Is God active at all in the reprobate?

[Jon_]

Rutherford shows here (sorry about the quaint olde English) that there is a desire in God for all to repent and for none to perish.

He further shows clearly , that this desire , is NOT the same type of desire that you have assumed I have been speaking of Jon.​

For If It were God's absolute desire to save all mankind , then certainly He would do it! (on this point we both agree) ​

Yet , should it be said , because God has no absolute desire to save every man , then He has no desire to save every man , then that would be false.​

The desire God has , that all are saved is a desire is complacent , unfeigned and a desire of approval.​

viz, that Men would repent and not suffer for their sin is pleasing to God.​

as I attempted to show by my illustration of the man losing his arm to save his wife , he desired to keep His arm (considered from a desire of complacency and approval) He desired to lose his arm (considered from a desire of action)​

These are both desires , but not in the same sense.​

I wish you wouldn't name-drop so much, but would respond to my arguments.

In any case, allow me to demonstrate the logic of your argument here:

Premise #1) God does not desire all men be saved.
Premise #2) God does desire that every man be saved.
Conclusion) Therefore, God does not desire all men be saved, but he desires that every man be saved.

How do you expect me to respond to this? How is this not completely and totally contradictory?

You are continuing to equivocate on "desire." You try to show that God can have different salvific desires. This is illogical. The sense is desire of salvific status—God's desire regarding the state of the soul of the person. The sense, the end of which I am speaking, is the eternal state of the person's soul. You cannot equivocate on this. There isn't even a way to conceptualize how God could desire the reprobate's soul to be eternally saved and be eternally damned. That is a flat-out contradiction. It is irreconcilable.

What is happening here is you are introducing ambiguity into your understanding of desire by assuming that God wants every man to come to him and repent on his own (complacent desire), but that he is not going to regenerate them, thus allowing them to succeed (I'll call this effective desire).

The problem with this position is that only one of these desires leads to salvation, i.e. effective desire. Complacent desire does not lead to salvation, so it is fallacious to say that God complacently desires the reprobate be saved. His only desire to salvation is his effective desire: "But our God is in the heavens: he hath done whatsoever he hath pleased" (Ps. 115:3 AV, also cf. Job 23:13).

So, again, the problem with your lose arm/save wife illustration is that it is non-applicable to God, for "he hath done whatsoever he hath pleased."

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon​

 

[cygnusx1]

Oh, no! More ambiguity!

where is the ambiguity .......... you believe that some men were created for the sole purpose of damning them , but you feel for them just the same ....... the mind boggles!

Mmm, more fallacies of distraction. You have completely avoided the main point of my counter-argument, viz. that the man is incapable of doing both, whereas God is capable of doing both. Your illustration fails to even establish a basis for the comparison.

It wasn't meant as an illustration of Sovereignty , but an illustration of negative and positive desire . The man wanted to keep his arm (God desires the Reprobate to Repent ) the man also has another desire which is at cross purposes with keeping His arm (God has another desire which certainly involves damnation Romans 9)
From one point of view the man wants his arm , from another point of view the man forfiets that GENUINE desire.

Anthropopathisms, actually. I misused the term back when we originally discussed this.

No, it means God was not humanly sorry, grieved, or angry. Two different senses—no contradiction.

well , was God grieved or not ?

There is only one applicable sense to the subject, Cygnus: the salvation of the reprobate. There is only one desire: God's desire regarding the salvation of the reprobate. You cannot equivocate on this by saying God has multiple desires with regards to the salvation of the reprobate. That is just to speak nonsense.

we are speaking past each other .....

No, I understand your point there. What I don't understand is how this relates to God desiring the salvation of the reprobate. For the elect, he regenerates them and gives them the gift of faith. For the reprobate, he denies them both.

For a higher desire .................... the Arminian says , to uphold man's free-will ......... The Calvinist says to Uphold God's glory (Rom 9)

Yes, you did. Without logic, you wouldn't even know what "Christ" means. For instance, if the law of contradiction doesn't exist, then there is no basis for saying that "Christ" is Christ and not "bacon." Since you have eliminated the universal rule that says nothing can contradict, and by extension, the law of identity which says that something is what it is, then you can completely abandoned the foundation from which you can judge anything to be true. If the laws of logic are not true, then A does not have to equal A, A can be non-A and nothing must either be A or non-A.

