I always get nervous — better, agitated — when folks who do not belong to Reformed Protestant communions weigh in on Calvinism’s boundaries and definitions. It is a little like Canadians telling U.S. citizens about what the United States stand for — though, given our provincialism in the U.S. I often learn from Canadians, not so much with evangelicals.
Anyhoo, Justin Taylor linked to a post that alleges to spot the telling features of Hyper-Calvinism. I am less interested in the 5-point list than I am (all about me) in what Phil Johnson writes about denying common grace — a tell-tale sign of Hyper-Calvinism. Here is what he says but consider the thought experiment of using “providence” instead of “common grace”:
The idea of
common graceprovidence 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 graceprovidence and special grace closely parallels the distinction between the general call and the effectual call.Common graceprovidence 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 graceprovidence 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 iscommon graceprovidence.The doctrine of
common graceprovidence 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.
Does this make (all about) me a Hyper-Calvinist? Or what exactly is gained by using a novel phrase for one that has a long tradition in Reformed confessions?
134 Comments
RS: But is an external blessing the same thing as a spiritual blessing? Is receiving an external blessing the same thing as receiving grace and Christ?
I gave you plenty of examples of people receiving spiritual blessings who were NOT believers, men like Saul and Judas and even a donkey. This shoots down your theory that God can only give himself to believers. It’s just not true.
RS: In what way does He offer them the Gospel? Does the God who elects and hardens as He pleases offer His Beloved Son to sinners as long as they will make a choice for Him? How does your offer differ from the Arminian?
Sure glad you are not a Hyper-Calvinist! These free offer debates are many years old, no need to rehash them.
RS: It seems (note, seems) that your position is that God loves all people and offers the Gospel to all people. The conclusion seems to be that the real difference maker is the human being. If nothing else, that is what the person listening to your position will conclude. So the person is never humbled and brought to utter helplessness to look to Christ alone and so will look to himself to some degree.
Which is why hyper-Calvinist do not consider arminians Christians, and why most HC’s consider the OPC and PCA apostate denominations for holding to Machen’s view that they should be considered brothers.
RS: But they are too dirty to ever be loved if they continue to focus on themselves as why God loves. On the other hand, God’s love in Christ is such that He loves on the basis of Christ alone rather than on anything found in the sinner. Which is another reason why grace can only be found in Christ. If God loves the sinner because of something in the sinner, then His love is not based on grace alone.
Presenting the gospel is not presenting the doctrine of election to sinners, normally that is.
RS: I would just argue that being born and living is not always a kindness.
“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.” (Acts 14:17)
todd quoting RS: By the way, does God love people in hell? If He loves them simply on the basis that human beings bear a vestige of His image, wouldn’t that mean that He would love them while they are in hell as well? Wouldn’t it be more accurate to say that fallen human beings are the children of the devil and that the remnant of the image of God they have they use to hate Him?
Todd: The Reformed have always distinguished common grace love from saving love in that the former is temporary, in this life, and the latter is eternal, unto life everlasting, so no, it does not mean God loves people in hell.
RS: I don’t think you are getting at the essence of the point that was raised by your quote from Vos. My point is that if God loves people simply because they have a vestige of His image left in them, that would lead us to the position that God loves those in hell as well.
Doug Sowers quoting RS: But is an external blessing the same thing as a spiritual blessing? Is receiving an external blessing the same thing as receiving grace and Christ?
Doug Sowers: I gave you plenty of examples of people receiving spiritual blessings who were NOT believers, men like Saul and Judas and even a donkey. This shoots down your theory that God can only give himself to believers. It’s just not true.
RS: So far you have not given one example of God giving Himself to anyone but believers. God’s giving good things in a temporal sense is not the same thing as givimg Himself. God only gives Himself to the elect and He dwells in them. God did not give Himself to Saul but gave him some earthly things. God did not give Himself to Judas or Judas would not be in hell today. I have not argued that He has not given Himself to you.
RS: But is an external blessing the same thing as a spiritual blessing? Is receiving an external blessing the same thing as receiving grace and Christ?
Boy are you a moving target! First you imply that receiving Egypt’s gold wasnt a blessing, because they used a portion of it for the (golden calf) then when you get trapped (God commanded them to ask) you say it wasnt a “spiritual” blessing. Why can’t you admit the obvious, God is gracious to all men in some ways? FWIW you have yet to show one Bible verse to support the notion that God is NOT gracious to all men.
