Is God active at all in the reprobate?

[reformedfan]

right, i wouldn't dream of throwing arminian Gospel additions into it; but doesn't this issue deal with the Gospel in God's opinion vs the Gospel in our opinion?

& doesn't God hate the wicked, since He knows ultimately they are created for destruction & designed to demonstrate His longsuffering of the reprobate & His mercy for the elect, Romans 9 something?

 

[cygnusx1]

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!!

I find this quote full of light ..... it is worth reading the entire page ... if you have the time

5. The Love of God to the Reprobate and the Hatred of God to the Elect – huh? (Yes, I understand what I wrote in this heading)

No doubt, Hyper-Calvinists believe that God only hates the reprobate, and only loves the elect, in any sense whatsoever. Hyper-Calvinism completely denies that God loves men generally in any way and completely denies that God hates the elect in any way. It may seem at the outset that a general love to all men is not as radical as my inference that God hates the elect in some way. But I will qualify this.

First, God does have a general love for all men. This is usually deemed “common grace” but I am more comfortable with the precise term, God’s indiscriminate providence. God demonstrates intended goodness to the wicked by lavishing upon them worldly goods. Cars, apples, houses, careers, families, etc, all given to them by God. God’s intention in this is to display His glory, and these objects are a means whereby God will draw men unto Himself. If the wicked use them as a means to procure wrath, then they are always living to fill up the measure of their sin. But that does not negate the intended purpose of those gifts. They display the goodness and righteousness of God to those people. To deny this is to deny the blatant texts (Luke 2:8-14; John 3:17; Ezek. 33:7-11; Psalm 145; Isa. 62:1-3)

Second, God does hate the wicked as rebellious sinners. The Bible also teaches this as in Psalm 5:1, “Thou hatest all workers of iniquity.” And also Romans 9:13, “Jacob I loved, Esau I hated.” This is not a disputed fact. It is a denial of His general love for all men that is in question. But I do not sit in small company with this. Calvin states, “Proofs of the love of God towards the whole human race exist innumerable, all which demonstrate the ingratitude of those who perish or come to perdition.” (John Calvin, Calvin’s Calvinism, A Treatise on the Eternal Predestination of God, translated by Henry Cole, Reformed Free Publishing Association, Grandville, MI: 1950. Page 268.) Turretin distinguishes them precisely. He says, “Although the goodness of God extends itself to all creatures, yet not equally, but exhibits the greatest diversity in the communication of good. Hence, one is general (by which he follows all creatures, Psalm 36:6-7); and other special (which he has respect to men, Acts 14:17) and another most special (relating to the elect and referred to in psalm 73:1, “God is good to Israel.”)…From goodness flows love by which he communicates Himself to the creature and, as it were, wills to unite himself with and do good to it, but in diverse ways and degrees according to the diversity of the objects. Hence usually is made a threefold distinction in the divine love: the first, that which follows all creatures, called “love of the creature” (philoktisia); the second, that by which He embraces men called “love of man” (philoanthropia); third, which is specially exercised towards the elect called “love of the elect” (eklectophilia).” (Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, Volume 1, Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, Phillipsburg, NJ: 1992. Page 241) John Owen states, “That God is good to all men, and bountiful, being a wise, powerful, liberal provider for the works of his hands, and in innumerable dispensations and various communications of his goodness to them, and may in that regard be said to have a universal love for them all is granted…” I also quote him as follows, “Love to all mankind in general we acknowledge to be required of us, and we are debtors in the fruits of it to the whole creation of God: for he hath not only implanted the principles of it in nature whereof we are in common partakers with the whole race and kind, whereunto all hatred and its effects were originally foreign, and introduced by the devil, nor only given us his command for it, enlarging on its grounds and reasons in the gospel; but in his design of recovering us out of our lapsed condition unto a conformity with himself, proposeth in a special manner the example of his own love and goodness, which are extended unto all, for our imitation, Matthew 5:44-45.” (John Owen, Works, Volume 15, Banner of Truth, Carlisle, PA: 1966. Page 70, and Works, Volume 12, Banner of Truth, Carlisle, PA: 1966. Page 552.)



http://www.apuritansmind.com/PuritanWorship/McMahonABriefCritiqueOfHyper-Calvinism.htm

 

[Jon_]

right, i wouldn't dream of throwing arminian Gospel additions into it; but doesn't this issue deal with the Gospel in God's opinion vs the Gospel in our opinion?