I didn't say without logic .......

Cite your source, please.

Die verfluchte Huhre, Vernunft. (The damned harlot, Reason).
Reason is the Devil's greatest harlot; by nature and manner of being she is a noxious harlot; she is a prostitute, the Devil's appointed harlot; harlot eaten by scab and leprosy who ought to be trodden under foot and destroyed, she and her wisdom ... Throw dung in her face to make her ugly. She is and she ought to be drowned in baptism... She would deserve, the wretch, to be banished to the filthiest place in the house, to the closets.
Martin Luther, Erlangen Edition v. 16, pp. 142-148





There is on earth among all dangers no more dangerous thing than a richly endowed and adroit reason... Reason must be deluded, blinded, and destroyed.
Martin Luther, quoted by Walter Kaufmann, The Faith of a Heretic, (Garden City, NY, Doubleday, 1963), p. 75

catch you later brother .......... I need a break

 

[cygnusx1]

[/color]
I wish you wouldn't name-drop so much, but would respond to my arguments.

In any case, allow me to demonstrate the logic of your argument here:

Premise #1) God does not desire all men be saved.
Premise #2) God does desire that every man be saved.
Conclusion) Therefore, God does not desire all men be saved, but he desires that every man be saved.

How do you expect me to respond to this? How is this not completely and totally contradictory?

You are continuing to equivocate on "desire." You try to show that God can have different salvific desires. This is illogical. The sense is desire of salvific status—God's desire regarding the state of the soul of the person. The sense, the end of which I am speaking, is the eternal state of the person's soul. You cannot equivocate on this. There isn't even a way to conceptualize how God could desire the reprobate's soul to be eternally saved and be eternally damned. That is a flat-out contradiction. It is irreconcilable.

What is happening here is you are introducing ambiguity into your understanding of desire by assuming that God wants every man to come to him and repent on his own (complacent desire), but that he is not going to regenerate them, thus allowing them to succeed (I'll call this effective desire).

The problem with this position is that only one of these desires leads to salvation, i.e. effective desire. Complacent desire does not lead to salvation, so it is fallacious to say that God complacently desires the reprobate be saved. His only desire to salvation is his effective desire: "But our God is in the heavens: he hath done whatsoever he hath pleased" (Ps. 115:3 AV, also cf. Job 23:13).

So, again, the problem with your lose arm/save wife illustration is that it is non-applicable to God, for "he hath done whatsoever he hath pleased."

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon[/left]

and that is because you have such a limited view of desire that you quote one passage (job) to the utter expense of all others!

You cannot even see a complacent desire in God for the Reprobate ......... just sheer Hatred!

I wonder what spirit this is?

Your view of God is more anti-Christian than the Arminian!

Just ask around , those who are Reformed , about God making men merely to damn them , and then you say you feel for these men , I fail to see why!!!

 

[Jon_]

and that is because you have such a limited view of desire that you quote one passage (job) to the utter expense of all others!

Oh, what expense is that?

You cannot even see a complacent desire in God for the Reprobate ......... just sheer Hatred!

Aw, tsk, tsk. When have I even used the word "hatred" in any of this? In fact, I readily acknowledged that God loves the reprobate, shows them kindness, is longsuffering toward them, and bears much more than they could ever warrant.

I wonder what spirit this is?

Your view of God is more anti-Christian than the Arminian!

More mud slinging?

Just ask around , those who are Reformed , about God making men merely to damn them , and then you say you feel for these men , I fail to see why!!!

You fail to see a lot of things.

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

 

[Jon_]

where is the ambiguity .......... you believe that some men were created for the sole purpose of damning them , but you feel for them just the same ....... the mind boggles!

Interesting argument. I love the reprobate because God commands me to do so. What other reason do I need? It's certainly not ambiguous.

It wasn't meant as an illustration of Sovereignty , but an illustration of negative and positive desire . The man wanted to keep his arm (God desires the Reprobate to Repent ) the man also has another desire which is at cross purposes with keeping His arm (God has another desire which certainly involves damnation Romans 9)

From one point of view the man wants his arm , from another point of view the man forfiets that GENUINE desire.

Okay, once more, the illustration doesn't work because the man is incapable of effecting both desires whereas God is.

well , was God grieved or not ?