RS: So far you have not given one example of God giving Himself to anyone but believers.
I already did!!! King Saul, and King Nebuchadnezzar both had the Spirit fill them and both prophecied! The Bible somewhere says Jesus is the Spirit of prophecy! Just admit your wrong, and lets move on!
todd quoting RS: In what way does He offer them the Gospel? Does the God who elects and hardens as He pleases offer His Beloved Son to sinners as long as they will make a choice for Him? How does your offer differ from the Arminian?
Todd: Sure glad you are not a Hyper-Calvinist! These free offer debates are many years old, no need to rehash them.
RS: I think you have avoided the question. The word free-offer used to mean to proclaim and set forth. In that sense I would argue that we are to give the free-offer. But now people take it to mean something like present Christ and tell people they need to make a decision. The fact that I deny the modern meaning of free-offer does not mean that I deny what the free-offer used to mean and the biblical meaning itself.
WLC: Q. 13. What hath God especially decreed concerning angels and men?
A. God, by an eternal and immutable decree, out of his mere love, for the praise of his glorious grace, to be manifested in due time, hath elected some angels to glory;[45] and in Christ hath chosen some men to eternal life, and the means thereof:[46] and also, according to his sovereign power, and the unsearchable counsel of his own will, (whereby he extendeth or withholdeth favor as he pleaseth,) hath passed by and foreordained the rest to dishonor and wrath, to be for their sin inflicted, to the praise of the glory of his justice.[47]
Q. 32. How is the grace of God manifested in the second covenant?
A. The grace of God is manifested in the second covenant, in that he freely provideth and offereth to sinners a Mediator,[115] and life and salvation by him;[116] and requiring faith as the condition to interest them in him,[117] promiseth and giveth his Holy Spirit[118] to all his elect, to work in them that faith,[119] with all other saving graces;[120] and to enable them unto all holy obedience,[121] as the evidence of the truth of their faith[122] and thankfulness to God,[123] and as the way which he hath appointed them to salvation.[124]
RS: Notice how the Larger Catechism puts this. In this offer God promises and gives His Holy Spirit to His elect. I would argue that according to this point of the Larger Catechism that it is vital to tell people where faith comes from since it is part of the Gospel proclamation. If we leave sinners in their own hands without telling them where faith comes from, then we are not proclaiming to them a Gospel that is of grace alone from beginning to end and simply leaving them to work up faith themselves. In other words, what I am arguing is not Hyper-Calvinism, though you could argue that the Westminster Divines were hyper themselves. So once again I would asser that my view of the free-offer is the historical one and yours is not. Again, how does your view differ from that of the Arminians that require a person to choose based on free-will?
Todd quoting RS: It seems (note, seems) that your position is that God loves all people and offers the Gospel to all people. The conclusion seems to be that the real difference maker is the human being. If nothing else, that is what the person listening to your position will conclude. So the person is never humbled and brought to utter helplessness to look to Christ alone and so will look to himself to some degree.
Todd: Which is why hyper-Calvinist do not consider arminians Christians, and why most HC’s consider the OPC and PCA apostate denominations for holding to Machen’s view that they should be considered brothers.
RS: Luther said very clearly (which makes him a hyper-Calvinist in your eyes?) that people must repent of free-will before they can be ready to be saved. Following the title of a book from the 70′s, it is either free-will or free-grace. God has clearly said that a work will make grace no longer to be grace. So at the least we should be careful. Since I don’t consider the OPC and PCA apostate, I guess I must not be a hyper. I would, however, argue that we should look upon each person as individuals rather than whether they claim to be an Arminian or not. A person that trusts in his free-will is not trusting in Christ alone (logically). A person that trusts in his free-will to trust in Christ is not looking to grace alone. After all, does God respond to an act of the will to regenerate a person or does God regenerate a person when they are utterly helpless and look to Him alone?
Doug Sowers quoting RS: But is an external blessing the same thing as a spiritual blessing? Is receiving an external blessing the same thing as receiving grace and Christ?
Doug Sowers: Boy are you a moving target!
RS: I am not a boy, Doug.
Doug Sowers: First you imply that receiving Egypt’s gold wasnt a blessing, because they used a portion of it for the (golden calf) then when you get trapped (God commanded them to ask) you say it wasnt a “spiritual” blessing.
