A question about Ursinus on God's mercy to the reprobate

[Amazing Grace]

What other reason could exist? It is not me saying it, Christ said it of Judas actually. Christ said it would have been better if he wasnt even born!! There is no mercy involved in temporal life for the reprobate. No offerings of salvation, no holding out an olive branch. You do not find it cruel of God to do such a thing? I know what Ursinus is postulating and I disagree with him and you on positing some unsubstantiated desire in God. You must also have a different translation of Romans 9 than i do. :

I can see this is going to digress this thread. I will see where it goes. In closing, I am not doubting what Urisinus is saying. He is very clear in his words expressed. Common Grace and the WMO.

Yes, Christ said that of Judas ,however, the Scriptures don't say that is the Ultimate End for which they were created as you have eluded to. And also I believe it is dangerous ground to speak of some unsubstantiated desire in God. Here are there verses that I was speaking of, that more precisely address the end for which they were created;

22"What if God, although willing to demonstrate His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much (AQ)patience vessels of wrath (AR)prepared for destruction?

23And He did so to make known (AS)the riches of His glory upon (AT)vessels of mercy, which He prepared beforehand for glory," -Romans 9: 22-23

The problem with this discussion, is that when the words "common grace" and "free offer" are mentioned there is an immediate reading into that.....that God must have some intention to save the reprobate, that God did not provide an effectual limited atonoment but instead an universal atonement etc. And quite honestly, this is not a clear understanding of the traditional view of common grace or the free offer at all! Even the Westiminster Confession speaks of God's common grace to the reprobate. Calvin, Rutherford, Kuyper, Bavnick among others all held to this idea! For those that would like to understand the traditional view of common grace without jumping to immediate conclusions then I would suggest this article by Louis Berkhof: Common Grace by Louis Berkhof The Will of God and the Gospel Offer: Samuel Rutherford and Francis Turretin - The Westminster Presbyterian

Once someone has a proper understanding of the traditional view of common grace, then we talk more about this subject.

Like you Heidi, I have read legion of pages on the subject. Common benevolence I profess. Common Grace I deny. I assure you I am not jumping to conclusions. It is a good debate. I respect the other side.

 

[a mere housewife]

Like you Heidi, I have read legion of pages on the subject . . .

Robert, I haven't actually read a legion of pages -- on any subject (I read very slowly): the lovely Marianne Dashwood avatar is Yvonne . I'm going to have to concentrate on learning how to make manicotti, but did want to say thanks again to those who helped me understand about Ursinus' statements and how they reconcile with a theological framework. I have thought more about it, and I think I do understand better now.

 

[Prufrock]

Ronda, if I may be permitted to say, you are setting up a different formula than the Reformed churches profess. Yes, salvation, considered absolutely and a priori is free from conditions, since the very conditions of the covenant administered (e.g., faith, repentance) are part of the testamentary grant bestowed upon the elect. Nevertheless, in terms of the gospel call itself, the Reformed tradition is all but unanimous in affirming that it is conditional. If the covenant does not have any a posteriori conditions, then most of scripture is thrown out. See, for instance, WLC 32.

Yet God provides what he requires Paul. ie Faith and repentance. This is why it is no offer, but a bestowal of every promise that Comes from the hands of our Lord.

I explicitly said that in this very post which you have quoted. So I will say it again: "Yes, salvation, considered absolutely and a priori is free from conditions, since the very conditions of the covenant administered (e.g., faith and repentance) are part of the testamentary grant bestowed upon the elect."

Also, I don't want to get into a debate over whether "offer" is an appropriate term, but you also notice that I did not use the term above -- I only used the word "call."

 

[Idelette]

Even the Westiminster Confession speaks of God's common grace to the reprobate.

Can you kindly reference this for me? I'd like to take a look.

Yes, I am more than happy to.

"Berkof quotes this on page 435 in his Systematic Theology. On the same page Berkof quotes The Westminster Larger Confession as Q. 60, there has been a misprint and it should read Q.68 from the confession.