Anthropopathistically, yes.

we are speaking past each other .....

Well, I understand your position, I simply repudiate it. I see no support for it either scripturally or rationally.

For a higher desire .................... the Arminian says , to uphold man's free-will ......... The Calvinist says to Uphold God's glory (Rom 9)

This illustration doesn't work, either. The Arminian concept of "free-will" doesn't exist. The Arminian's interpretation of the text is wrong, whereas the Calvinist's interpertation is correct.

I didn't say without logic .......

Okay.

Die verfluchte Huhre, Vernunft. (The damned harlot, Reason).

Reason is the Devil's greatest harlot; by nature and manner of being she is a noxious harlot; she is a prostitute, the Devil's appointed harlot; harlot eaten by scab and leprosy who ought to be trodden under foot and destroyed, she and her wisdom ... Throw dung in her face to make her ugly. She is and she ought to be drowned in baptism... She would deserve, the wretch, to be banished to the filthiest place in the house, to the closets.
Martin Luther, Erlangen Edition v. 16, pp. 142-148

There is on earth among all dangers no more dangerous thing than a richly endowed and adroit reason... Reason must be deluded, blinded, and destroyed.
Martin Luther, quoted by Walter Kaufmann, The Faith of a Heretic, (Garden City, NY, Doubleday, 1963), p. 75

I'll have to look at this in context, but I would venture that Luther here is not talking about reason on its own, but reason bound to a sinful nature or sinful presuppositions, which prevent it from functioning as God intended. It is interesting that Luther says, "she and her wisdom," because Proverbs holds Wisdom in very high regard (cf. Proverbs, ch. 8).

catch you later brother .......... I need a break

Me too!

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

 

[edie19]

this sounds like Spurgeon ... anyway it's just biblical!

Now that's a compliment

 

[Elect]

Here folks , meet the High Calvinist in scripture , the ones who always will quote God's anger against Reprobates not His compassion for them!



Luk 9:54 And when His disciples James and John saw this, they said, "Lord, do You want us to command fire to come down from heaven and consume them?" 55 But He turned and rebuked them, and said, "You do not know what kind of spirit you are of; 56 for the Son of Man did not come to destroy men's lives, but to save them. "And they went on to another village.

Come on now! Who is calling fire down from Heaven to consume the reprobate? Everybody take a deep breath and get something to eat.

Define - Compassion.

God did not elect the reprobate and it would have been just as easy to elect them, as it would be to pass them over. All God would have to do is speak the word and the reprobate would come to Christ. Since He didn't, how can you call this love? God does not change. Is Hell filled with people that God LOVED and still does as they scream for mercy and curse Him day and night?

Define - The love of God

If God loved us while we were yet sinners that Christ died for us and why not for the reprobate? If the love of God is found in Christ Jesus, then what love is there outside of Christ Jesus? If we love Him, because He first loved us and God is loving the reprobate, then why don't the reprobate love Him?

The love that is being described for the reprobate is a very insufficient love from a more than sufficient God!

 

[Elect]

I, as one who believes in the Doctrines of Grace, try to be correct in my Theology and one of the ways that one goes about doing this is to be consistent all the way through. That means not to deviate one bit just because a saying might be uncomfortable to believe. I rejoice at every sinner that repents. The more the better. I want to see people saved!

 

[akolouthein]

Come on now! Who is calling fire down from Heaven to consume the reprobate? Everybody take a deep breath and get something to eat.

Define - Compassion.

God did not elect the reprobate and it would have been just as easy to elect them, as it would be to pass them over. All God would have to do is speak the word and the reprobate would come to Christ. Since He didn't, how can you call this love? God does not change. Is Hell filled with people that God LOVED and still does as they scream for mercy and curse Him day and night?

Define - The love of God

If God loved us while we were yet sinners that Christ died for us and why not for the reprobate? If the love of God is found in Christ Jesus, then what love is there outside of Christ Jesus? If we love Him, because He first loved us and God is loving the reprobate, then why don't the reprobate love Him?

The love that is being described for the reprobate is a very insufficient love from a more than sufficient God!