RS: No, Doug, that is not the whole picture. I argued that we don’t know that the gold that was given was a blessing to each and every person. But even if it was a blessing, I am not sure how you can argue it was a spiritual blessing. They used that to build a golden calf and many were killed as a result. My argument was that we cannot tell the intent and motive of God because He gives someone something.
Doug Sowers: Why can’t you admit the obvious, God is gracious to all men in some ways? FWIW you have yet to show one Bible verse to support the notion that God is NOT gracious to all men.
RS: But I have Doug, I have. But for the equine of heart, here it is again.
Romans 9:13 Just as it is written, “JACOB I LOVED, BUT ESAU I HATED.”
14 What shall we say then? There is no injustice with God, is there? May it never be!
15 For He says to Moses, “I WILL HAVE MERCY ON WHOM I HAVE MERCY, AND I WILL HAVE COMPASSION ON WHOM I HAVE COMPASSION.”
16 So then it does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy.
17 For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, “FOR THIS VERY PURPOSE I RAISED YOU UP, TO DEMONSTRATE MY POWER IN YOU, AND THAT MY NAME MIGHT BE PROCLAIMED THROUGHOUT THE WHOLE EARTH.”
18 So then He has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires.
Richard says God did not give Himself to Saul but gave him some earthly things.
Come on Richard! Read 1 Samuel 10:6
“Then the Spirit of the LORD will rush upon you, and you will prophesy with them and be turned into another man.”
Read it and weep, and then please repent!
Doug Sowers quoitng RS: So far you have not given one example of God giving Himself to anyone but believers.
Doug Sowers: I already did!!! King Saul, and King Nebuchadnezzar both had the Spirit fill them and both prophecied! The Bible somewhere says Jesus is the Spirit of prophecy! Just admit your wrong, and lets move on!
RS: Doug, for me to admit that I am wrong at this point would mean that I would have to lie and then leave you in your error. So I cannot. I might remind you that the Spirit came upon Saul rather than fill Him. Where does the Scriptures tell us that King Neb was filled with the Holy Spirit? Now Neb said that Daniel was a man that the spirit of God was in. Correct me if I am wrong, but I am not sure that people could be filled with the Holy Spirit in the sense that believers are His temple until Pentecost.
Doug Sowers: Richard says God did not give Himself to Saul but gave him some earthly things.
Come on Richard! Read 1 Samuel 10:6
“Then the Spirit of the LORD will rush upon you, and you will prophesy with them and be turned into another man.”
Read it and weep, and then please repent!
RS: Yes, the Spirit CAME UPON HIM. The Spirit was not dwelling in Him. The Spirit came upon many unbelievers as well. This is why David (the King) could pray for God not to take His Spirit from him. The King of Israel was annointed with the Spirit and the Spirit came upon them, but that is not the Spirit dwelling in them and living in them as His temple.
Richard says My argument was that we cannot tell the intent and motive of God because He gives someone something.
So are you implying that God, who said he treasured and loved Israel, gave them harmful things? The more you write, the worse it gets for you!
Say it aint so!
Richard demurs Where does the Scriptures tell us that King Neb was filled with the Holy Spirit?
Daniel 4:34
At the end of the days I Nebuchadnezzar, lifted my eyes to heaven, and my reason returned to me, and I blessed the Most High, and praised and honored him who lives forever,
for his dominion is an everlasting dominion, and his kingdom endures from generation to generation; all the inhabitants of the earth are accounted as nothing, and he does according to his will among the host of heaven and among the inhabitants of the earth; and none can stay his hand or say to him, “What have you done?”
Okay Richard you man you lol! BTW, I wasnt calling you a boy. It would seem to me as if King Nebuchadnezzar was prophecing by the Spirit of God, no?
Doug Sowers: Richard says My argument was that we cannot tell the intent and motive of God because He gives someone something.
So are you implying that God, who said he treasured and loved Israel, gave them harmful things? The more you write, the worse it gets for you!
Say it aint so!
RS: No, Doug, it is not worse for me. Did God move in the hearts of the Egyptians to give the Israelites the gold? Yes He did. What happened to the gold? Did God know what the Israelites would do with that gold? But of course He did. They build a golden calf and bowed in worship. What happened to the gold after the calf was made? By the command of God it was ground up and put in water and the people were made to drink it. Maybe, just maybe, your idea of what it means for God to love is far too human.