Yes, that is actually a very good way of putting it. God's understanding of the Gospel and his plan for it is different from our understanding. We are commanded to obey the Gospel and spread it to all people everywhere, but God knows those he has foreordained to receive it.

& doesn't God hate the wicked, since He knows ultimately they are created for destruction & designed to demonstrate His longsuffering of the reprobate & His mercy for the elect, Romans 9 something?

Yes, he does, but he also shows them grace through love by sustaining them, providing them food, shelter, and temporal pleasures. But while he loves them as a Father, he is also a righteous Judge "who will by no means clear the guilty." He allows them to disobey and rebel because he is a patient Father, but their souls will be judged for the same sins.

In this sense, God has a vengeful hatred for the reprobate, but he also has a gracious love for them. Because God shows this gracious love to all men, we are to also show the same love. We are also to hate "every false precept," just as God does. This is where the age-old adage, "Hate the sin, but love the sinner," comes from. It is mostly correct. We hate the soul of the reprobate just as God does because it is wicked to the core, but we also show kindness, longsuffering, and love toward them because our Father does also.

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

 

[Jon_]

God’s indiscriminate providence.

This is a much better term than common grace. I think I will use this intead. Thanks, Cyg.

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

 

[reformedfan]

love as in common grace, but not love in the salvation sense; that's the right way to think, right? I always wondered what that meant that Jesus loved the RYR who turned his back on him, i must not be defining love right

 

[Jon_]

love as in common grace, but not love in the salvation sense; that's the right way to think, right?

Yes, that is precisely correct. We are talking about two different senses:

1) God's love for his creation. Remember that God provides for all animals on the earth. His "indiscriminate providence" (great term!) extends to all creatures.

2) God's love for his elect. This is God's salvific love that effects salvation for all of his chosen ones.

I always wondered what that meant that Jesus loved the RYR who turned his back on him, i must not be defining love right

RYR? I'm not familiar with that abbreviation.

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

 

[cygnusx1]

When preaching The Gospel , we proclaim The Good News ......... we tell sinners that Christ came , Christ died and Christ arose again for sinners.

We tell them that God Loved the world so much that He sent His only begotten Son that whosoever should believe on Him shall not perish !

That Is really GOOD NEWS !

we tell men that they are in need of a Saviour , they have broken God's Law , and God is pleased to grant this day an opportunity to be saved.

We call sinners most urgently , in all sincerity , and indiscriminately.

We do not call sinners indiscriminately and proclaim salvation upon set conditions that may not apply to certain men.
We state quite clearly that all men have sinned and a suitable sacrifice for all sinners has been accomplished .

We do not have to worry if one man is elect and one man is not .......... The message is the same, GOOD NEWS!

We do not need to hide behind any arguement or device that would indicate we can invite all men to salvation , based upon the idea that we do not know who is elect and who is not , it makes no difference ........ God invites all!

Should it be argued that there is a real difference between that which we are commanded to preach , and God's CONTRARY WILL ie, He doesn't really want all men saved ........... then we are preaching not The Gospel of God , but a perversion of it.
We would then be telling some men that God has called them , when He hasn't , that God has proclaimed good news , when He hasn't , and that there is a genuine offer of redemption , when there isn't!

Too many times , calvinist's almost without thinking , hide behind the idea that because they do not know who the Elect are ......... therefore they are free to preach to all ...........