Thank you for your insight. Do you believe God has compassion at all for the reprobate? I was just reading some on spurgeon where he says that God has two types of love and that the love he has for the reprobate is not a redemptive love but a compassionate love . Do you hold to that at all? I'm trying to figure that one out a little

 

[reformedfan]

it's a 'common grace' type of 'love', i think more of a 'long suffering tolerance/ delayed loathing'. Look at Psalm 2, that doesn't sound especially loving in the 1 Cor 13 sense, but prolly all those kings of the earth had nice families that loved them, defeated enemies that paid them tribute & nice doggies that licked them & barked at bad guys for 'em.

Common grace, delayed judgment, kindness & mercy shown to those who don't deserve it cuz God is loving, but not in the saving grace way.

 

[akolouthein]

it's a 'common grace' type of 'love', i think more of a 'long suffering tolerance/ delayed loathing'. Look at Psalm 2, that doesn't sound especially loving in the 1 Cor 13 sense, but prolly all those kings of the earth had nice families that loved them, defeated enemies that paid them tribute & nice doggies that licked them & barked at bad guys for 'em.

Common grace, delayed judgment, kindness & mercy shown to those who don't deserve it cuz God is loving, but not in the saving grace way.

Thank yas Thats what I was thinking.

 

[5solas]

If you are looking to grow in your understanding of revelation, I would encourage you to study logic. Thinking rationally will enable you to fully understand an appreciate the doctrines of the word.

@cyg and @jon: it has been very interesting and challenging to follow your "dispute" - thank's a lot.

I agree that thinking rationally (to be sober-minded) will help us to understand God's Word better but I reject the idea that we will ever be able to fully understand all the doctrines of God as long as we are down here. If we could explain everything by logic and fully understand God using logic He would not be God anymore, would he? And I would like to add a warning here because we are all still sinners:

Pro 3:5 Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding.

Gill's comment:
and lean not unto thine own understanding; or trust not to that; for it stands opposed to trusting in the Lord. Men should not depend upon their own wisdom and understanding, in the conduct of civil life, but should seek the direction and blessing of Providence, or otherwise will meet with disappointment; and, when they succeed, should ascribe it not to their own prudence and wisdom, but to the goodness of God; for "bread" is not always "to the wise, nor riches to men of understanding", Ecc_9:11; and much less should men lean to their own understanding in matters of religion; a natural man has no understanding of spiritual things, of the things of the Gospel, nor indeed any practical understanding of things moral, Rom_3:11, Jer_4:22. The understanding of man is darkened by sin; yea, is darkness itself; it is like the first earth, covered with darkness, till light is let into it, and therefore not to be leaned unto and depended on, Eph_4:18. There is a necessity of a new heart and spirit, of an understanding to be given, in order to understand spiritual and divine things, Eze_36:26; for though these are not contrary to the reason and understanding of men; yet they are above them, and cannot be discovered, reached, comprehended, and accounted for by them, Mat_16:17. Nay, there are some things in the Gospel, which, though plain to an enlightened understanding by the word of God, yet the manner how they are cannot be apprehended: as the doctrines of a trinity of Persons; of the generation of the Son of God; the procession of the Spirit; the union of the two natures in Christ; the resurrection of the dead, &c. In short, not our reason and understanding at best, and much less as carnal and unsanctified, but the word of God only is our rule of judgment, and the standard of our faith and practice; and to that we should have recourse and be directed by it, and not lean to our own understandings.


What I do see in Scripture is that God shows mercy and kindness even to the reprobate (the fact that He created them is the first proof, the fact that He nourishes them is a further proof etc,) - how else could Jesus demand from us: Mat 5:44 But I say unto you,Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;
This is because the character of God is like this - He does not take pleasure in destroying the reprobate: Eze 18:32 For I have no pleasure in the death of him that dieth, saith the Lord GOD: wherefore turn yourselves, and live ye. Eze 33:11 Say unto them, As I live, saith the Lord GOD, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked; but that the wicked turn from his way and live: turn ye, turn ye from your evil ways; for why will ye die, O house of Israel?

Yet He does put them into the everlasting fire. Who can fully understand God then? I think Paul's answer is the best:

Rom 11:33 O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out! Rom 11:34 For who hath known the mind of the Lord? or who hath been his counsellor? Rom 11:35 Or who hath first given to him, and it shall be recompensed unto him again? Rom 11:36 For of him, and through him, and to him, are all things: to whom be glory for ever. Amen.

