law, even when men break it? Therefore, a separation of God desiring His covenant people to come to Him with the command that they come is unnatural and does not account for all of revelation. Similarly, your assertion (if I understand correctly) that the NT command for those outside of the covenant does not extend God's pity or pleading with/to them is not consistent with the consonance of these two principles.



> Sure, feel free to suggest a few reading recommendations.



Click here and here. (Please know that my linking these two pages is not an endorsement of everything on the websites.)

I hope this helps.

Blessings,

Tim


----------



## Charles Johnson (Feb 14, 2019)

I hate to make such a discussion more complex, but when speaking of the desire of God for sinners to repent it is helpful to remember the impassibility/immutability of God, so that when we speak of the desire of God for sinners at large to repent we are speaking of his revealed will and not any human passion. Does God desire sinners to repent, even the reprobate? Yes - he commands it. I know that there have been many attempts to explain the words of St Peter differently when he said that God desires all to be saved, such as restricting the scope of the word "all", but understanding it with regards to God's revealed will seems to me to be the most rational approach.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Feb 14, 2019)

An older thread that may be of interest: 
https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/common-grace-in-psalm-136-metrical-version.87469/


----------



## Pergamum (Feb 15, 2019)

De Jager said:


> I just don't see how you get that from scripture. It sounds somewhat Arminian, to be honest.
> 
> There is no doubt that God extends an offer of mercy to all who will come - that's not up for debate. But I just don't see how you can picture that as God "on his knees" begging the sinner to be reconciled. I don't see how that picture squares with scripture. So until someone can show me, I will have to disagree with you.
> 
> ...


It is certainly not Arminian. Many of the Puritans spoke like this. William Gurnell in The _Christian's Complete Armour_ says: "Thou canst not earn heaven by thine own righteousness, and is thy spirit so stout that thou wilt not beg it for Christ's sake, yea, take it at God's hands, who in the gospel comes a begging to thee, and beseecheth thee to be reconciled to him?"

Aside from Matthew 5 telling us that we are to love our own enemies in the likeness of the good God who causes the rains to fall on the just and the unjust, we also have the following verses:

God blessed the Egyptian overseer’s house for Joseph’s sake (Gen. 39:5). It doesn't say God gathered more coals for the eternal burning of Pharoah, but that it was a blessing. Not a trap to fatten him up further for the slaughter.

In Acts 14, Paul preaches to gentiles who did not know God at all. Paul says, “In the past, he let all nations go their own way. Yet he has not left himself without testimony: He has shown kindness by giving you rain from heaven and crops in their seasons; he provides you with plenty of food and fills your hearts with joy.” 

It doesn't say that God further hardened them with blessings to increase their guilt, but calls these things kindnesses.

You don't believe God is being duplicitous do you? If he calls a thing a kindness and a blessing then you must believe that it is a kindness or a blessing.

When God tells us to love our enemies, He is our great example - for He loves those who are hostile against Him. God doesn't say, "Act loving but secretly plot their greater torment, just like Me." Neither must we affirm what the Arminians say, that God loves all mankind alike. We need not believe that God loves all mankind in the same way for us to affirm that God does, indeed, love all mankind in some way. God loves all men with some love; and God loves some men with all love. 

Romans 2:4-5 asks, "Do you think lightly of the riches of His kindness and tolerance and patience, not knowing that the kindness of God leads you to repentance? But because of your stubbornness and unrepentant heart you are storing up wrath for yourself in the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God..."

The fault is on the sinner, not on God. God gives many gifts and sinners misuse these gifts. 

Here is an analogy: It is as if God gifts a hungry man with a shotgun to hunt rabbits to eat, but that man turns the gun on himself, instead. The fault is not God's. A good gift is even good if it is misused.

The result might be that sinners DO increase their wrath through the misuse of common grace, but God is not a schemer or deceitful. God is TRULY kind to sinners, and He is patient. It is not a sham kindness, but a true kindness.