Isaiah 46:10 Declaring the end from the beginning, And from ancient times things which have not been done, Saying, ‘My purpose will be established, And I will accomplish all My good pleasure’;
Ephesians 1:11 also we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to His purpose who works all things after the counsel of His will,
Doug Sowers: Richard demurs Where does the Scriptures tell us that King Neb was filled with the Holy Spirit?
Daniel 4:34 At the end of the days I Nebuchadnezzar, lifted my eyes to heaven, and my reason returned to me, and I blessed the Most High, and praised and honored him who lives forever, for his dominion is an everlasting dominion, and his kingdom endures from generation to generation; all the inhabitants of the earth are accounted as nothing, and he does according to his will among the host of heaven and among the inhabitants of the earth; and none can stay his hand or say to him, “What have you done?”
Okay Richard you man you lol! BTW, I wasnt calling you a boy.
RS: I am glad that the law allows you to smile on occasion.
Doug Sowers: It would seem to me as if King Nebuchadnezzar was prophecing by the Spirit of God, no?
RS: I am not convinced that King Neb had the indwelling Spirit or that he was prophecying at that moment. He had simply bowed in realization of who God really was. After all, he was told that he would be punished “until you recognize that the Most High is ruler over the realm of mankind and bestows it on whomever He wishes” (Dan 4:25).
Richard, you are all over the board! First you say “God did not give Himself to Saul but gave him some earthly things.”
I proved that to be false, then you admit Yes, the Spirit CAME UPON HIM. The Spirit was not dwelling in Him.
Finally you ask “Correct me if I am wrong, but I am not sure that people could be filled with the Holy Spirit in the sense that believers are His temple until Pentecost.”
Yes Richard! God fills people in different senses! Obviously King David was before Pentecost, yet he had the Holy Spirit living within him. God blesses all men in some ways! He only blesses his Sheep eternally. If you will just back off and admit the obvious; that being gracious is the same as being kind we can all agree!
Richard asks What happened to the gold?
Do you remember the Ark of the Covenant? Do you remember the table for the Bread of the Presence? Do you remember the Golden Lampstand? (which is estimated to weigh 90 pounds) Do you remember the Bronze Altar? I could go on and on, but he point is, this was under construction BEFORE they made the golden calf!
And yet, you have the nerve to insinuate that it wasnt a blessing to blunder Egypt?
Doug Sowers: Richard, you are all over the board! First you say “God did not give Himself to Saul but gave him some earthly things.”
I proved that to be false, then you admit Yes, the Spirit CAME UPON HIM. The Spirit was not dwelling in Him.
RS: But you didn’t prove what I said to be false. Giving people things (which I have never denied) is not the same thing as God giving Himself. The Spirit can come upon unconverted people and cause them to do many things, but that is not God’s giving Himself.
Doug Sowers: Finally you ask “Correct me if I am wrong, but I am not sure that people could be filled with the Holy Spirit in the sense that believers are His temple until Pentecost.”
Yes Richard! God fills people in different senses! Obviously King David was before Pentecost, yet he had the Holy Spirit living within him. God blesses all men in some ways! He only blesses his Sheep eternally. If you will just back off and admit the obvious; that being gracious is the same as being kind we can all agree!
RS: Notice a couple of important things. One, I don’t deny that the Spirit worked IN believing men and ON unbelieving men before Pentecost, but as stated above that is not the same thing as the Spirit taking up residence and dwelling in men as His temple. Two, I am not arguing that God does not give all men in general good things from His goodness. What I am denying is that those things are grace. Grace is a spiritual blessing and all spiritual blessings are in Christ.
Grace is such a precious concept that I think we must be careful how we use it. We have the kingdom of grace, the Gospel of grace, the glory of grace, and all of that grace is in Christ. The NT clearly teaches us that the body of Christ was the tabernacle of the glory of God which consisted in the grace and truth of God. We are justified by grace and we walk by grace. The only true grace is a sovereign grace and as such there is nothing common about it. It is a grace that God gives at His mere pleasure to the glory of His holy name. Once grace becomes commonm then grace stops being at the sovereign pleasure of God to give to whom He pleases. As we are to treat the name of God as holy rather than common and we are to even pray for His name to be hallowed, so should we treat the grace of God with reverence and awe.
Doug Sowers: Richard asks What happened to the gold?
Do you remember the Ark of the Covenant? Do you remember the table for the Bread of the Presence? Do you remember the Golden Lampstand? (which is estimated to weigh 90 pounds) Do you remember the Bronze Altar? I could go on and on, but he point is, this was under construction BEFORE they made the golden calf!