No way to find out the motives why God does things (not even by logic ) except because it pleases Him to do what He does! Praise the Lord for that!

 

[cygnusx1]

@cyg and @jon: it has been very interesting and challenging to follow your "dispute" - thank's a lot.

I agree that thinking rationally (to be sober-minded) will help us to understand God's Word better but I reject the idea that we will ever be able to fully understand all the doctrines of God as long as we are down here. If we could explain everything by logic and fully understand God using logic He would not be God anymore, would he? And I would like to add a warning here because we are all still sinners:

Pro 3:5 Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding.

Gill's comment:
and lean not unto thine own understanding; or trust not to that; for it stands opposed to trusting in the Lord. Men should not depend upon their own wisdom and understanding, in the conduct of civil life, but should seek the direction and blessing of Providence, or otherwise will meet with disappointment; and, when they succeed, should ascribe it not to their own prudence and wisdom, but to the goodness of God; for "bread" is not always "to the wise, nor riches to men of understanding", Ecc_9:11; and much less should men lean to their own understanding in matters of religion; a natural man has no understanding of spiritual things, of the things of the Gospel, nor indeed any practical understanding of things moral, Rom_3:11, Jer_4:22. The understanding of man is darkened by sin; yea, is darkness itself; it is like the first earth, covered with darkness, till light is let into it, and therefore not to be leaned unto and depended on, Eph_4:18. There is a necessity of a new heart and spirit, of an understanding to be given, in order to understand spiritual and divine things, Eze_36:26; for though these are not contrary to the reason and understanding of men; yet they are above them, and cannot be discovered, reached, comprehended, and accounted for by them, Mat_16:17. Nay, there are some things in the Gospel, which, though plain to an enlightened understanding by the word of God, yet the manner how they are cannot be apprehended: as the doctrines of a trinity of Persons; of the generation of the Son of God; the procession of the Spirit; the union of the two natures in Christ; the resurrection of the dead, &c. In short, not our reason and understanding at best, and much less as carnal and unsanctified, but the word of God only is our rule of judgment, and the standard of our faith and practice; and to that we should have recourse and be directed by it, and not lean to our own understandings.


What I do see in Scripture is that God shows mercy and kindness even to the reprobate (the fact that He created them is the first proof, the fact that He nourishes them is a further proof etc,) - how else could Jesus demand from us: Mat 5:44 But I say unto you,Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;
This is because the character of God is like this - He does not take pleasure in destroying the reprobate: Eze 18:32 For I have no pleasure in the death of him that dieth, saith the Lord GOD: wherefore turn yourselves, and live ye. Eze 33:11 Say unto them, As I live, saith the Lord GOD, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked; but that the wicked turn from his way and live: turn ye, turn ye from your evil ways; for why will ye die, O house of Israel?

Yet He does put them into the everlasting fire. Who can fully understand God then? I think Paul's answer is the best:

Rom 11:33 O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out! Rom 11:34 For who hath known the mind of the Lord? or who hath been his counsellor? Rom 11:35 Or who hath first given to him, and it shall be recompensed unto him again? Rom 11:36 For of him, and through him, and to him, are all things: to whom be glory for ever. Amen.

No way to find out the motives why God does things (not even by logic ) except because it pleases Him to do what He does! Praise the Lord for that!

AAA+++ 5SOLAS ........... A GREAT POST AND ONE I HEARTILY AGREE WITH !

GOD BLESS YOU FOR YOUR INPUT !
GREETINGS
CYGNUS

 

[cygnusx1]

it's a 'common grace' type of 'love', i think more of a 'long suffering tolerance/ delayed loathing'. Look at Psalm 2, that doesn't sound especially loving in the 1 Cor 13 sense, but prolly all those kings of the earth had nice families that loved them, defeated enemies that paid them tribute & nice doggies that licked them & barked at bad guys for 'em.

Common grace, delayed judgment, kindness & mercy shown to those who don't deserve it cuz God is loving, but not in the saving grace way.

Hi reformedfan

It certainly is a common grace type of Love , but the Calvinist Denomination (PRC) who deny The ''sincere offer in the Gospel'' to all men ........ also deny common grace even exists , and also denied is that God has ANY love whatsoever for the reprobate............ I just wonder why some posting here haven't also said as much.... perhaps they haven't rationalised that far yet ?