This is totally at odds with the scripture .
1. We are ambassadors , it is not OUR Gospel , it is God's.
2. It is not we who are calling these sinners to repent , it ios God in us doing it.
3. Jesus preached the Gospel to all men , and He knew who would believe and who wouldn't ........... it did not change or alter his message.

 

[reformedfan]

RYR? I'm not familiar with that abbreviation.

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

the rich young ruler. He sez he's kept all of the commandments from his youth, (yeah right) & Jesus loved him & further expounded on them. In what sense did He love him? In the sense that in His common grace on the wicked, that He continued to explain what it is that justifies a sinner to him, right? Not that He loved him & the dude ended up going to heaven (unless he converted later & were not told of it), that's not hyper Calvinistic, is it?

 

[reformedfan]

i don't say Christ died for sinners, but that He died for those who turn to Him in faith & repentance, & that all are commanded to turn to Him in faith & repentance, knowing that only the elect will be enabled to obey that.

 

[Jon_]

Should it be argued that there is a real difference between that which we are commanded to preach , and God's CONTRARY WILL ie, He doesn't really want all men saved ........... then we are preaching not The Gospel of God , but a perversion of it.

This is, of course, what was at issue in our debate. I thoroughly repudiate this unsubstantiated idea that God can command (preach to all men) what he does not desire (not all men will be saved). If this were true, then it would be impossible to even sin because this would be doing what God commands, but does not desire. This argument is terribly flawed.

We would then be telling some men that God has called them , when He hasn't , that God has proclaimed good news , when He hasn't , and that there is a genuine offer of redemption , when there isn't!

This does not follow.

1. We are ambassadors , it is not OUR Gospel , it is God's.

And? God commands all men to believe, but only desires the belief of his elect. This is the Gospel, therefore, we command all men to believe on Jesus Christ, as this is their duty to God.

2. It is not we who are calling these sinners to repent , it ios God in us doing it.

Does anyone truly deny this? I defy someone to proclaim to me that their delivery of the Gospel converted the sinner. That is blasphemous.

3. Jesus preached the Gospel to all men , and He knew who would believe and who wouldn't ........... it did not change or alter his message.

Precisely. And what was Jesus's message?

(John 6:39 AV) And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day.
​

The Father has not given the Son all men, but:

(John 6:40 AV) And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.
​

And how does one see the Son?

(John 3:3 AV) Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.
​

And whence comes faith?

(Eph. 2:8 AV) For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
​

This is the Gospel that Jesus preached and the one that we should preach.

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

 

[Jon_]

the rich young ruler. He sez he's kept all of the commandments from his youth, (yeah right) & Jesus loved him & further expounded on them. In what sense did He love him? In the sense that in His common grace on the wicked, that He continued to explain what it is that justifies a sinner to him, right? Not that He loved him & the dude ended up going to heaven (unless he converted later & were not told of it), that's not hyper Calvinistic, is it?

In Matthew 19:20? I don't notice anything in the text explicitly mentioning that Jesus loved him, but yes, I'm sure that he did love him as one of his Father's creatures.

No, I don't see anything hyper-Calvinistic here. I don't completely understand, though.

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

 

[Jon_]

i don't say Christ died for sinners, but that He died for those who turn to Him in faith & repentance, & that all are commanded to turn to Him in faith & repentance, knowing that only the elect will be enabled to obey that.

Oh, but Christ did die for sinners. We are all sinners every last one! But Christ did not die for all sinners. He died for the elect. I see nothing fundamentally wrong saying that Christ died for sinners because this is true. I just don't think it is honest to say that Christ died for all men, or even that God desires the salvation of every man because this is not scriptural.

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

 

[reformedfan]

but He only died for certain sinners, this leaves less room for certain heresies to be palatable to the newly converted/ undiscerning.