Deniers of common grace ask how it can be called a kindness if it increases the guilt of the sinner. But the Bible calls these things blessings and kindnesses, and so I must as well.

It is man, who, in his wickedness, uses even the blessings of God in a sinful way, and thus increases his own guilt. Several times in the OT God tells the Israelites, "Watch Out, don't think that your power and strength gave you these riches." But that is often what happened. Man misuses God's good gifts and increases His guilt. Judically, God then uses the misuses of these gifts against man in the final judgment.

Proverbs 30: 7-9 is a plea against this when the psalmist pleads, "_give me neither poverty nor riches, but give me only my daily bread. Otherwise, I may have too much and disown you and say, ‘Who is the LORD?’"
_
*The Sun both hardens the clay and melts the wax by its shining. But the shining doesn't become an evil thing just because the clay hardens by being shined upon.*

Health and material blessings are kindnesses and blessings...yet sinful man trips himself over these blessings. 

Concerning Pharoah: God often punishes sin and hardness by withdrawing grace and allowing more sin and hardness. God hardens by removing restraining grace. God did not put any sin into Pharoah that was not already there. He merely removed His restraining hand, and allowed Pharoah to run free. God even gave Pharoah many gifts and blessings. And these gifts will increase his guilt. But there was no fault in the gifts themselves or these blessings. These gifts were good in themselves; yet man misuses them. And all of this misuses serves God's will in the end.

God says He hardens whom He wills. But the manner of this hardening to merely to withdraw grace. God does the sinner no wrong and still shows him a great deal of mercy. Romans 2 tells us, "_the kindness of God leads you to repentance? But because of your stubbornness and unrepentant heart YOU are storing up wrath for YOURSELF." _

Fault lies solely at the sinner's feet, who turns God's good blessings into curses to be used against him at the Judgment.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Bill Duncan (Feb 15, 2019)

This line of thinking sent me back to Kline and "Kingdom Prologue" Part 1 Section B and his idea that Grace is not unmerited but rather demerited favor. Therefore any common grace to the reprobate whatsoever is grace abundant. 
Kline says:

"A confirmation of the divine purpose of salvation was in effect given, therefore, when the Lord pronounced a temporal, common curse rather than an ultimate judgment against the generality of mankind. (Gen 3:16-17)"

"These common blessings are not deserved by mankind, but are a benefit enjoyed only by the grace of the Creator in his forbearance with those who have forfeited all blessing by their rebellion against him." 

"A principle of common grace, a grace that provides benefits to the just and the unjust in common, thus informs the divine government of the postlapsarian world."

"Another benefit of common grace was the continuation, even though in modified fashion, of the social-cultural order that had been established under the Creator's covenant with Adam." 

"Common grace was introduced to act as a rein to hold in check the curse on mankind and to make possible an interim historical environment as the theater for a program of redemption.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but common grace was designed to facilitate redemption not to benefit reprobates.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## De Jager (Feb 15, 2019)

Pergamum said:


> It is certainly not Arminian. Many of the Puritans spoke like this. William Gurnell in The _Christian's Complete Armour_ says: "Thou canst not earn heaven by thine own righteousness, and is thy spirit so stout that thou wilt not beg it for Christ's sake, yea, take it at God's hands, who in the gospel comes a begging to thee, and beseecheth thee to be reconciled to him?"



Hey man,

Would you not agree that just because the puritans spoke like that does not mean it is right? I mean, most of the Puritans believed in the baptism of covenant children - what do you think of that? As for the quote above, I don't agree with the language used there - I don't think it is biblical. The puritans are useful insofar as they point us to the Biblical position.



Pergamum said:


> In Acts 14, Paul preaches to gentiles who did not know God at all. Paul says, “In the past, he let all nations go their own way. Yet he has not left himself without testimony: He has shown kindness by giving you rain from heaven and crops in their seasons; he provides you with plenty of food and fills your hearts with joy.”