The heart of the Gospel is Love ......... not Sovereignty!

''For God so controlled the world'' , just doesn't cut it ................. and yes I am a firm 5 point Calvinist who believes in Reprobation for sin.

 

[cygnusx1]

Come on now! Who is calling fire down from Heaven to consume the reprobate? Everybody take a deep breath and get something to eat.

Define - Compassion.

God did not elect the reprobate and it would have been just as easy to elect them, as it would be to pass them over. All God would have to do is speak the word and the reprobate would come to Christ. Since He didn't, how can you call this love? God does not change. Is Hell filled with people that God LOVED and still does as they scream for mercy and curse Him day and night?

Define - The love of God

If God loved us while we were yet sinners that Christ died for us and why not for the reprobate? If the love of God is found in Christ Jesus, then what love is there outside of Christ Jesus? If we love Him, because He first loved us and God is loving the reprobate, then why don't the reprobate love Him?

The love that is being described for the reprobate is a very insufficient love from a more than sufficient God!

Consider that God's will is multi faceted , He cannot make a square triangle , He cannot make a round triangle ....... not through lack of power but because it is a contradiction.

Now consider God wills you to walk before Him in all Holiness , spotless!
Has God decreed that this will happen ?
No!
The point is that there are different ways of understanding the Will of God , and God's will is complex.

Now consider that God wants everyone saved , but He also desires to show forth MERCY : Mercy needs a backdrop of Sovereignty , it cannot exist under any type of merit whatsoever.
So contrasting Mercy is Reprobation .......... Romans 9
Should it be argued that God really didn't desire the reprobate in any sense to be saved ........... because God Reprobates them , then that is arguing God cannot desire conditionaly ........... ie, depending upon His higher desires.

He can.

I may donate my kidney to save my wife , I truly desire different things in different ways , I obviously want to keep my kidney , yet my priority is for my wife to live.

God's priority is His Glory , but in truth God does not willingly afflict the son's of men.

Greetings Cygnus

 

[reformedfan]

Hi reformedfan

It certainly is a common grace type of Love , but the Calvinist Denomination (PRC) who deny The ''sincere offer in the Gospel'' to all men ........ also deny common grace even exists , and also denied is that God has ANY love whatsoever for the reprobate............ I just wonder why some posting here haven't also said as much.... perhaps they haven't rationalised that far yet ?


The heart of the Gospel is Love ......... not Sovereignty!

''For God so controlled the world'' , just doesn't cut it ................. and yes I am a firm 5 point Calvinist who believes in Reprobation for sin.

the heart of the Gospel is love, but only the Trinity makes it effectual in a sinners heart- so it's application is firmly entrenched & unseparatable from sovereignty.

What's the PRC?

Common grace/ delayed judgment shows God's "love" for the reprobate, is there 2 definitions of 'love" being used in this thread? I think of it in terms of salvation, eternal love, not so much warm fuzzy feelings or even 1 Co 13 when applied to the reproabate, but it isn't something i've really studied. It is an issue i should study more & apply more.

God doesn't hear the prayers of the wicked & everything they do is sin: including reading the Bible, doing good deeds, etc- that's not love in action, in the sense that i think of love. Is God active in the reproabate? In Him we all live & move & have our being Paul told a buncha idolatrous Greeks who he wasn't sure of who the elect were & weren't. But he didn't say God loved them all, & John 3:16 doesn't say that either, given Malachi 4:5-6.

i'm rambling in my confusion, as though i suffered a fresh head injury, sorry . So what are you saying? God loves everybody, but only the elect He loves eternally? Why didn't He hand out rebukes for the impreccatory Psalms, then? Are those loving in the 1 Co 13, free offer of the Gospel (which is a sincere offer, to all, BTW) way? I don't get it, you are talking over my head, sorry. Do you mind resaying differently what you said?

 

[cygnusx1]

the heart of the Gospel is love, but only the Trinity makes it effectual in a sinners heart- so it's application is firmly entrenched & unseparatable from sovereignty.

What's the PRC?

Common grace/ delayed judgment shows God's "love" for the reprobate, is there 2 definitions of 'love" being used in this thread? I think of it in terms of salvation, eternal love, not so much warm fuzzy feelings or even 1 Co 13 when applied to the reproabate, but it isn't something i've really studied. It is an issue i should study more & apply more.