 

[cygnusx1]

''This is, of course, what was at issue in our debate. I thoroughly repudiate this unsubstantiated idea that God can command (preach to all men) what he does not desire (not all men will be saved). If this were true, then it would be impossible to even sin because this would be doing what God commands, but does not desire. This argument is terribly flawed.'' Jon


So we have men preaching , being sent by God to preach God's message of Love and forgiveness , all the time God doesn't desire it! (except for sometimes and to the few)

yes I agree , your view is terribly flawed!

God commands sin ?

 

[reformedfan]

Mark 10:20-21 RYR w/ Jesus loving him

 

[Jon_]

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.

I agree. But I would point out that I only believe we can understand revelation, not all of God's doctrines. God has given us his revelation to be understood, not to confuse us.

If we could explain everything by logic and fully understand God using logic He would not be God anymore, would he?

No, because he would no longer be infinite.

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.

This is a great passage. The text clearly refers that we must lean on revelation and not human wisdom, which, as Paul recounts in the first chapter of his first epistle to the Corinthians, is foolishness. Therefore, we should strive to understand God's revelation and to incorporate his revelation into every aspect of our lives.

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;

My only question on this is in what sense God is mercy to the reprobate?

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?

Ezekiel 18:32 and 33:11 are of course beautiful verses that refer to God's unwillingness to suffer the death of the elect in wickedness. The same is not true of the reprobate.

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!

I agree with this. But I do not think that the argument that we have been engaging in is one of those things that is beyond finding out. In fact, I believe the contrary: that it is clearly revealed in God's word. That is why I am set to defend my position. If we were arguing infralapsarianism and supralapsarianism, I would be much more inclined to simply say, "I don't know."

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

 

[reformedfan]

i'm infra

 

[Jon_]

So we have men preaching , being sent by God to preach God's message of Love and forgiveness , all the time God doesn't desire it! (except for sometimes and to the few)

Are you not a Calvinist that you do not understand the difference between God's commandments and God's desires? Do you mean to instruct other Christians when you do not know even this basic principle of theology? Do you know so little of the Scriptures to misunderstand those that speak of God doing all that he wills?

yes I agree , your view is terribly flawed!

God commands sin ?

(Rom. 7:7 AV) What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.

(Rom. 5:20 AV) Moreover the law entered, that the offence might abound. But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound:
​

Paul tells us quite clearly that the law entered so that the sin might abound for where sin abounded grace abounded much more. God commanded obedience to the law, but desired that sin exist, so that his grace might be made known in Christ. God is just in commanding obedience to the law, for the law is given by God and deemed righteous in his sight. If God's commandments were synonymous with his desires, then all men would obey the law. But this is not the case, therefore, we are all law-breakers.

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

 

[Jon_]

i'm infra

Biting my tongue!!!

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

 

[cygnusx1]

Are you not a Calvinist that you do not understand the difference between God's commandments and God's desires? Do you mean to instruct other Christians when you do not know even this basic principle of theology? Do you know so little of the Scriptures to misunderstand those that speak of God doing all that he wills?

God commands Perfection , therefore God desires it , yet the Decree of God does not permit it.
Is God's desire therefore not fulfilled ?
Yes and no!
Some desires are unfulfilled to give way to a desire that is fulfilled.
God was pleased that David desired to build the Temple , it pleased God , yet The Lord for higher reasons had his son Solomon build it.

(Rom. 7:7 AV) What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.

(Rom. 5:20 AV) Moreover the law entered, that the offence might abound. But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound:


​

Paul tells us quite clearly that the law entered so that the sin might abound for where sin abounded grace abounded much more. God commanded obedience to the law, but desired that sin exist, so that his grace might be made known in Christ. God is just in commanding obedience to the law, for the law is given by God and deemed righteous in his sight. If God's commandments were synonymous with his desires, then all men would obey the law. But this is not the case, therefore, we are all law-breakers.



Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

[/QUOTE]


I would never have termed this as God commanding sin.

''even sin because this would be doing what God commands''

man I have got to get some sleep .......... you wear me out Jon

​