This is a good verse and I will have to consider this when evaluating my position. Thank you for referring scriptural data.



Pergamum said:


> It doesn't say that God further hardened them with blessings to increase their guilt, but calls these things kindnesses.



Yes, it is called kindness, no argument there. But we also have scriptures that say God hardens hearts. So I suppose we must hold both as being true - sometimes God uses providential goodness as a means by which hearts are hardened - by the rejecting of that providential goodness.



Pergamum said:


> You don't believe God is being duplicitous do you?



I am trying to understand - I don't see the need for such a question.



Pergamum said:


> When God tells us to love our enemies, He is our great example - for He loves those who are hostile against Him. God doesn't say, "Act loving but secretly plot their greater torment, just like Me."





Pergamum said:


> The fault is on the sinner, not on God. God gives many gifts and sinners misuse these gifts.





Pergamum said:


> Fault lies solely at the sinner's feet, who turns God's good blessings into curses to be used against him at the Judgment.



The fact is, that from all eternity God appointed some to eternal destruction, there's just no getting around it. The ultimate source of this is God himself. There is no secret about it at all - it's in the Bible. No, that doesn't give us the right to treat anyone poorly, but I'm not about to deny God's sovereign decree. Psalm 73 tells us that God sets the wicked in "slippery places".

True, the wicked are punished for their sins, and their sins stem from a wicked heart, but but they sin because in his eternal decree, God ordained that they should be left in their state of wickedness and not be saved. Does that make God unjust? No - see Paul's argument in Romans 9.

I perceive that you are going to great lengths to rescue God from what you perceive as a slanderous representation of who he is. Please consider these following verses:

Matthew 11:25, 26 — “At that time Jesus answered and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, b*ecause thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent*, and hast revealed them unto babes. Even so, Father: for so it seemed good in thy sight.”

John 12:37-40 — “But though he had done so many miracles before them, yet they believed not on him: that the saying of Esaias the prophet might be fulfilled, which he spake, Lord, who hath believed our report? and to whom hath the arm of the Lord been revealed? *Therefore they could not believe, because that Esaias said again, He hath blinded their eyes, and hardened their heart; that they should not see with their eyes, nor understand with their heart, and be converted, and I should heal them.”*

Romans 11:7-10 — “What then? Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for; but the election hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded (according as it is written, *God hath given them the spirit of slumber, eyes that they should not see, and ears that they should not hear unto this day*. And David saith, Let their table be made a snare, and a trap, and a stumbling block, and a recompence unto them: let their eyes be darkened that they may not see, and bow down their back always.”

I Peter 2:8 — “And a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient: *whereunto also they were appointed.”*

The Bible seems to pretty clearly teach that God has an active part in the hardening of sinners.


----------



## Pergamum (Feb 15, 2019)

De Jager said:


> Hey man,
> 
> Would you not agree that just because the puritans spoke like that does not mean it is right? I mean, most of the Puritans believed in the baptism of covenant children - what do you think of that? As for the quote above, I don't agree with the language used there - I don't think it is biblical. The puritans are useful insofar as they point us to the Biblical position.
> 
> ...


The Puritans can be wrong. Sure. But in this case, I agree with them. 

Yes, God hardens hearts. But what is the manner of that hardening? It is the withdrawal of grace. God actively withdraws grace, but he makes no man sin. Man falls by his own weight and it is all his fault, not God's. 

Yes, I believe some versions of Supralapserianism makes God into a being who creates man merely to damn him (asserting that he decrees to damn the reprobate even before he decrees to create him).

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## De Jager (Feb 15, 2019)

Also: there is a big difference between


Pergamum said:


> The Puritans can be wrong. Sure. But in this case, I agree with them.
> 
> Yes, God hardens hearts. But what is the manner of that hardening? It is the withdrawal of grace. God actively withdraws grace, but he makes no man sin. Man falls by his own weight and it is all his fault, not God's.
> 
> Yes, I believe some versions of Supralapserianism makes God into a being who creates man merely to damn him (asserting that he decrees to damn the reprobate even before he decrees to create him).



You talk about the withdrawal of grace, and I know that Theologians speak of this, but I just listed several verses where it shows that God has an active role in the hardening of people. I fail to see the scriptural data which says that God withdraws grace. I am however, willing to be taught!


----------



## timfost (Feb 15, 2019)

De Jager said:


> Also: there is a big difference between
> 
> 
> You talk about the withdrawal of grace, and I know that Theologians speak of this, but I just listed several verses where it shows that God has an active role in the hardening of people. I fail to see the scriptural data which says that God withdraws grace. I am however, willing to be taught!



Izaak,

You may want to consider the following questions since scripture answers them:

1. How does God harden?
2. When does God harden?

I don't believe the doctrine of God hardening in the verses you referenced contradicts what Perg said.


----------



## Pergamum (Feb 15, 2019)

In Romans 1 the language is that God "gave them over." This is hardening. God allowed them to fall and did not restrain their evil wishes. The sinner wants sin and God gives him leave to sin by withdrawing his grace. 

This hardening or being "given over" comes after a period of consistent disobedience. So it cannot be said that God is making the sinner do anything that the sinner does not already desire to do. God merely refuses to hold the chain any longer but lets the beast roam where it wants. He says, "ok then..have it at!"

This is far from God making the sinner to sin.


----------



## De Jager (Feb 15, 2019)

Pergamum said:


> *In Romans 1 the language is that God "gave them over." This is hardening.* God allowed them to fall and did not restrain their evil wishes. The sinner wants sin and God gives him leave to sin by withdrawing his grace.
> 
> This hardening or being "given over" comes after a period of consistent disobedience. So it cannot be said that God is making the sinner do anything that the sinner does not already desire to do. God merely refuses to hold the chain any longer but lets the beast roam where it wants. He says, "ok then..have it at!"
> 
> This is far from God making the sinner to sin.



In Exodus it teaches that God actively hardened the heart of Pharoah.

In Romans 1 it does not say that "this is hardening" - that is your conclusion, but does scripture make this conclusion?


----------



## De Jager (Feb 15, 2019)

timfost said:


> Izaak,
> 
> You may want to consider the following questions since scripture answers them:
> 
> ...



Very good questions. Thank you


----------



## Pergamum (Feb 15, 2019)

De Jager said:


> In Exodus it teaches that God actively hardened the heart of Pharoah.
> 
> In Romans 1 it does not say that "this is hardening" - that is your conclusion, but scripture does not make that conclusion.



What is the nature of the hardening of Pharaoh's heart:

Machen writes:

"When God causes the bringing to pass of the _evil_ actions of men, he does that in still a different way. He does not tempt the men to sin; he does not influence them to sin. But he causes the bringing to pass of those deeds by the free and responsible choices of personal beings. He has created those beings with the awful gift of freedom of choice. The things that they do in exercise of that gift are their acts. They do not, indeed, surprise God by the doing of them; their doing of them is part of his eternal plan; yet in the doing of them they, and not the holy God, are responsible."
https://faculty.wts.edu/posts/did-god-ordain-sin/

In Exodus 5:2 the word of God is first delivered to Pharaoh, and he rejects it. Later in Exodus 7:13 we read that God harden's Pharoah's heart for the first time. It is not as if Pharoah had no choice in the matter. God merely withdrew His grace and let his restraints upon Pharoah go.

I don't know exactly what you mean by God "actively" hardening Pharoah's heart, but here is a good reminder from Derek Thomas about what we cannot mean:

"God is the “first cause” of all things, but evil is a product of “second causes.” In the words of John Calvin, “First, it must be observed that the will of God is the cause of all things that happen in the world: and yet God is not the author of evil,” adding, “for the proximate cause is one thing, and the remote cause another.” In other words, God Himself cannot do evil and cannot be blamed for evil even though it is part of His sovereign decree."
https://www.ligonier.org/blog/gods-sovereignty-and-our-responsibility/


----------



## De Jager (Feb 15, 2019)

Pergamum said:


> What is the nature of the hardening of Pharaoh's heart:
> 
> Machen writes:
> 
> ...



This is a very helpful post. Thank you.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Herald (Feb 16, 2019)

De Jager said:


> I really don't think we can use such a passage to justify going to someone outside of the covenant people and saying "God loves you" and God is "pleading with you" to be reconciled unto him.


Izaak, having read most of the posts in this thread, I think we are all agreed that no one can say with certainty to an unbeliever that God loves them and has a wonderful plan for their life. We simply do not know that. However, there is a certain pleading that is part of the Gospel message. Is that pleading effectual? It is for the Elect, but even when the Gospel is proclaimed to the reprobate there is an element of pleading that is inherent to the Gospel itself. There is a pleading in 2 Cor. 5:20 even though Paul was writing to a wide audience. In Romans 10:1 there is a pleading in Paul's written voice for the Jews. Earlier in this thread, Vic cited Jonah calling the Ninevehites to repentance. Such a thing was unheard of in Israel, yet it was a beautiful Old Testament picture of a future New Covenant reality found in Ephesians 2:14 with Christ's breaking down the barrier of the dividing wall.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Feb 16, 2019)

De Jager said:


> In Exodus it teaches that God actively hardened the heart of Pharoah.


WCF 5.6: 
As for those wicked and ungodly men whom God, as a righteous Judge, for former sins, doth blind and harden, (Rom. 1:24, 26, 28, Rom. 11:7-8) from them He not only withholdeth His grace whereby they might have been enlightened in their understandings, and wrought upon in their hearts; (Deut. 29:4) but sometimes also withdraweth the gifts which they had, (Matt. 13:12, Matt. 25:29) and exposeth them to such objects as their corruption make occasion of sin; (Deut. 2:30, 2 Kings 8:12-13) and, withal, gives them over to their own lusts, the temptations of the world, and the power of Satan, (Ps. 81:11-12, 2 Thess. 2:10-12) whereby it comes to pass that they harden themselves, even under those means which God useth for the softening of others. (*Exod. 7:3, Exod. 8:15,32*, 2 Cor. 2:15-16, Isa. 8:14, 1 Pet. 2:7-8, Isa. 6:9-10, Acts 28:26-27)​
The restraints of providence account for Pharaoh's change in letting the people go. His nature did not change, however. When the providential restraints are withdrawn by God, Pharaoh returned to his original purposes, thus hardened by the providence of God.

Robert Shaw's exposition of WCF 5.6: 
God cannot possibly solicit or seduce any man to sin; for this is inconsistent with the purity of his nature. - James i. 13,14. But, in righteous judgment, God sometimes permits persons to fall into one sin for the punishment of another. He deals in this way even with his own dear, but undutiful, children. Sometimes he leaves them for a season to temptations, and to the lusts of their own hearts, for their trial, or to discover to themselves the latent corruptions of their hearts, to humble them, and to excite them to more fervent prayer and unremitting watchfulness. Thus, God left Hezekiah to try him, that he might know, or make known, all that was in his heart.—2 Chron. xxxii. 31. Sometimes God deals in this manner with his own children to chastise them for their former sins. Thus, "_The anger of the Lord was kindled against Israel, and he moved David against them to say, Go number Israel and Judah_." - 2 Sam. xxiv. l. In Scripture, God is frequently said to harden wicked men for their former sins. *This he does, not by infusing any wickedness into their hearts, or by any direct and positive influence on their souls in rendering them obdurate, but by withholding his grace, which is necessary to soften their hearts, and which he is free to give or withhold as he pleases; by giving them over to their own hearts' lusts, to the temptations of the world, and the power of Satan; and by providentially placing them in each circumstances, or presenting such objects before them, as their corruption makes an occasion of hardening themselves*.​

Reactions: Like 2


----------