God doesn't hear the prayers of the wicked & everything they do is sin: including reading the Bible, doing good deeds, etc- that's not love in action, in the sense that i think of love. Is God active in the reproabate? In Him we all live & move & have our being Paul told a buncha idolatrous Greeks who he wasn't sure of who the elect were & weren't. But he didn't say God loved them all, & John 3:16 doesn't say that either, given Malachi 4:5-6.

i'm rambling in my confusion, as though i suffered a fresh head injury, sorry . So what are you saying? God loves everybody, but only the elect He loves eternally? Why didn't He hand out rebukes for the impreccatory Psalms, then? Are those loving in the 1 Co 13, free offer of the Gospel (which is a sincere offer, to all, BTW) way? I don't get it, you are talking over my head, sorry. Do you mind resaying differently what you said?

maybe this quote will help you , take your time to read and absorb the issue , and click on the highlighted parts for more info ........ Greetings Cygnus

3. The denial of the gospel offer. Type-3 hyper-Calvinism is based on a denial that the gospel makes any "offer" of Christ, salvation, or mercy to the non-elect. An alternative of this view merely denies that the offer of divine mercy is free and universal. For an excellent discussion of this issue, see "The Free Offer of the Gospel," by John Murray and Ned B. Stonehouse (also available at the Orthodox Presbyterian Church's Web site).

If the hyper-Calvinists in England tend to be Baptists, in America the Presbyterian variety seems more common. The best-known American hyper-Calvinists are the Protestant Reformed Churches (PRC). They deny that there is any sort of "offer" (in the sense of a proffer or tender or proposal of mercy) in the gospel message. They also deny that they are hyper-Calvinists, because they insist that the only variety of hyper-Calvinism is that which denies the gospel call (Type-1 above).

The most articulate advocate of the PRC position is David Engelsma, whose book Hyper-Calvinism and the Call of the Gospel is an interesting but in my view terribly misleading study of the question of whether PRC theology properly qualifies as hyper-Calvinism. Engelsma does some selective quoting and interpretive gymnastics in order to argue that his view is mainstream Reformed theology. But a careful reading of his sources shows that he often quotes out of context, or ends a quote just before a qualifying statement that would totally negate the point he thinks he has made. Still, for those interested in these issues, I recommend his book, with a caution to read it very critically and with careful discernment.

4. The denial of common grace. The Protestant Reformed Churches (see #3 above) grew out of a controversy between Herman Hoeksema and the Christian Reformed Churches over the issue of common grace. Hoeksema denied that there is any such thing as common grace, and in the midst of the controversy, the PRC was founded.

The idea of common grace is implicit throughout Scripture. "The Lord is good to all: and his tender mercies are over all his works" (Ps. 145:9). "He doth execute the judgment of the fatherless and widow, and loveth the stranger, in giving him food and raiment. Love ye therefore the stranger: for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt" (Deut. 10:18-19). "Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; that ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven" (Matt. 5:44-45).

The distinction between common grace and special grace closely parallels the distinction between the general call and the effectual call. Common grace is extended to everyone. It is God's goodness to humanity in general whereby God graciously restrains the full expression of sin and mitigates sin's destructive effects in human society. Common grace imposes moral constraints on people's behavior, maintains a semblance of order in human affairs, enforces a sense of right and wrong through conscience and civil government, enables men and women to appreciate beauty and goodness, and imparts blessings of all kinds to elect and non-elect alike. God "causes His sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous" (Matt. 5:45). That is common grace.

The doctrine of common grace has a long history that goes all the way back to Calvin and even Augustine. But type-4 hyper-Calvinism denies the concept, insisting that God has no true goodwill toward the non-elect and therefore shows them no favor or "grace" of any kind.

5. The denial of God's love toward the reprobate. Type-5 hyper-Calvinism is closely related to type-4. To deny that God in any sense loves the reprobate is to suggest that God holds us to a higher standard than He himself follows, for he instructs us to love our enemies—and Scripture teaches that when we love our enemies, we are behaving like God, who shows lovingkindness even to the reprobate (Deut. 10:18; Matt. 5:44-45).