RS:
Exodus 32: 2 Aaron said to them, “Tear off the gold rings which are in the ears of your wives, your sons, and your daughters, and bring them to me.”
3 Then all the people tore off the gold rings which were in their ears and brought them to Aaron.
4 He took this from their hand, and fashioned it with a graving tool and made it into a molten calf; and they said, “This is your god, O Israel, who brought you up from the land of Egypt.”
19 It came about, as soon as Moses came near the camp, that he saw the calf and the dancing; and Moses’ anger burned, and he threw the tablets from his hands and shattered them at the foot of the mountain.
20 He took the calf which they had made and burned it with fire, and ground it to powder, and scattered it over the surface of the water and made the sons of Israel drink it.
34 “But go now, lead the people where I told you. Behold, My angel shall go before you; nevertheless in the day when I punish, I will punish them for their sin.”
35 Then the LORD smote the people, because of what they did with the calf which Aaron had made.
Doug Sowers: And yet, you have the nerve to insinuate that it wasnt a blessing to blunder Egypt?
RS: If you read the texts of Scripture I have given above your will see that the gold was not a blessing to many if not most or even all. The Ark and so on were not made until after the Golden Calf. Nevertheless, I would not argue that some of the gold that was taken from the Egyptians was not used in the furnishings. I would just argue that this gold was not a blessings to many of the Israelites and brought trouble in some way upon them all. I don’t think that it is a matter of nerve to insinuate what I have said, but simply a matter of the record of Scripture. It took a lot of gold to make that calf and so many people contributed to it. The idol they made was not a blessing. When the gold was ground up and poured into water and the people drank it, that was not a blessing either. I think it would take nerve (so to speak) to say that all the gold was used as a blessing on the people of Israel.
Richard says Grace is such a precious concept that I think we must be careful how we use it.
Amen! Nobody is saying we should confuse saving grace from common grace. So why not give your brothers in Christ the benefit of the doubt? We all agree that there is a difference between saving grace, and common grace. But God is kind and blesses all men in ways that we don’t deserve; as in “common grace”.
Doug Sowers: Richard says Grace is such a precious concept that I think we must be careful how we use it.
Amen! Nobody is saying we should confuse saving grace from common grace. So why not give your brothers in Christ the benefit of the doubt? We all agree that there is a difference between saving grace, and common grace. But God is kind and blesses all men in ways that we don’t deserve; as in “common grace”.
RS: I suppose you can use it as you think God would want you to, but I still think that D.G. Hart’s article which started this here is more or less correct. “Kind providence” certainly seems more biblical than “common grace”. I would add that I think we should treat the word grace (as theological concept) as so precious that we would not want to use it other than in ways that reflects the glory of God in Christ. Other than stating a position on it, I am not sure what I could do to give you the benefit of the doubt. I don’t think it makes one some sort of arch heretic to use it, but I do think it is using it outside of the biblical boundaries.
Richard says I would just argue that this gold was not a blessing to many of the Israelites and brought trouble in some way upon them all.
You sound like Flip Wilson, “the gold made me do it”!
Do you realize how silly you sound? The gold made Israel sin? Puleeze! That is beyond absurd! Could the problem have been the unfaithful heart of the Israelites? Yet, you want to blame it on the gold lol!
Earth to Richard, good gifts can be abused! Didn’t God create wine and strong drink as a “blessing” for the nations? So if man abuses wine, is God a liar? According to your twisted logic we would have to say yes!
Go back to the drawing board Richard; you just got an F on your last theory.
Doug Sowers: Richard says I would just argue that this gold was not a blessing to many of the Israelites and brought trouble in some way upon them all.
You sound like Flip Wilson, “the gold made me do it”!
RS: I don’t give a flip about what he said, just deal with the text.
Doug Sowers: Do you realize how silly you sound? The gold made Israel sin? Puleeze! That is beyond absurd! Could the problem have been the unfaithful heart of the Israelites? Yet, you want to blame it on the gold lol!
RS: But I didn’t blame the gold. I simply said that it was not a blessing to many of them. Remember, that is the issue that we have been discussing. You have argued that the gold was a blessing and I have argued that it was not a blessing to many if not most. Instead of being a blessing, it turned out to be something that they used to bring themselves a curse. And yes, God knew that would happen. So argue against what I am arguing for and then we can deal with the issues at hand.
Doug Sowers: Earth to Richard, good gifts can be abused! Didn’t God create wine and strong drink as a “blessing” for the nations? So if man abuses wine, is God a liar? According to your twisted logic we would have to say yes!
RS: Doug, use a little logic before you argue that mine is twisted. It will work better that way. Indeed good gifts can be abused, but then are they a blessing at that point? Isn’t it the case that God can give people what appears to be a blessing and it turns out that it is a judgment upon them? Now follow me closely here, Doug, and stop looking at the anatomy of Balaam. From all eternity there was a covenant between members of the holy Trinity. The Son came and saved sinners. That was a very good thing and it was a blessing to many. But the Son also came and hardened the hearts of many and their sin was increased. The preaching of the Gospel goes forth and it is used by the Spirit to give light and also to harden as He pleases. In other words, it is a good thing to preach the Gospel of grace alone to people (even commanded) and yet it is not a blessing to all people.
Doug Sowers: Go back to the drawing board Richard; you just got an F on your last theory.
RS: Oh, so that is where you are going wrong. I am using Scripture and real logic and you are trying to look at the drawing board.
Richard the King James Version uses the word “ass” for donkey. So when I said, think of Balaams ass, I meant think of Balaams donkey that was given the supernatural gift of prophecy; in that the “ass” prophesied.
Richard queries, indeed good gifts can be abused, but then are they a blessing at that point?
Quit taking your eyes off the ball. A good gift is a blessing! (By definition) If you abuse that good gift, that doesn’t change the goodness of the gift! If God graciously gives certain men high intelligence, and they use it for evil, does that mean God wasn’t gracious to give them a high IQ?
Of course not! You are blurring what corrupt man does with God’s gracious gifts to mankind, and then trying to say that God wasn’t gracious since man abused the gifts! You’re like a cat chasing his tail! Or better yet, like little black Sambo who chased the tiger around the tree until he turned into butter.
Richard on a serious note, can you fathom on the day of judgement someone telling Christ, you were not gracious giving me all those gifts, (good looks, intelligence, riches, loving wife, strength, with children and grandchildren) because look how I squandered them”?
I don’t think that line of reasoning will go to far. Yet, that is exactly what you’re saying in so many words.
Doug Sowers: Richard the King James Version uses the word “ass” for donkey. So when I said, think of Balaams ass, I meant think of Balaams donkey that was given the supernatural gift of prophecy; in that the “ass” prophesied.
RS: Doug, I knew what you meant, but the gold made me do it. It was just irresistible to reply as I did. Language changes and meanings change, so your comment (though innocent enough) simply brought it out of me.
Richard, at least you have a good sense of humor. I thought you knew, but since you kept repeating Balaams backside I was beginning to wonder.
Doug Sowers: Richard queries, indeed good gifts can be abused, but then are they a blessing at that point?
RS: First Balaam and now Richard queries. Sigh.
Doug Sowers: Quit taking your eyes off the ball.
RS: But I am not taking my eyes off of anything at the moment as such.
Doug Sowers: A good gift is a blessing! (By definition) If you abuse that good gift, that doesn’t change the goodness of the gift! If God graciously gives certain men high intelligence, and they use it for evil, does that mean God wasn’t gracious to give them a high IQ?
RS: The point, however, has to do with the reason God gave them a high intellegence. Remember the issue with Judas. Jesus chose Judas so that Scripture could be fulfilled. So the choosing did not turn out to be a blessing. God gave Pharaoh many things, yet they all turned out to be for the purpose of what turned out to be less than a blessing to Pharaoh. Did God give person a high intelligence as grace or could it be that there are few that are wise in the flesh that come to Him?
Doug Sowers: Of course not! You are blurring what corrupt man does with God’s gracious gifts to mankind, and then trying to say that God wasn’t gracious since man abused the gifts! You’re like a cat chasing his tail! Or better yet, like little black Sambo who chased the tiger around the tree until he turned into butter.
RS: Interesting words you use to describe what I am doing, but it will do you no good to fight the Scriptures. I am simply saying that Scripture does not teach that all the things you are saying that God gives are grace. God gave many people many things and they all turned out to be given for judgment. Your position seems to say that you can know why God gives people certain things while my position says that we cannot interpret providence with such accuracy. Indeed He may give them good things, but it is not always for the purpose of giving them grace.
Doug Sowers: Richard on a serious note, can you fathom on the day of judgement someone telling Christ, you were not gracious giving me all those gifts, (good looks, intelligence, riches, loving wife, strength, with children and grandchildren) because look how I squandered them”?
RS: I would agree that no one will be able to say those things, but I don’t think the people will argue that those things were grace to them either. They will see that they were good gifts, but I don’t think that they will see them as grace.
Doug Sowers: I don’t think that line of reasoning will go to far. Yet, that is exactly what you’re saying in so many words.
RS: But that is not what I am saying. I am saying that the gifts are good and that people abuse them, but simply that they are not of grace. I am also saying that God can judge people and bring hard results to them and intend to do so in giving them good things.
Finally brother Richard, try this on, as a little food for thought. Why do I insist that God is gracious to even the reprobate?
Take apostate Israel as an example, it will be worse for them, than it was for Sodom on the day of judgement. But why????
Because God was much more *gracious* with them, than he was with Sodom! God loved Israel! This must prove the concept of common grace, since we know that the majority of Israel did not receive “saving grace”. To whom much is given, much is required.
You could attempt to argue that in one sense, they had no choice since God hardened them, but Jesus says something quite different. He says they will receive more stripes! But why again? Because they received gracious blessings that Sodom never knew about. They knew about the plan of salvation.
This is yet another reason why we should all walk in the fear of the Lord!
Richard says I am saying that the gifts are good and that people abuse them, but simply that they are not of grace.
Does anyone deserve these “good gifts”? No? Then look up the word grace! Undeserved blessings! Bingo! Why are you fighting what the Bible so clearly teaches?
Doug Sowers: Richard says I am saying that the gifts are good and that people abuse them, but simply that they are not of grace.
RS: FRom Daniel Dyke in the 1600′s”
To the honest man who is not a strict follower of religion he says: “Unhonest religion is as good as irreligious honesty: And if in thy judgement the former be naught, surely the latter cannot be good. Religion, or the fear of God, Solomon calls the head of all goodness: Honesty then without religion, is as a body without a head, even a rotting and a stinking carrion, and wilt thou yet be so fond as to think it is a sweet smelling sacrifice in God’s nostrils?”
To the rich in this world he warns that their riches may be fattening them for the slaughter: “In his anger he giveth these supposed felicities to the wicked, which in his mercy he denieth to the godly. He putteth them into the fatter pastures, because he meaneth to kill them, and causeth these to feed on the bare commons, because he will have them live still. If the stalled ox had reason, would he be so senseless, as to think his master loved him better than his fellows, because of his more liberal food? Know it then thou rich worldling, God only fatteth thee for the slaughter. He thus ladeth thee with these blessings, that by this means aggravating thy ingratitude, and impenitency, he might lade thee with a heavier weight of condemnation (Romans 2:5)…The wicked’s table, though swimming never so much with dainties, is his snare, and his prosperity his ruin (Psalm 69:22). God giveth them these things no otherwise than Jael gave Sisera milk and lodging, that by this means casting them into the dead sleep of security, he might strike them through with the nail of his judgements.”
Question Richard!
Did God bless Adam, by making Eve?
The reason I ask, is that once Adam sinned he blamed both God and Eve saying,
“The woman whom *you* gave to be with me, *she* gave me the fruit of the tree, and I ate”.
What a weasel! He sounds a lot like Aaron when Moses asked him what happened.
“So I said to them, let any who have gold take it off. So *they* gave it to me, and I threw it into the fire, and out came this calf.”
Out came the calf?! LOL!
The old Flip Wilson excuse “the devil made me do it” or,” The women made me do it”! or, “the gold made me do it”! “The fire shot it out!”
Richard, the Bible is clear that it was not good for man to be alone, and that Eve was a gracious blessing! However, if I were to use the Richard Smith hermeneutic of blessings, I would have to say, “I don’t think Eve was a blessing, look what she talked Adam into doing! She caused Adam to sin! How could you call her a blessing? YET when God created them, he called them VERY GOOD!
Why do I belabor the point? The principle is analogous for God giving Israel the spoils of Egypt when they plundered their gold. Yes! Israel later used a portion of that gold for making the calf, but that in no way negates that God graciously blessed both Israel with gold and Adam with Eve. Moreover, Israel needed the gold for God’s tabernacle so his presence could be with his people. That blessing far outweighs Israel’s sin. When God blesses us, and we later abuse his gracious blessing, let’s not say he didn’t bless us in the first place because we misused his blessing, okay?