Q. 68. Are the elect only effectually called? A. All the elect, and they only, are effectually called:[279] although others may be, and often are, outwardly called by the ministry of the Word,[280] and have some common operations of the Spirit;[281] who, for their wilful neglect and contempt of the grace offered to them, being justly left in their unbelief, do never truly come to Jesus Christ.

Proofs for Q68:

Matthew 7:22. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? Hebrews 6:4-6. For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come, If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame.

Another biblical passage to support this grace of God acting in the heart of the sinner without actually saving him is shown in the Parable of the King and the Wedding Feast;

Math22:1 And Jesus answered and spake unto them again by parables, and said, [2] The kingdom of heaven is like unto a certain king, which made a marriage for his son, [3] And sent forth his servants to call them that were bidden to the wedding: and they would not come. [4] Again, he sent forth other servants, saying, Tell them which are bidden, Behold, I have prepared my dinner: my oxen and my fatlings are killed, and all things are ready: come unto the marriage. [5] But they made light of it, and went their ways, one to his farm, another to his merchandise: [6] And the remnant took his servants, and entreated them spitefully, and slew them. [7] But when the king heard thereof, he was wroth: and he sent forth his armies, and destroyed those murderers, and burned up their city. [8] Then saith he to his servants, The wedding is ready, but they which were bidden were not worthy. [9] Go ye therefore into the highways, and as many as ye shall find, bid to the marriage. [10] So those servants went out into the highways, and gathered together all as many as they found, both bad and good: and the wedding was furnished with guests. [11] And when the king came in to see the guests, he saw there a man which had not on a wedding garment: [12] And he saith unto him, Friend, how camest thou in hither not having a wedding garment? And he was speechless. [13] Then said the king to the servants, Bind him hand and foot, and take him away, and cast him into outer darkness; there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth. [14] For many are called, but few are chosen.

This parable of our Lord Jesus clearly shows that unsaved people are in the church, that they outwardly display a faith in Christ and yet when they come to judgment it is only the Lord who can distinguish them from true believers. This man had no wedding garment and this refers to the circumcision of the heart made in the rebirth. For unless a man is born again (John 3) he can nowise enter the kingdom of heaven. It further demonstrates the general call of the gospel to all men and that some men receive the news with joy and yet are never truly changed in the heart (Ezek.36:26) and (Ezk.11:19) and therefore remain in their original condition.

In conclusion, Common Grace (effects are ordinary i.e. not effectual) has confused many over the years mainly because of Kuiper’s categories of (1) and (2). Correctly stated these should be designated under God’s Providential Care for all His creatures. This would then agree with the WCF 1646 and then Common Grace would be limited to category (3) of Kuiper’s categories.

People may ask why has God called people into the church through an operation of the Holy Spirit? And yet leaves them without hope. This is not an easy answer and yet we must say that Jesus spoke about it in His parable of the Tares and the Wheat (Math.13:25-40) There are unbelievers in the church, we may not know who they are but God knows and it is His plan hat they are in the church and yet remain unsaved."

 

[py3ak]

I was confused as to the bolded portions of this quote from Ursinus' Commentary on the Heidelberg Catechism, Question 11, 'But is God also merciful?'

'Obj. He who rigorously exacts his right, shuts out every expectation of clemency. God rigorously exacts his right. Therefore with him there is no clemency. Or the objection may be thus stated: He who does not yield any thing in relation to his rights, is not merciful, but only just. God does not yield any thing as it respects his rights, because he punishes every sin with a punishment that corresponds with its just desert. Ans. We deny the minor proposition, because God, although he punishes sin with eternal punishment, does nevertheless yield much as it respects his right. He exhibits great clemency, for instance, towards the reprobate, for he defers the punishment which they deserve, and invites them to repentance by strong and powerful motives. And as to the punishment which he will inflict upon them in the world to come, it will be lighter than they deserved. . . . We also deny the major proposition, if applied either to him who is endowed with such wisdom that he can discover a method of exercising mercy without violating his justice, or when applied to him who, whilst he executes his justice, does not rejoice in the destruction of man, but would rather that he be saved. As a judge, when he passes the sentence upon a robber that he deserves to be put to the torture, and yet does not take pleasure in his punishment, exhibits great equity and clemency, even though he seems to exact the most rigorous demand of the law, so God is far more equitable and clement, although, in his just judgment, he punishes sin, for he does not delight in the destruction of the wicked, (Ez. 18:23; 33:11.) . . .'

This seems to go against what I have understood regarding God doing whatever He pleases and having no conflictedness in doing so. I also do not understand how it can be said that God will 'inflict' a punishment lighter than is deserved.

I want to agree with such statements; but I am unsure how to reconcile them with other things I have understood about God.

This doesn't answer your question about Ursinus himself, but I think gets at what lies behind your discomfort.

The first and second bolded phrases can be accepted by reading these illuminating comments from Thomas Goodwin. You will have to read from p.71 to p.72 at the following link:
Christ Our Mediator - Google Books

Your third and fourth bolded phrases are well addressed by Rutherford, at the link below, where you'll need to read from p.549-551
Christ dying and drawing sinners to ... - Google Books

If God rejoiced in destroying the wicked, they would be annihilated.

 

[Prufrock]

I love the way you two talk to each other on here

 

[py3ak]

Even married people occasionally have to talk!

 

[a mere housewife]

This doesn't answer your question about Ursinus himself, but I think gets at what lies behind your discomfort.

The first and second bolded phrases can be accepted by reading these illuminating comments from Thomas Goodwin. You will have to read from p.71 to p.72 at the following link:
Christ Our Mediator - Google Books

Your third and fourth bolded phrases are well addressed by Rutherford, at the link below, where you'll need to read from p.549-551
Christ dying and drawing sinners to ... - Google Books

If God rejoiced in destroying the wicked, they would be annihilated.

Yes, that answers the ground of my concerns about the first two quotes, which were indeed centered around a dim idea that the cross was necessary because God *must* exact all His due by nature. I think it's a little alarming that I can only remember coming across that [what Goodwin says at the first link] *affirmed* once before -- & in the Journal of Emily Shore; either my memory, or the world, is less than it used to be.

They won't let me get to page 549 in the second link, no matter how hard I try? {edit: this is actually page '14' somehow, in the little box beside the 'contents' link}

I love the way you two talk to each other on here

Paul, I love the way Ruben talks to me on here too. Of course he isn't big on 'public displays of affection', so I try to avoid calling him 'poookie woookie' -- it can be extremely difficult, at times. As you may imagine.

 

[py3ak]

Yes, but if you look at the page numbers on the scan you will see 549,550,551 and so forth.

 

[Mushroom]

Paul, I love the way Ruben talks to me on here too. Of course he isn't big on 'public displays of affection', so I try to avoid calling him 'poookie woookie' -- it can be extremely difficult, at times. As you may imagine.

We can imagine, Heidi. I myself have a hard time not calling him 'Batibooie Ratitooie'.

 

[Idelette]

Even the Westiminster Confession speaks of God's common grace to the reprobate.

Can you kindly reference this for me? I'd like to take a look.

Westminster Confession of Faith VII/III; Larger Catechism Ans. 32, 63, 68; Shorter Catechism Ans. 31 and 86).

 

[Reformed Rush]

Even the Westiminster Confession speaks of God's common grace to the reprobate.

Can you kindly reference this for me? I'd like to take a look.

Westminster Confession of Faith VII/III; Larger Catechism Ans. 32, 63, 68; Shorter Catechism Ans. 31 and 86).

The WCF speaks of the "common workings of the Spirit" which, unfortunately is often confused with God extending a common "grace" to all men.

The workings of the Holy Spirit can be resisted.

The grace of God is irresistible.

Careful distinctions between temporal providences from God that prolong physical life and postpone judgment; and the eternal grace provided by God that actually saves souls unto everlasting life, should be kept, when studying and speaking on these subjects.

I believe this distinction exists within the WCF, if we are careful to read our fathers as they desired to teach the grace of God, and not be caught up with the lies of the false gospels of our times.

It is my opinion that all temporal benevolence (patience and long-suffering with sins) enjoyed by sinful mankind, is only meant by God, to benefit the survival and salvation of His Elect in Christ.

The Father is Christ-Centered, and so must we be, when delving into the words of Promise and the biblical definitions of His mercy and grace.