Furthermore, to insist that God's demeanor toward the non-elect is always and only hatred is a de facto denial of common grace—the same error of type-4 hyper-Calvinism.

There are some who hold this view, yet manage (by being inconsistent) to avoid other hyper-Calvinist opinions. The most influential advocate of the type-5 position was Arthur Pink. I hesitate to label him a hyper-Calvinist, frankly, because he fought the stronger varieties of hyper-Calvinism in his later years. A few other Puritan and mainstream Reformed theologians have also denied the love of God to the reprobate. They are a distinct minority, but they nonetheless have held this view. It's a hyper-Calvinistic tendency, but not all who hold the view are hyper-Calvinists in any other respect.

This error stems from a failure to differentiate between God's redemptive love, which is reserved for the elect alone, and His love of compassion, which is expressed in the goodness He shows to all His creatures (cf. Matt. 5:44-45; Acts 14:17). For an excellent antidote to the notion that God loves no one but the elect, see R. L. Dabney's superb article, "God's Indiscriminate Proposals of Mercy."

http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/articles/hypercal.htm

 

[Jon_]

The problem with the term "common grace" is that it is terribly ambiguous. What is common grace? If it refers to God's love for all men, his kindness and longsuffering toward them, and his willingness to endure their sins so that his plan may be made manifest, then neither I nor the PRC disagree with common grace. If common grace means that all of the above things are intended to draw all men everywhere to repentance, then both I and the PRC disagree with common grace.

Where I part with the PRC is that they acknowledge all of the above things, but they assert that these things are directed toward the reprobate to harden their hearts and prepare them for judgment. I disagree with this. I believe that God is substantively gracious toward all men because it is in his nature to love. Nevertheless, he loves his elect in remarkably higher regard, even unto salvation.

We must also recall that the Bible speaks of God hating sinners. Now, far be it from me to over-emphasize God's hatred, but this is a biblical teaching, one that we cannot simply ignore. I believe that God loves all men commonly, sustains them, brings them temporal blessings, shows them kindness and long-suffering. This is what I would call "common grace." God also has a redemptive love for his elect. This love is effectual to salvation. God does not have this same love for the reprobate. I believe that it is in this sense that God hates them. Instead of having salvific love for the reprobate, he has vengeful hatred toward them. Because of his "common grace" (using the term as I established it above), he sustains and endures them, but he is storing up wrath and will soon (at Christ's second coming) unleash his vengeful hatred toward them.

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

 

[reformedfan]

ok, is this right? i was thinking this disagreement was in the minds of people, but really the whole 'is the offer of the Gospel sincere or not' controversy deals with the offer in the mind of God? Woah, yeah, i never thought of that. I mean, i go to the jail & tell 'em the Gospel cuz i don't know if they are the elect or not, those that are the elect will convert, that's up to God. I am sincere: but this deals with 'since God knows the elect won't convert, am i lying when i tell them all the Gospel cuz God wants them to go to hell, so He is only sincere to the elect'?, right?

ok, yeah, no i'm not lying, neither is God, God is sincere & so is the offer of the Gospel & anyonew who thinks otherwise is a hyper Calvinist, right?

But i still think God hates the wicked, & the only love He demonstrates to them is common grace, wich He does cuz He is good & longsuffering & all that, is that hyperCalvinistic? (&yikes, i've used Gertrude Hoeksema's Suffer Little Children in home schooling my lot for years & only disagree with her premill'ism & her take on the book of Esther. Hmmm...)

Thanx so much for the article & links!!

 

[Jon_]

ok, is this right? i was thinking this disagreement was in the minds of people, but really the whole 'is the offer of the Gospel sincere or not' controversy deals with the offer in the mind of God? Woah, yeah, i never thought of that. I mean, i go to the jail & tell 'em the Gospel cuz i don't know if they are the elect or not, those that are the elect will convert, that's up to God. I am sincere: but this deals with 'since God knows the elect won't convert, am i lying when i tell them all the Gospel cuz God wants them to go to hell, so He is only sincere to the elect'?, right?

The correct delivery is that Jesus Christ died to save what was lost. And if you will confess your sins and accept Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior, you will be saved. It is not correct to say that "God wants you to be saved," or "Jesus died for your sins," because you do not know if that is true or not. The only way you could know that is if you knew the person was elect, but nobody knows who the elect are.

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon