134 thoughts on “Hyper-Calvinism and Common Grace — I Mean — Providence”

1. EXCELLENT. Loved that you traded the new phrase “common grace” with the biblical and historical phrase of providence. Providence teaches that God Rules and Cares for His Creation and under that rule and care He provides rain, sun, wind, water, food (the psalms speak of the animals looking to God for their food and water and if He turn away they have none). Sadly common grace, by adding the word grace, makes it somehow more salvific. We speak of grace and mercy only in the context of salvation. All else is God’s care. Now, there are two other things God Rules and Cares over and for: His Church (for the gates of Hell shall not prevail against her) and His child (the individual Christian who looks to His Heavenly Father’s hand and know that whether fruitful or drought, feast or famine, those things, in fact, all things come from MY Heavenly Father’s Loving Hands (as the Heidelberg Lord’s Day 10 states it beautifully).

   I find it fascinating when those who simply hold to a Sovereign election in salvation think they are Reformed and then try to tell us who are Reformed what we believe.

   Excellent work in replacing the proper Biblical term and throwing out the man-made-leaning towards arminianistic prevenient grace term.

   BRAVO!!!

   LikeLike

2. I admit that I’m very apprehensive. Because, you see, as far as I understand what you’ve written, I am oh-so-tentatively very sympathetic to your pitch in this post. And that sympathy probably really messes up the Lumpers, and might give some extra work to the Splitters. For what it’s worth, your question has been that of the Protestant Reformed since . . . forever. Although they’ve added other questions to the mix.

   With you, I ask: Why cannot “divine providence” do the same heavy lifting that people think “common grace” does? I can think of at least three immediate advantages: (1) “providence” better tends to maintain the personal relationship between God and his creation in his governing of history; (2) this approach therefore tends more clearly to situate providence and history within the broader context of God’s redemptive purposes for all creation; and (3) it better accounts for the continuing antithesis that exists by divine fiat within all of human existence.

   It is important to realize that Abraham Kuyper’s version of “common grace” supplied an account for each of these three realities. Multiple versions of “common grace” crafted by his disciples did not. Both of which facts provide important warrant for the current translation projects of Kuyper’s De Gemeene Gratie and Pro Rege.

   LikeLike

3. If God has chosen not show mercy after the fall would his providence have ceased? It seems to me that “common grace” emphasizes the fact that following the fall God showed mercy to all his creation even though he could have justly exhibited his full wrath. Also, since the idea of common grace concerns the post-lapsarian state it seems to me that it cannot be strictly synonymous with providence which in operation regardless of the pre- or post-lapsarian state. I’m not sure what providence has to do with God withholding judgment.

   LikeLike

4. I don’t think using the term “providence” over the phrase “common grace” makes you a hyper-Calvinist. I think Hoeksema might be helpful on this account. What might make someone a hyper-Calvinist is if the term “providence” is used in a way to communicate that God only hates the non-elect with the provisions He gives them, to fatten them up for the harshest judgment possible as it were (which is apparently a denial that God actually cares for the non-elect – it bares a God’s eye view, and far more guilty of that than anything one might find in common grace). That I think is what Hoeksema was communicating when he preferred “providence” over “common grace.” I think that is absolutely false Biblically and has very little pedigree within historic Reformed theology (even if the phrase “common grace” is recent). Even so, at a pure terminological level, I think “providence” is a more helpful than “common grace”.

   LikeLike

5. I think common grace is an intellectually lazy term. People use it when they want to try to explain why good things happen to bad people. What term do we use when bad things happen to bad people, when bad things happen to good people, and when good things happen to good people? Providence covers all four scenarios, common grace only covers one.

   If I’m living in Russia during the terror famine I might point to common grace for the good harvest. What do I point to when the communists show up to steal it away?

   LikeLike

6. People use providence in intellectually lazy ways; e.g., natural disasters are acts of God, or when something good happens that is attributed to providence whereas bad things are not. Does that make “providence” a lazy term?

   In “this present evil age” God withholds judgement from and providentially blesses even reprobates. In the new heavens and new earth (“the age to come” consummated) God will not show mercy to reprobates; however, providence is common to both ages. If “common grace” is an unacceptable term to describe God’s withholding judgement, and even providentially blessing reprobates in this present age in contradistinction to the age to come, what is a better term? Certainly alone “providence” alone won’t due without substantial qualification. Perhaps “common providence” in distinction from eschatalogical providence?

   LikeLike

7. Mark, it depends on what you mean by mercy. Someone who completes an earthly existence and then faces punishment is not necessarily in a state of mercy.

   LikeLike

8. David, so is God gracious to the devil? Was God gracious to Esau? I understand the problem of Hoeksema’s view as you describe it. But do we really have enough data on this one to give a name to what God is up to? Are we opening cans illegitimately?

   LikeLike

9. Mark – People use providence in intellectually lazy ways; e.g., natural disasters are acts of God, or when something good happens that is attributed to providence whereas bad things are not

   Erik – When the Heidelberg says that “Whatever evil God sends upon me in this troubled life He will turn to my good.” in #26 is that being intellectually lazy? I would say that affirming that God at times sends evil upon his covenant people is pretty ballsy in this or any age.

   LikeLike

10. Darryl,

    Is God’s kindness and compassion towards Cain in warning and protecting him not gracious? When God declared how he loved Israel though she like an unfaithful wife played the harlot; is that not gracious? If you call it God’s kindness toward the wicked is it really much different than saying God’s graciousness?

    LikeLike

11. I remember the shock of recognition I experienced in college at Northwestern College (in Orange City) studying history under an excellent young scholar named James Kennedy. He had started out at Northwestern (his parents were on the faculty), had transferred to Georgetown, had gotten a masters at Calvin and was working on a Ph.D. at Iowa. He taught me the 2nd half of Western Civ (since 1789) and the best class I had in college, “Twentieth Century European Crisis”. Being a young, not overly well-educated kid and realizing the mind-blowing devastation of two world wars and the self-imposed horrors of communism did a lot to convince me that it is a fool’s errand trying to pinpoint the hand of God in history. We believe he is working, but how he is working is beyond our ability to know. This is why we look to the cross and the hope of the life to come rather than trying to sort out his activities rationally in this world.

    LikeLike

12. Darryl, I meant mercy in the sense of delayed judgement, not ultimate mercy.

    What I am thinking about is that providence concerns all the acts of God that we would normally see as behaving according to the laws of nature regardless of whether these acts were “good” or “bad,” or the creatures involved. Following the fall God witholds his judgement and even providentially bestows upon reprobates (and the elect alike) certain blessings; i.e., it rains on the just and the unjust. This situation of restrainging judgement & indiscriminant blessing (if you will) does not carry over into the new heavens and new earth. It is only a temporary “wilderness” situation in “this present evil age” serving the building of Christ’s kingdom. It seems to me that there is an important distinction between God’s acts toward man in the present age versus the consummated age to come (or substitute the prefall garden situation) whereas providence is operative throughout creation.

    Hmmm. I think I would take exception to Johnson’s quote above. Common grace is not throughout scripture, at least in the sense of ALL biblical ages. “Common grace,” if you will, becomes operative following the fall (and in no way replaces providence) and ends at the second coming of Christ following final judgement. Providence IS throughout all ages, before the fall, after the fall, and in the new heavens and new earth.

    LikeLike

13. Todd, if we want to be careful about employing “grace” before the fall, why would it get more expansive in use after the fall. If we don’t like the term “social gospel” because it confuses the gospel, can’t the same thing happen to “grace”?

    LikeLike

14. Erik – When the Heidelberg says that “Whatever evil God sends upon me in this troubled life He will turn to my good.” in #26 is that being intellectually lazy? I would say that affirming that God at times sends evil upon his covenant people is pretty ballsy in this or any age.

    Mark – Erik, I think you are making my point. “Providence” is not intellectually lazy because some folks misuse it in a lazy way. Likewise, the fact that some people may use “common grace” in intellectually lazy ways does not mean everyone who uses the term is being lazy or that the term itself is lazy.

    If one rejects the term “common grace” one still has to account for the fact that, whereas providence is in play before the fall, after the fall, and in the new heavens and new earth, God restrains judgement and gives certain creational benefits (profidentlally) to the just and unjust only between the fall and final judgement. I don’t think there will be anything we could call “common grace” in the new heavens and new earth as God’s ultimate judgement will not be restrained and it will no longer “rain on the unjust.”

    LikeLike

15. Mark G., and what does the distinction between a believer’s suffering in this life and blessedness in the life to come do to your desire to distinguish the earthly blessings of the unsaved (mercy) and their ultimate fate (judgment)?

    LikeLike

16. Darryl – the sufferings & blessings of believers are not distinct from their blessings in the age to come. Believers are already citizens of heaven and participants of the inaugurated age to come through union with Christ. All things work together for their good.

    The sufferings and blessings of unbelievers are not distinct from their ultimate judgment because they fail to recognize God (Romans 1) so that all things work together for their condemnation.

    LikeLike

17. Mark,

    Maybe “superfluous” or “unnecessary” would be better adjectives than “intellectually lazy”. I think Calvinist theology functions fine without the concept of common grace.

    LikeLike

18. Here’s an example of how “common grace” could be used lazily, though. I’m an insurance salesman. I go into the office at 10 each day and leave at 3. I make about $50k a year and am under the impression that I work really hard. My competitor is a pagan. He goes to work each day at 7 and doesn’t leave until 7. He makes $200k a year. My friend at church remarks that he saw this guy about getting some insurance and was really impressed with his operation. I respond, “Well, he’s not a Christian so anything he accomplishes is a testament to common grace.” No, maybe it’s a testament to the fact that he works way harder than me and I deserve to get my butt kicked by him.

    LikeLike

19. Maybe another way to get at the same ideas is that all men are either in the First Adam or in the Second Adam (i.e., Christ). People in the church who hear the gospel preached receive blessing as covenant members and hearers of the Word. We also talk about covenant children as being recipients of covenant blessings. However, for all those ultimately in the First Adam preaching and baptism (these “blessings”) only turn out for their condemnation. On the other hand, for those in the Second Adam, these same blessings turn out for their ultimate salvation.

    LikeLike

20. In general, I am not a fan of the concept of “common grace,” at least as it is espoused by Kuyper and his would-be prolocutors. It seems that the necessity of this doctrine arises out of the Kuyperians’ inability to accept that total depravity does not imply utter depravity. The term suggests that God injects a grace into the natural order that is otherwise foreign to that order, so as to prevent life in this vale of tears from being as bad as it could be. Scripture teaches no such “common grace.” Rather, Scripture teaches that the effects of the fall did not eviscerate grace in its entirety from the natural order, contrary to what the Kuyperians and the Revivalists aver. Thus, the grace that is common to us all, is indeed the grace that has been present in the natural order since its creation.

    LikeLike

21. The main reason to push the notion of “common grace” — meaning “non-salvific unmerited favor” — is to account for Jesus’ words and commands.

    “God causes His sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous.”

    This is providence, certainly — but so is methane rain on Titan. What distinguishes providence in general from common grace in specific is the notion of “being good towards”, the element of care for another person.

    The term “common grace” arose to correct a certain specific error: That God only brings rain on the unrighteous in order to increase their guilt, and does not have genuine kindness towards them.

    If this were so, then the unrighteous would have cause to hate God (!!), for He would be ostensibly providing them with “apparently good, but not really good, in order to make things worse for them later.”

    No, the guilt of the unrighteous is real because the gift of rain is real, and kindly intended.

    Likewise with Jesus’ commands.

    “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”

    Under the hyper-Cal scheme, God is incapable of having genuine care-and-concern for His enemies (unless they happen to be elect enemies). So we ask a simple question: If God is unable to love His enemies, then how can He grant us grace to do the same? Jesus’ command would thus be vacated, for we cannot fulfill it (or any command) without the Spirit’s aid; and the if the Spirit has no love for His enemies, then neither can we.

    So why the term “common grace”? To distinguish truth from error. God’s merciful actions towards unbelievers are distinguished from general providence by their intent. He is not merely dropping rain here and not there for His glory (though this would suffice), but specifically to glorify Himself in the evidence of His goodness.

    The secondary reason is that Rom 13 makes no sense without it: A magistrate could not be “minister of God” (in the secular office) without common grace.

    And finally, because some church courts, at least, have said so. 🙂 Acts of the CRC Synod 1924, pp. 113ff.

    LikeLike

22. Erik – I think Calvinist theology functions fine without the concept of common grace.

    Mark – I guess that depends on what the CONCEPT of common grace is. You and I could take basically the same theological position. I might call it common grace and you might call it some qualifications, distinctions, etc. in your understanding of providence. I think there is more than one concept floating around (perhaps would be better to say a breadth of understanding) in reformed circles that is being called “common grace.”

    LikeLike

23. Mark,

    Indeed. I am sounding like I am Protestant Reformed but there is no way they would have me with as many movies as I watch. I don’t deny common grace, just how the term gets used at times.

    LikeLike

24. Eric,

    I’m sure I don’t use “common grace” in a common way; e.g., Kuperian/neo-calvinist, etc. Also, I would be sympathetic to reserving “grace” to describe salvation rather than muddying it up with God’s general providential work in the creation.

    LikeLike

25. The term “common grace” arose to correct a certain specific error: That God only brings rain on the unrighteous in order to increase their guilt, and does not have genuine kindness towards them.

    Jeff, but how did the older language of providence not provide the needed correction? Plus, now with the problem of the FV that wants to put grace pre-fall, is it prudent to be using the g-word so loosely? That second question goes to you as well, Todd. Sure, God’s kindness to the wicked is in some sense gracious, but with the FV looming, do we really want to say it’s grace?

    LikeLike

26. Zrim,

    Because common grace, historically understood, is only a post-fall disposition of God toward sinners.
    The FV has not only co-opted the term to apply to the pre-fall condition, but the grace they speak of pre-fall is not really common, but saving grace, so I see no reason to abandon the term, as every theological concept is abused by someone.

    LikeLike

27. Zrim,

    By the same way that the term “sola fide” needed to be invented to correct the mucking around with the older term “justification.” And in the same way that “begotten, not created” needed to be invented to correct “there was a time when He was not.” Not this, but that.

    The term “providence” covers all of God’s acts. Some were denying that any of those acts were kindly intended (except towards the elect). This needed correcting.

    The FV needs to be combatted on its own terms, by recognizing and exposing its redefinition of the church, out of which all else flows. The wrangling over grace in the garden is a strange side-show (an erroneous side-show, to be sure — but not the root of the error).

    And anyways, haven’t you used the term “common grace” in our conversations like, bazillions of times?

    LikeLike

28. Maybe one could just say the postdiluvian-covenant-with-Noah-prefigured-in-postlapsarian-enmity-between- the-seed-of-the-woman-and-the-seed-of-the-serpent. Might be a little wordy.

    LikeLike

29. “Common grace / providence 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.”

    There’s also an “all about us” aspect to common grace as it has been embraced. That is, hey, we’re good, we think correctly, and we accomplish things, but how do we explain unbelievers apparently being good, doing impressive thinking,and accomplishing things? But it ends up being condescending, as if unbelievers just bumble into their thinking and accomplishments. So my question is whether the notion has an insufficient idea of a common realm in which our doing good, our thinking, and our accomplishments aren’t all that different then the unbeliever other than the attitude we might have while and about doing such things.

    LikeLike

30. Does anyone know when/where the concept of “common grace” originated?

    LikeLike

31. “Does anyone know when/where the concept of “common grace” originated?”

    The answer to that question is found in Berkhof here: http://www.bibleteacher.org/cg.htm

    He answers at the end some of the objections being raised on this thread

    LikeLike

32. Thanks Todd – very helpful link.

    “Since the days of Calvin the doctrine of common grace was generally recognized in Reformed theology, though it also met with occasional opposition. For a long time, however, little was done to develop the doctrine. This was in all probability due to the fact that the rise and prevalence of Rationalism made it necessary to place all emphasis on special grace. Up to the present Kuyper and Bavinck did more than any one else for the development of the doctrine of common grace….
    The name “common grace” as a designation of the grace now under discussion cannot be said to owe its origin to Calvin. Dr. H. Kuiper in his work on Calvin on Common Grace says that he found only four passage in Calvin´s works in which the adjective “common” is used with the noun “grace,” and in two of these the Reformer is speaking of saving grace. [3] In later Reformed theology, however, the name gratia communis came into general use to express the idea that this grace extends to all men,…

    LikeLike

33. There are quite a number of excerpts from reformed writers of the 19th-16th centuries dealing with common grace, probably more than most people would want to know about:

    http://calvinandcalvinism.com/?cat=15

    LikeLike

34. Jeff Cagle: This is providence, certainly — but so is methane rain on Titan. What distinguishes providence in general from common grace in specific is the notion of “being good towards”, the element of care for another person.

    The term “common grace” arose to correct a certain specific error: That God only brings rain on the unrighteous in order to increase their guilt, and does not have genuine kindness towards them

    Quoting from T.F. Torrance: “All this has been objectively actualized in Jesus Christ, so that Christ HImself is the objective ground and content of charis in every instance of its special Christian use…Thus in its special New Testament sense charis refers to the being and action of God as revealed and actualised in Jesus Christ, for His is in His person and work the self-giving of God to men. Later theology thought of charis as a divine attribute, but it would be truer to the New Testament to speak of it as less abstractly as the divine love in redemptive action. Grace is in fact identical with Jesus Christ in person and word and deed. Here the Greek word charis seems to pass from the aspect of disposition or good will which betows blessing to the action itself and to the actual gift, but in the New Testament neither the action nor the gift is separable from the person of the giver, God in Christ.”

    “Grace comes from beyond the self, and is quite other than man or anything human. As power acting on men it is not impersonal, but intensely personal, as personal as Christ HImself, for it is Christ acting in person, and not in any sub-personal fashion. The great characteristic of the Pauline charis is its intimate attachment to the person of Christ Jesus, and as operating only within the personal encounter of Christ with men through the word of the Gospel.”

    “Grace means the primary and constitutive act in which out of free love God has intervened to set out life on a wholly new basis, but also means that through faith this may be acualised in flesh and blood because it has been actualised in Jesus Christ, who by the Cross and Resurrection becomes our salvation, our righteousness, and our wisdom. Thus any attempt to dtach grace in a transferred sense from the actual embodiment of God’s grace in Jesus Christ is to misunderstand the meaning of the Pauline charis altogether.” 2

    2. To detach grace from the person of Christ and to think of it as acting impersonally upon man is inevitably to land in determinism. That was Augustine’s mistake.

    The Doctrine of Grace in the Apostolic Fathers, Torrance.

    RS: According to Torrance, who was speaking of the Apostolic Fathers, grace was thought of as essentially Christ Himself. I might add that Jonathan Edwards also thought of grace as being the love of God dwelling in the soul as well. Is there a common Christ to give? Does Christ give Himself to unbelievers? If grace is really Christ Himself and is giving Himself to His people, it is a great disservice to speak of common grace in terms of unbelievers. We can speak of common mercies, but not common grace. At the end of John 2 many believed in Jesus, but He would not entrust Himself to them. Grace can also be thought of as Christ giving Himself to His people who are in union with Him, which again shows something that is not given to unbelievers.

    For some of us denying the term “common grace” is closely linked to definite atonement and of electing grace. While I don’t deny the kindness of God to unbelievers, I do deny that God shows grace to unbelievers and that is because I agree with Torrance that the NT teaches that Christ Himself is grace. I would argue that if you think of grace as being Christ centerd and Christ oriented to the degree that grace is personal and cannot be given where Christ is not given, then it is not appropriate to speak of common grace. But again, that is not a denial that God shows kindness to all, but it is an assertion that we should be careful how we speak of His Son and grace. If this is Hyper-Calvinism, then the Bible is also.

    LikeLike

35. Darryl,

    Perhaps I said too much to say that the phrase “common grace” says too much. I don’t know what it means for God to “hate” Esau, but I can assume it has something to do with Esau not being elected. I also doubt that those who favor the phrase “common grace” would assume that would apply to the devil. The devil is as bad as he(?) could be.

    LikeLike

36. As we can all see, “common grace” has more than one meaning.

    Jeff Cagle: Good work brother! I concur with what you wrote.

    LikeLike

37. Jeff, I don’t know, have I? My purpose in the question wasn’t actually to impugn the neo language, because I do see its utility. It was simply to wonder where the older term was insufficient. I’m still not sure it is.

    M&M, I wonder if common grace gave rise to borrowed capital. Whatever problems the former has, the latter has always grated, because it makes it sound as if unbelievers are culpable for stealing. But how can anybody steal from a common reservoir or even from what is naturally his own? Does borrowed capital tempt us to violate the ninth commandment?

    LikeLike

38. Ephesians 1:9-11–” making known to us the mystery of his will, according to his purpose, which he set forth in Christ as a plan for the fullness of time, to unite all things in him, things in heaven and things on earth. In Christ we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to the purpose of him who works all things according to the counsel of his will…”

    “All things were created for Christ”. (Col 1:16) Jesus Christ “is before all things” (Col 1:17). Jesus Christ is first in the counsel of God. The elect are chosen in Christ before the foundation of the world, and this means that logically Christ was before the elect in the counsel of God.

    Those who say that Christ died for every sinner think that they honor Christ by saying that the decree for Christ to die is before the decree to elect some sinners. They claim in this way to put Christ before election.

    Not only Arminians but also many Calvinists want to place election after the decree to make atonement, so that the atonement will not be restricted to the elect. They think of election as something that causes the elect to believe, but they will not teach an atonement only for the elect.

    But election in Christ is first! The death of Christ is not the cause of God’s election in love. God’s election in love is the cause of the death of Christ. Jesus Christ is first. Jesus, the incarnate, the
    eternal Son of God in the flesh, is the foundation of election by being Himself the object of election. “All things were created through Him and for Him. And He is before all things.”

    This means that the creation is for the purpose of the redemption of the elect. God does not have a second “cultural only” purpose for the creation. God’s purpose in history is to bring glory to Jesus Christ. He is not simply the one who makes election work. Jesus Christ Himself is chosen first, before all the others. All the other elect were chosen in Jesus Christ, and not apart from Jesus Christ. Those God loves are “chosen in Him”. Ephesians 1:4

    LikeLike

39. Hebrews 10:28-29, “Anyone who has set aside the law of Moses dies without mercy on the evidence of two or three witnesses. How much worse punishment do you think will be deserved by the One who has spurned the Son of God, and has profaned the blood of the covenant by which He was sanctified, and has outraged the Spirit of grace.”

    Those who profane the death of Christ teach that Christ sanctified Himself in common for every sinner But the verses which follow in Hebrews talk about every “son to glory”, every ”those who are sanctified”, every “the children God has given me”. Those who profane the death of Christ say they honor Christ as dying for many sinners who will never be glorified. They tell us that the One crowned was sanctified for more than are sanctified. They dishonor Christ by telling the children God gave Him that Christ died also for those who are not and who will never be children of God.

    God’s elect are set apart by the death, by the blood of Christ. Hebrews 5:9, “And being made perfect, He became the source of eternal salvation to those who obey Him.” All the elect will obey the gospel but it is not their doing so which is the source of their salvation. But if Christ died in some ways in common for every sinner, then it is not the blood of Christ which sanctifies. God forbid!

    The warning of Hebrews 10 is not assuming that God has been partially gracious to all who are being warned. Many died under the Mosaic law without grace. Even though the ceremonies of the Mosaic economy proclaimed gospel by the death of Christ and not by our doing, God was never gracious to anybody in the Mosaic covenant except those who were elect in Christ. Paul’s kinsmen according to the flesh, ” to whom belong the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises, “ (Romans 9:4) did not receive grace unless they were elect. We cannot talk about grace without talking about election, because there is no grace except for the elect. Not all the kinsmen are children of the promise, because “it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God.” (Romans 9:6)

    Not all in the Mosaic covenant were elect. There is no common covenant grace. “Though they were not yet born and had not done anything good or bad—in order that God’s purpose of election would continue…” (Romans 9:11) God’s grace is not resisted. There is no grace for those who are not effectually called. What kind of grace is it that does not save from God’s wrath? The gospel is a promise for the elect. The gospel is not a conditional promise which warns that grace will run out for those who don’t believe.

    LikeLike

40. MacMark; your confusing common grace with saving grace. All one need do, is look up the word gracious. The unbeliever receives all sorts of blessings from God he doesnt deserve apart from salvation. That is common grace.

    Ask the question this way: Do unbelievers receive gracious blessings from God they don’t deserve? Of course they do! What are these blessings called? Common grace!

    LikeLike

41. McMark says God was never gracious to anybody in the Mosaic covenant except those who were elect in Christ.

    Huh? Read the Bible Mark! Your not just wrong, your so off its laughable! Was it gracious for all of Israel to be set free from the bondage of Egypt? Pssssst, that’s a no brainer! Was it gracious for all of Israel to walk through the Red Sea? Duh! Was it gracious of God to provide food and water for ALL of Israel? Earth to Mark, wake up bro! God was gracious to everyone in Israel, even those who were not the elect! They were all given their own land; how gracious was that?

    LikeLike

42. Richard says While I don’t deny the kindness of God to unbelievers, I do deny that God shows grace to unbelievers and that is because I agree with Torrance that the NT teaches that Christ Himself is grace.

    Me: But Richard all of Israel did partake of Christ.

    1 Cor. 10:2

    and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea, and all ate the same spiritual food, and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank from the spiritual Rock that followed them, and the Rock *was* Christ.”

    You see Richard? All of Israel partook of Christ, as in the Rock was Christ. So what was Israel’s problem? They lacked faith! This in no way denies that God was gracious to free Israel from the bondage of Egypt. Just look up the definition of the word “grace”. God is gracious to all men in some ways. He only expresses saving grace to his elect.

    LikeLike

43. Doug Sowers quoting RS: While I don’t deny the kindness of God to unbelievers, I do deny that God shows grace to unbelievers and that is because I agree with Torrance that the NT teaches that Christ Himself is grace.

    Doug Sowers: But Richard all of Israel did partake of Christ.

    1 Cor. 10:2 and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea, and all ate the same spiritual food, and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank from the spiritual Rock that followed them, and the Rock *was* Christ.”

    You see Richard? All of Israel partook of Christ, as in the Rock was Christ. So what was Israel’s problem? They lacked faith! This in no way denies that God was gracious to free Israel from the bondage of Egypt. Just look up the definition of the word “grace”. God is gracious to all men in some ways. He only expresses saving grace to his elect.

    RS: But remember, the whole nation had their sins forgiven as a nation once each year. Did that mean that they were forgiven for eternity or as a nation and its place before God? A person that truly has Christ and grace is a converted person. A person that does not have Christ and grace is an unconverted person. You are confusing the nature of grace with a more modern idea of being gracious. A person from Alabama can be very gracious but not have grace.

    Another idea that you might think about is that God knows all things from eternity. He can give people many things that outwardly appear to be good in the earthly sense and yet those things be things that will contribute to their damnation. God gives men plenty of riches and earthly things at times and yet hardens their hearts with those riches to eternal things. I am not sure I would call those things grace that He uses to harden their hearts with.

    Romans 2:3 But do you suppose this, O man, when you pass judgment on those who practice such things and do the same yourself, that you will escape the judgment of God?
    4 Or do you think lightly of the riches of His kindness and tolerance and patience, not knowing that the kindness of God leads you to repentance?
    5 But because of your stubbornness and unrepentant heart you are storing up wrath for yourself in the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God,
    6 who WILL RENDER TO EACH PERSON ACCORDING TO HIS DEEDS:

    LikeLike

44. Doug Sowers: MacMark; your confusing common grace with saving grace. All one need do, is look up the word gracious. The unbeliever receives all sorts of blessings from God he doesnt deserve apart from salvation. That is common grace.

    Ask the question this way: Do unbelievers receive gracious blessings from God they don’t deserve? Of course they do! What are these blessings called? Common grace!

    RS: But Doug, all things that appear to be blessings are not blessings. The Egyptians gave their gold and jewelry to the Israelites as they left “town” and yet the Israelites used that to make a golden calf with. So if God intends to harden the hearts of people He gives things that you call blessings to, wouldn’t it be better to call them common curses?

    LikeLike

45. Doug Sowers: Huh? Read the Bible Mark! Your not just wrong, your so off its laughable! Was it gracious for all of Israel to be set free from the bondage of Egypt? Pssssst, that’s a no brainer! Was it gracious for all of Israel to walk through the Red Sea? Duh! Was it gracious of God to provide food and water for ALL of Israel? Earth to Mark, wake up bro! God was gracious to everyone in Israel, even those who were not the elect! They were all given their own land; how gracious was that?

    RS: Did God give grace to Esau? Did God give grace to the sons of Eli? Did God give grace to the sons of Korah? Did God give grace to the people other than Noah and family at the flood? And on and on.

    LikeLike

46. RS,

    Thanks for the comments. I would just register three thoughts:

    (1) It’s reasonable to distinguish between the salvific work of Christ and the “kindness” of God, and to insist very loudly that “this is not that.” So I appreciate what you are saying.

    (2) That said, Torrence is problematic. Consider what he says: ““…so that Christ Himself is … the content of charis in every instance of its special Christian use…Thus in its special New Testament sense charis refers to the being and action of God as revealed and actualised in Jesus Christ”

    It’s pretty easy to (mis?)understand this as theosis.

    So I think it’s also reasonable to distinguish between the person of Christ — God and man — and the grace shown us, and to insist loudly that “grace” is not a synonym for “Christ”, but rather for “the work of Christ.”

    In fact, I cannot think of an instance in the NT where the term “grace” is used to mean God Himself, rather than His work and favor towards us. Can you?

    (3) One reason to call God’s kindness by the term “common grace” is that the Hebrew term hen, “grace”, frequently refers to generic kindness.

    LikeLike

47. One more thought, RS. Above you said to Doug,

    But Doug, all things that appear to be blessings are not blessings. The Egyptians gave their gold and jewelry to the Israelites as they left “town” and yet the Israelites used that to make a golden calf with.

    And subsequent to this, God disciplined them, so that some (including Aaron) were brought to repentance, which is definitely a blessing. God’s providential actions ripple out in ever-wider circles, and we can’t read straight-line curses or blessings out of them.

    LikeLike

48. Richard asks, Did God give grace to the people other than Noah and family at the flood?

    You’re making my point! Not all of Noah’s family experienced saving grace, but they did experience covenantal or temporary grace, as you just intimated.

    Just make this distinction: saving grace, and other kinds of grace. Then we have no problems.

    LikeLike

49. Richard asks Did God give grace to the sons of Eli?

    Richard, are you serious? Who was blessed more than an Israelite in the old testament? Philistines or Israel? It was an undeserved blessing (grace) being born in the covenant of grace! Once again, you fail to make a simple distinction between “saving grace” and other types of grace. But let’s not forget that no one deserves to enjoy anything in this world, and if we do, it’s because God is gracious i e kind; even to those he does not choose to save eternally.

    LikeLike

50. I’ll stick with the theology of the great Paul Simon when it comes to making sense of events in this life:

    “And God only knows. And God makes his plan. The information’s unavailable to the mortal man.”

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5_H-LY4Jb2M

    LikeLike

51. I never thought I would write this, but Doug Sowers is right on the mark. See Doug, theonomists and 2kers can agree on something!

    If grace is undeserved, better yet, demerited favor, than God is gracious to the non-elect. Scripture goes beyond simply explaining how in his providence God does certain things to elect and non-elect, the Scripture wants us to know God’s motivations, which are often numerous.

    Jeremiah 31:32 It will not be like the covenant, made with their ancestors, when I took them by the hand to lead them out of Egypt, because they broke my covenant, though I was a husband to them, declares the Lord.

    A husband loves his wife.

    Psalm 107

    12 So he subjected them to bitter labor;
    they stumbled, and there was no one to help.
    13 Then they cried to the Lord in their trouble,
    and he saved them from their distress.
    14 He brought them out of darkness, the utter darkness,
    and broke away their chains.
    15 Let them give thanks to the Lord for his unfailing love
    and his wonderful deeds for mankind,

    Since not all God rescued from Egypt were eternally elect, they were all still to know that it is God’s unfailing love which motivated him to rescue them from the Egyptians.

    Hyper-Calvinists have a difficult time handling more than one disposition in God, which suggests an extreme rationalism, but God can have wrath and mercy on the same people in different ways; he can hate Esau in one way (not eternally choosing), and have love and show grace to him in another way – common, temporary. (I think most parents can relate to having love and wrath at the same time over our kids at certain moments.) That is why providence cannot replace the term common grace. Common grace speaks of motivation, a disposition in God that Scripture reveals he possesses for all his creatures made in his image, and that is important for us to understand about him and how we relate to unbelievers, which the term providence just doesn’t cover. .

    LikeLike

52. Erik, is your theology “slip sliding” away?

    LikeLike

53. Does “kind providence” work?

    LikeLike

54. Jeff Cagle: RS, Thanks for the comments. I would just register three thoughts:

    (1) It’s reasonable to distinguish between the salvific work of Christ and the “kindness” of God, and to insist very loudly that “this is not that.” So I appreciate what you are saying.

    (2) That said, Torrence is problematic. Consider what he says: ““…so that Christ Himself is … the content of charis in every instance of its special Christian use…Thus in its special New Testament sense charis refers to the being and action of God as revealed and actualised in Jesus Christ”

    It’s pretty easy to (mis?)understand this as theosis.

    RS: Theosis, however, does not mean the same thing in every usage. For example, Donald Fairbairn has written on this and said that the Church Fathers had three different usages of it. While there are ways to use theosis and mean heresy, there is at least one way to use it and think of it as Christ living in the soul, man being the temple of the living God, and of God giving us promises “so that by them you may become partakers of the divine nature” (II Peter 1:4).

    Jeff Cagle: So I think it’s also reasonable to distinguish between the person of Christ — God and man — and the grace shown us, and to insist loudly that “grace” is not a synonym for “Christ”, but rather for “the work of Christ.”

    RS: The question, then, comes down to whether grace is an attitude in God or whether it is God giving Himself in Christ by the Spirit.

    Jeff Cagle: In fact, I cannot think of an instance in the NT where the term “grace” is used to mean God Himself, rather than His work and favor towards us. Can you?

    RS: I can think of numerous places. For example, when God is said to save sinners to the glory of His grace (Eph 1:6), is He exalting something other than Himself or is He exalting Himself through Christ? After all, the context demands that all spiritual blessings be given in Christ (Eph 1:3), all grace given in Christ (Eph 1:6), and the redemption through His blood is according to the riches of His grace (Eph 1:7). All of this is done to the glory of His name and Christ Himself was the shining forth of the glory of God (Heb 1:3) and the very tabernacle of the glory of God which is a glory full of grace and truth (John 1:14).

    When I John says that “God is love” is it describing the way God is in Himself or simply something He does? If we think of love as the way God is in His triune being and that the only way a human being can truly love is to be born of God and to know God (I John 4:7-8), then something else must come up as well. The fruit of the Holy Spirit is love and yet no one deserves to know God and have this love of God worked in him or her. So the indwelling of this love of God is true grace as well. No unbeliever has this indwelling of the love of God and since eternal life is to know God then no unbeliever can know God. Instead, the heathens are said not to know God.

    Jeff Cagle: (3) One reason to call God’s kindness by the term “common grace” is that the Hebrew term hen, “grace”, frequently refers to generic kindness.

    RS: Some would question whether the full teaching of grace is even in the Old Testament, but instead it points to the grace (Messiah) which is to come. Hen is only translated as grace seven times in the OT and can mean favor, charm, or adornment.

    LikeLike

55. One factor that makes the notion of common grace a bit hard to fathom is that enjoying some material blessings in this brief life on earth seems to pale in comparison to being punished eternally for sin. Unless we are willing to say that God’s common grace extends to the unsaved’s existence in hell, which I don’t think Scripture allows us to do, “common grace” seems like small consolation.

    LikeLike

56. Jeff Cagle: One more thought, RS. Above you said to Doug, “But Doug, all things that appear to be blessings are not blessings. The Egyptians gave their gold and jewelry to the Israelites as they left “town” and yet the Israelites used that to make a golden calf with.”

    Jeff Cagle: And subsequent to this, God disciplined them, so that some (including Aaron) were brought to repentance, which is definitely a blessing. God’s providential actions ripple out in ever-wider circles, and we can’t read straight-line curses or blessings out of them.

    RS: Which is actually what I would argue. We cannot know from what God does in the life of the unbeliever what He is doing and as such we should not refer to it as grace. At times He gives people good things but they end up being cursed by them. At other times He sends hard things on people and He uses them for blessings. God sent a tsunami on Japan and I am sure some people were converted as a result. However, I am not sure we would refer to that as grace. So if He sends what appears to be really good things to people and they are used to bring curses and hardness upon them, perhaps thinking of those things as grace in any way is not the best either.

    LikeLike

57. You can see where the idea of common grace could lead to the temptation to embrace universalism (or near universalism). See Hart’s post on “Call or Shrug to Communion”.

    LikeLike

58. Todd: If grace is undeserved, better yet, demerited favor, than God is gracious to the non-elect. Scripture goes beyond simply explaining how in his providence God does certain things to elect and non-elect, the Scripture wants us to know God’s motivations, which are often numerous.

    RS: But can you know God’s motivations to the non-elect? Following the WCF, from all eternity God has planned all things and He knows His elect. Can we say we know His eternal purposes in giving apparent good things to the non-elect when we do know that they will increase their punishment? When God punishes people less than they deserve, will you call His punishments grace as well?

    LikeLike

59. Doug Sowers quoting Richard: ” Did God give grace to the people other than Noah and family at the flood?”

    Doug Sowers: You’re making my point! Not all of Noah’s family experienced saving grace, but they did experience covenantal or temporary grace, as you just intimated.

    RS: But why do you call that covenantal or temporary grace?

    Doug Sowers: Just make this distinction: saving grace, and other kinds of grace. Then we have no problems.

    RS: When we think of other kinds of grace as opposed to all grace being in Christ, then you have other problems. There is the grace that God manifests to all those in Christ and then there are kindnesses He expresses to others. However, those kindnesses will lead them to a greater torment.

    LikeLike

60. Doug Sowers: Richard asks Did God give grace to the sons of Eli?

    Doug Sowers: Richard, are you serious?

    RS: No, I am Richard.

    Doug Sowers: Who was blessed more than an Israelite in the old testament? Philistines or Israel?

    RS: Who was punished more in the Old Testament? The Philistines or Israel?

    Doug Sowers: It was an undeserved blessing (grace) being born in the covenant of grace!

    RS: But did that end in a greater and eternal cursing for many if not most?

    Doug Sowers: Once again, you fail to make a simple distinction between “saving grace” and other types of grace.

    RS: No, I simply see all spiritual blessings being in Christ. All in Christ are saved.

    Doug Sowers: But let’s not forget that no one deserves to enjoy anything in this world, and if we do, it’s because God is gracious i e kind; even to those he does not choose to save eternally.

    RS: “God gives plenty of earthly things to those whom He hates.” A sermon title by Jonathan Edwards (as D.G. Hart breaks out into a rash at the mere reading of his name). My reference to the sons of Eli is given below. Their father tried to rebuke them but the sons did not listen because the LORD desired to put them to death. We do have a revelation of what His desire for them was.

    I Samuel 2:22 Now Eli was very old; and he heard all that his sons were doing to all Israel, and how they lay with the women who served at the doorway of the tent of meeting.
    23 He said to them, “Why do you do such things, the evil things that I hear from all these people?
    24 “No, my sons; for the report is not good which I hear the LORD’S people circulating.
    25 “If one man sins against another, God will mediate for him; but if a man sins against the LORD, who can intercede for him?” But they would not listen to the voice of their father, for the LORD desired to put them to death.

    LikeLike

61. Come on, a hyper calvinist is anybody who denies John Murray’s amyraldian version of the free offer. What, we’re not supposed to say that?
    Oh, the topic is common grace. Sorry.

    The PRCs’s argument is that grace has to be connected to salvation. That there can be no work of the Holy Spirit internally upon the heart of the reprobate, but only externally in the restraint of sin through the magistrate, sin’s effect on the sinner in sickness, VD, poverty etc. or the sinner’s self respect and fear of the opinion of others, i.e. Augustine’s “gilded sin”.

    Further all the good things in life, rain, sunshine, health, wealth etc. only add up to the sinner’s condemnation. There is no grace in things per se as per the Book of Job.

    What Hoeksema/the PRCs do with Gen.20:6 when God speaks to him in a dream, I don’t know. Is Abimelech a believer or an unbeliever? He has to be the first according to their um . . paradigm.

    LikeLike

62. I think Richard’s making some good points that point back to the original post (and to what I was saying yesterday). Using the term Providence doesn’t require us to make assessments that are beyond our pay grade about which earthly events are good or bad. We just say that God causes rain to fall on the just and the unjust and leave it at that. Things that appear to be good happen to Christians and non-Christians. Things that appear to be bad happen to Christians and non-Christians. We must humbly admit that we never see the whole picture, though, so we leave the assessment of these matters to God. The exception would be if it is something that is my business — If I am a parent or a church elder God has given me the task of making assessments of events where appropriate for those under my care.

    One thing I think back on when discussing this topic is a sermon I heard by Doug Wilson shortly after 9/11. I remember him speculating about how many people in the Towers were planning adulterous affairs the day they died (his premise being the attack was God’s judgment on sin). Well, how many people were planning to go to Bible study that night? When we try to make sense of events like this we usually make a mess of it.

    LikeLike

63. That is why providence cannot replace the term common grace. Common grace speaks of motivation, a disposition in God that Scripture reveals he possesses for all his creatures made in his image, and that is important for us to understand about him and how we relate to unbelievers, which the term providence just doesn’t cover.

    But, Todd, the HC’s own description of providence gives me that Ragu vibe, as in “it’s all in there”:

    “What dost thou mean by the providence of God?

    Answer: The almighty and everywhere present power of God; whereby, as it were by his hand, he upholds and governs heaven, earth, and all creatures; so that herbs and grass, rain and drought, fruitful and barren years, meat and drink, health and sickness, riches and poverty, yea, and all things come, not by chance, but be his fatherly hand.

    What advantage is it to us to know that God has created, and by his providence does still uphold all things?

    Answer: That we may be patient in adversity; thankful in prosperity; and that in all things, which may hereafter befall us, we place our firm trust in our faithful God and Father, that nothing shall separate us from his love; since all creatures are so in his hand, that without his will they cannot so much as move.”

    LikeLike

64. Erik, I’ve long marveled that a secular Jew could be such a good Calvinist. Can Paul Simon’s pop music help order our souls?

    LikeLike

65. Todd: If grace is undeserved, better yet, demerited favor, than God is gracious to the non-elect.

    RS: Bryan Cross would tell you that you are begging the question here, and he would be right. We simply don’t know all that God is doing and what His motivations really are. All the teaching that Judas received and all the outward blessings that he had by being a follower of Jesus certainly would appear to be grace. But what were the motivations of God in doing that? It was to fulfill Scripture.

    Acts 1:15 At this time Peter stood up in the midst of the brethren (a gathering of about one hundred and twenty persons was there together), and said,
    16 “Brethren, the Scripture had to be fulfilled, which the Holy Spirit foretold by the mouth of David concerning Judas, who became a guide to those who arrested Jesus”… 24 And they prayed and said, “You, Lord, who know the hearts of all men, show which one of these two You have chosen
    25 to occupy this ministry and apostleship from which Judas turned aside to go to his own place.”

    LikeLike

66. Zrim,

    Or it could be a case of Calvinism and fatalism being not-so-distant cousins…

    LikeLike

67. Bob S: Come on, a hyper calvinist is anybody who denies John Murray’s amyraldian version of the free offer. What, we’re not supposed to say that?

    Todd: Hyper-Calvinists have a difficult time handling more than one disposition in God, which suggests an extreme rationalism, but God can have wrath and mercy on the same people in different ways; he can hate Esau in one way (not eternally choosing), and have love and show grace to him in another way – common, temporary.

    RS: So Scripture reveals to us that God hated Esau and yet He gave him good things. All the good things that God gave Esau were abused by Esau and he ended up storing up wrath for himself in the day of wrath (Rom 2:4-5). I would argue that God knew how Esau would use those things and that we should not call them grace but instead mercies.

    Todd: (I think most parents can relate to having love and wrath at the same time over our kids at certain moments.) That is why providence cannot replace the term common grace. Common grace speaks of motivation, a disposition in God that Scripture reveals he possesses for all his creatures made in his image, and that is important for us to understand about him and how we relate to unbelievers, which the term providence just doesn’t cover. .

    RS: But does Scripture really reveal those things? We must be careful because Scripture uses anthropological terms all over the place. We are told that God repented, but we know that the God who knows all things from eternity and has planned all things from all eternity does not repent. How do we really know the motivations of God toward people unless they are revealed in Scripture? But again, all spiritual blessings are in Christ. Do unbelievers have spiritual blessings? Does the Bible speak of grace being a blessing to unbelievers?

    LikeLike

68. RS: But can you know God’s motivations to the non-elect?

    We can know because God says he loved Israel. That ends the debate.

    Deuteronomy 7:6

    For you are a people holy to the LORD your God. The LORD your God has chosen you to be a people for his treasured possession, out of all the peoples who are on the face of the earth. It was not because you were more in number than any other people that the LORD set his love on you and chose you, for you were the fewest of all peoples,

    Why did God chose Israel?

    but it is because the LORD *loves* you and is keeping the oath that he swore to your fathers,

    Richard with Scripture evidence like this, there can be no doubt!

    LikeLike

69. “But can you know God’s motivations to the non-elect? Following the WCF, from all eternity God has planned all things and He knows His elect. Can we say we know His eternal purposes in giving apparent good things to the non-elect ”

    If love and kindness are motivations, than yes, we can know them because Scripture tells us. It doesn’t mean these dispositions exhaust all other motivations, God is much more complicated than we are, and a revealed disposition does not inform us of all his eternal purposes either.

    LikeLike

70. Quick question Richard: Did Israel deserve God’s love that he set upon them?

    That’s grace brother!

    BTW, I admire Edwards but he wasnt perfect, as evidenced by his inability to grasp any type of grace, other than saving grace. Since the Bible tells us that God loved Israel, who are you to argue the point?

    LikeLike

71. Richard, when God says Israel was his *treasured possession* you interpret that to mean God was setting them up for more punishment because he hated their guts? Do you see how you’re twisting the plain meaning of what God is saying? God says he treasures a people, and you say the opposite!

    LikeLike

72. Keep up the good work Todd!

    It’s nice to be on the same side with you! I won’t let it go to my head however, since a broken clock is right twice a day 🙂

    LikeLike

73. Zrim,

    I’m not sure that definition, as good as it is, answers the question of why the OT states that God loved Israel, elect and non-elect. There is certainly overlap between the two, but I would need to know why it is so dangerous to speak of non-saving temporary grace before discarding the term common grace.

    Calvin did speak of grace to the unregenerate without using the phrase common grace

    “Therefore, as you would not commend a man for virtue whose vices impose upon you by a show of virtue, so you will not attribute a power of choosing rectitude to the human will while rooted in depravity, (see August. lib. 4, Cont. Julian.) Still, the surest and easiest answer to the objection is, that those are not common endowments of nature, but special gifts of God, which he distributes in divers forms, and, in a definite measure, to men otherwise profane. For which reason, we hesitate not, in common language, to say, that one is of a good, another of a vicious nature; though we cease not to hold that both are placed under the universal condition of human depravity. All we mean is that God has conferred on the one a special grace which he has not seen it meet to confer on the other.” (Inst.II.iii.4)”

    Here he speaks of a special grace to certain unregenerate men which we would call common grace

    “But we ought to consider, that, notwithstanding of the corruption of our nature, there is some room for divine grace, such grace as, without purifying it, may lay it under internal restraint. For, did the Lord let every mind loose to wanton in its lusts, doubtless there is not a man who would not show that his nature is capable of all the crimes with which Paul charges it,”(Inst. II.iii.3)

    Here God restraining some unregenerate men more than others Calvin attributes to a divine grace; i.e., common/ non-saving grace

    Eric,

    That’s what you get for listening to a DW sermon

    LikeLike

74. Erik,

    Sorry I misspelled your name

    Doug,

    Don’t worry, broken clocks can be transformed, like cities, right?

    Richard,

    Jesus would not have been so hurt and betrayed by Judas if he had not genuinely loved Judas. Judas had been a friend. The eternal perspective of fulfilled Scripture does not negate genuine emotion or disposition such as kindness and love; you can affirm both and still be a consistent Calvinist. Love is never toward a bad end. It is not God’s love that sends people to hell. Jesus didn’t only weep over Jerusalem because he was fulfilling a role, he genuinely loved them and wept over their coming judgment. Maybe the issue is a Christological one, but we better not open that can of worms.

    LikeLike

75. Erik opines: One factor that makes the notion of common grace a bit hard to fathom is that enjoying some material blessings in this brief life on earth seems to pale in comparison to being punished eternally for sin.

    Erik it’s hard for us to fathom all sorts of things. (I struggle comprehending God having no beginning) BUT we must not disregard clear Scriptural testimony that teaches God loves mankind in some fashion. I don’t know exactly how these all play out in God heart, but I believe Scripture so it’s case closed!

    LikeLike

76. Todd, as I earlier suggested to Jeff, my point isn’t to impugn as dangerous or otherwise imply discarding the informal term common grace–it’s fine as far as it goes. It’s to wonder why a term formally taken up by our confessions can’t do what is needed.

    If I understand your question, you want to know why the Bible speaks of God shedding favor on those both within and without his covenant. How does providence being “The almighty and everywhere present power of God; whereby, as it were by his hand, he upholds and governs heaven, earth, and all creatures…” not cover it in ways that common grace being unmerited and non-saving favor would?

    LikeLike

77. Doug Sowers quoting RS: But can you know God’s motivations to the non-elect?

    Doug Sowers: We can know because God says he loved Israel. That ends the debate.
    Deuteronomy 7:6 “For you are a people holy to the LORD your God. The LORD your God has chosen you to be a people for his treasured possession, out of all the peoples who are on the face of the earth. It was not because you were more in number than any other people that the LORD set his love on you and chose you, for you were the fewest of all peoples.”

    Why did God chose Israel? but it is because the LORD *loves* you and is keeping the oath that he swore to your fathers, Richard with Scripture evidence like this, there can be no doubt!

    RS: So much to do and such a small amount of space. God does not set His love on anyone because they deserve it, true enough. God loves for the glory of His name rather than anything found in the person. So when God sets His love on people to be His people to proclaim His coming Christ, does that mean that it is grace to them? Not unless He gives them Christ Himself. Your are also assuming that God set His feelings upon them rather than His choosing them to be His people for His purposes. We must be careful of ascribing passions to God. In fact, we shouldn’t do it at all.

    Psalm 5:5 The boastful shall not stand before Your eyes; You hate all who do iniquity.

    Psalm 105:25 He turned their heart to hate His people, To deal craftily with His servants.

    Proverbs 6:16 There are six things which the LORD hates, Yes, seven which are an abomination to Him: 17 Haughty eyes, a lying tongue, And hands that shed innocent blood, 18 A heart that devises wicked plans, Feet that run rapidly to evil, 19 A false witness who utters lies, And one who spreads strife among brothers.

    Proverbs 8:13 “The fear of the LORD is to hate evil; Pride and arrogance and the evil way And the perverted mouth, I hate.

    Jeremiah 12:8 “My inheritance has become to Me Like a lion in the forest; She has roared against Me; Therefore I have come to hate her.

    Hosea 9:15 All their evil is at Gilgal; Indeed, I came to hate them there! Because of the wickedness of their deeds I will drive them out of My house! I will love them no more; All their princes are rebels.

    Amos 6:8 The Lord GOD has sworn by Himself, the LORD God of hosts has declared: “I loathe the arrogance of Jacob, And detest his citadels; Therefore I will deliver up the city and all it contains.”

    LikeLike

78. todd: “But can you know God’s motivations to the non-elect? Following the WCF, from all eternity God has planned all things and He knows His elect. Can we say we know His eternal purposes in giving apparent good things to the non-elect ”

    Todd: If love and kindness are motivations, than yes, we can know them because Scripture tells us. It doesn’t mean these dispositions exhaust all other motivations, God is much more complicated than we are, and a revealed disposition does not inform us of all his eternal purposes either.

    RS: One concern is that your position seems to assert that God is motivated by what is man rather than Himself and His own glory. A second concern is that your position seems to assume that God is like man in terms of feelings and passions. All that God does is self-originated from His own glorious and beautiful self-sufficiency. In other words, God is His own motivation.

    LikeLike

79. Doug Sowers: Quick question Richard: Did Israel deserve God’s love that he set upon them?
    That’s grace brother!

    RS: No, that is perhaps mercy and kindness, but it is not giving them Himself. It is grace when He gives them the highest good and He is the highest good. God did set love upon Israel, but in the New Covenant He puts His love in people and dwells in them. So God can set love on a people knowing that this does not change them and in fact their condemnation will be greater. That is not grace.

    Doug Sowers: BTW, I admire Edwards but he wasnt perfect, as evidenced by his inability to grasp any type of grace, other than saving grace. Since the Bible tells us that God loved Israel, who are you to argue the point?

    RS: I am not claiming that Edwards did not believe in something like common grace, though he did not like to use the word outside of the blessings found in Christ. Who am I to argue the point? Just a son of the living God. But of course you have to deal with different kinds of love and all of that. Did you know that God loves justice and holiness? Did you know that God loves the glory of His own wrath? I think you are an imperfect man because you will not grasp that all spiritual blessings are in Christ and that God only gives Himself to those in Christ.

    LikeLike

80. Doug Sowers: Richard, when God says Israel was his *treasured possession* you interpret that to mean God was setting them up for more punishment because he hated their guts? Do you see how you’re twisting the plain meaning of what God is saying? God says he treasures a people, and you say the opposite!

    RS: You might want to check the history of Israel and see just what happened to the treasured people in the Old Testament. I did not say that He hated their guts, but again that is thinking of God in the terms of man. If God says He treasures a people then He treasures a people. However, He did not say that He was giving them grace in the text. It is also clear in text after text that He hated some of the people and that many of them perished. So I am just trying to be faithful to the Bible as a whole rather than a text here and there. By the way, and once again, there is a huge difference between setting His love on a people that He sent into slavery and turned them over to their enemies over and over again and between those in the New Covenant where His love dwells in them. Now the latter is grace.

    LikeLike

81. Todd: Richard, Jesus would not have been so hurt and betrayed by Judas if he had not genuinely loved Judas. Judas had been a friend.

    RS: Why do you think Jesus was “so hurt” in this? Jesus chose Judas as a “disciple” knowing why He chose Him. He knew that the Scriptures had to be fulfilled.

    Todd: The eternal perspective of fulfilled Scripture does not negate genuine emotion or disposition such as kindness and love; you can affirm both and still be a consistent Calvinist.

    RS: But I have not argued that God cannot show kindness in lighte of His eternal perspective, but I am arguing that all the spiritual blessings of grace are in Christ. One has to be careful about bringing in the word “emotions” so as not to think of them as “passions.”

    WCF: Chapter II Of God, and of the Holy Trinity
    I. There is but one only,[1] living, and true God,[2] who is infinite in being and perfection,[3] a most pure spirit,[4] invisible,[5] without body, parts,[6] or passions;[7] immutable,[8] immense,[9] eternal,[10] incomprehensible,[11] almighty,[12] most wise,[13] most holy,[14] most free,[15] most absolute;[16] working all things according to the counsel of His own immutable and most righteous will,[17] for His own glory;[18] most loving,[19] gracious, merciful, long-suffering, abundant in goodness and truth, forgiving iniquity, transgression, and sin;[20] the rewarder of them that diligently seek Him;[21] and withal, most just, and terrible in His judgments,[22] hating all sin,[23] and who will by no means clear the guilty.[24]

    Todd: Love is never toward a bad end. It is not God’s love that sends people to hell.

    RS: But it is God’s love that sends people to hell. God loves Himself as triune and He loves Himself as a holy, just, and wrathful God. It appears that when you think of God as love you think of how He is toward human beings first and foremost. But instead of that, think of God’s love as being toward Himself first and foremost. Human beings are commanded to love God with all of their being, so either that reflects God as triune or it is arbitrary. Human beings are commanded to love God with all of their being and then their neighbors as themselves. In other words, we can only truly love other human beings when we love God first and foremost and out of love for Him. God must love Himself first and foremost or He would love sinners more than perfect holiness.

    Todd: Jesus didn’t only weep over Jerusalem because he was fulfilling a role, he genuinely loved them and wept over their coming judgment. Maybe the issue is a Christological one, but we better not open that can of worms.

    RS: But notice that Jesus wept over Jerusalem. Does it say that He wept over each individual in the city? I am aware that this is a common verse used by those of your position, but does it really mean all that people are trying to say it means? He also entered the Temple just after that and drove out the sellers. Could it have been that He was weeping over the glory of God that the city was so opposed to?

    LikeLike

82. Richard, why are you so stubborn? Do you realize your using various words that mean the same thing as grace? To be merciful and kind, is the same as being gracious. Why not just admit that God is gracious to all men in some ways, and gracious to some men in all ways? It’s really not that hard to grasp.

    There is such a thing as temporary grace, see Israel. When Israel was faithful God graciously destroyed their enemies. When they were unfaithful, God allowed their enemies to overwhelm them. It’s the same today in the new testament, see Revelations and Christ’s evaluation of the 7 churches.

    LikeLike

83. Doug Sowers: Richard, why are you so stubborn?

    RS: I am just trying to be like the theonomists

    Doug Sowers: Do you realize your using various words that mean the same thing as grace? To be merciful and kind, is the same as being gracious.

    RS: No, these are not the same thing. To be gracious (in common parlance) is not the same thing as to give grace. To be merciful is to help the helpless while grace is only found in Christ.

    Doug Sowers: Why not just admit that God is gracious to all men in some ways, and gracious to some men in all ways?

    RS: But why would I admit that which is not true? All spiritual blessings are found in Christ. What do you think Titus 3:7 means when it says “For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation to all men”?

    Doug Sowers: It’s really not that hard to grasp.

    RS: It is not that hard to grasp, but the problem is that it is simply not correct.

    Doug Sowers: There is such a thing as temporary grace, see Israel. When Israel was faithful God graciously destroyed their enemies.

    RS: So if gracious and grace mean the same thing, God destroyed people by grace. Was God showing grace to the enemies of Israel? Did God love those He decided He wanted to be destroyed?

    Doug Sowers: When they were unfaithful, God allowed their enemies to overwhelm them. It’s the same today in the new testament, see Revelations and Christ’s evaluation of the 7 churches.

    RS: But if you think of the hand of God hardening hearts and yet restraining sin as He pleases, the fact that they were unfaithful was also a judgment upon them. Look at the verses from Romans 1 below. Does God show His wrath from heaven day by day on those He is giving grace to? Is God hardening the hearts of those He is giving grace to?

    It appears that your version of events is consistent with God loves you and has a wonderful plan for your life if you will be choose Him this day. I would argue that the Bible commands the people to repent because they are sinners and because of who God is.

    Romans 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness

    Romans 1:24 Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, so that their bodies would be dishonored among them.

    Romans 1:26 For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural,

    Romans 1:28 And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper,

    LikeLike

84. Richard fires back; I think you are an imperfect man because you will not grasp that all spiritual blessings are in Christ and that God only gives Himself to those in Christ.

    I am imperfect, BUT you are out of line. All spiritual blessings (since the fall of man) are sourced in the cross of Christ, and amen. But God can give himself to whomever he wants, whenever he wants. King Nebuchadnezzar comes to mind, was he in Christ? God made a donkey speak a human language for crying out loud! Was the donkey in Christ? Take Saul for example, he received spiritual blessings, is he in heaven? Did Judas receive gracious spiritual blessings? How about Israel?

    Many people have received blessings from Christ, for a season, and then no more. Remember Nineveh? Did God hate Nineveh? No? Why not, they were not “in Chirst”. Finally on the last day many will come to Jesus boasting about the spiritual blessings they walked in, only to hear, “depart from me, you worker of lawlessness”! In short Richard, your axiom doesn’t hold up to the light of Scripture. I see all sorts of people (and an animal) who were not in Christ receiving spiritual blessings for a time, and then no more.

    I still love you Richard, but you need to re-think this issue.

    LikeLike

85. Richard says and God only gives Himself to those in Christ.

    I have already proved that is pure balderdash! That is your problem in a nutshell! Since you will not find that taught in the bible, you need to let it go, bro. I have already proved your axiom is false with plenty of examples from Scripture.

    Think of Balaam’s ass!

    p.s. Jesus said if they didnt praise him the “rocks” would! Would that mean that “rocks” are “in Christ” according to your theory?

    LikeLike

86. Richard bellows “But Doug, all things that appear to be blessings are not blessings. The Egyptians gave their gold and jewelry to the Israelites as they left “town” and yet the Israelites used that to make a golden calf with.”

    This is perhaps your weakest point. Food is surely a blessing, but even food can be abused; so? God gave the nations wine and strong drink as a blessing, does that mean when people abuse wine, that God was lying because he called wine a blessing? Richard your thinking so hard your brains are ready to fall out!

    BTW, God commanded Israel to ask the Egyptians for their gold and God moved in the Egyptians hearts to make them give their gold to his people. Are you going to indict God because Israel would later use some of the gold on an idol? Boy are you reaching!

    LikeLike

87. Doug Sowers: Richard, why are you so stubborn?

    RS: I am just trying to be like the theonomists

    LOL! LOL! LOL! I didnt know you were that funny Richard!

    LikeLike

88. RS: A second concern is that your position seems to assume that God is like man in terms of feelings and passions. All that God does is self-originated from His own glorious and beautiful self-sufficiency. In other words, God is His own motivation.

    Jesus displayed true emotion. Doing justice to the emotions displayed and the reasons given for such emotions in Scripture does not make God like man in the sense you are concerned about

    RS: Why do you think Jesus was “so hurt” in this?

    Palm 41:9 – Even my close friend, whom I trusted, he who shared my bread, has lifted up his heel against me.”

    David, and thus Jesus, are not simply stating facts, they are lamenting betrayal. Betrayal hurts. When Jesus cried out “Why have you forsaken me?” he was not just quoting Psalm 22 to prove he was the Messiah – he was truly agonizing.

    RS:Jesus chose Judas as a “disciple” knowing why He chose Him. He knew that the Scriptures had to be fulfilled.

    That knowledge doesn’t negate genuine love for Judas and hurt over his betrayal.

    RS: But I have not argued that God cannot show kindness in lighte of His eternal perspective, but I am arguing that all the spiritual blessings of grace are in Christ.

    TB: Historically Calvinists have seen types of grace beyond saving grace.

    RS: One has to be careful about bringing in the word “emotions” so as not to think of them as “passions.”

    Agreed

    RS: But notice that Jesus wept over Jerusalem. Does it say that He wept over each individual in the city? I am aware that this is a common verse used by those of your position, but does it really mean all that people are trying to say it means?

    Of course this is the common response of those of your opinion, but Scripture gives us the reason for his weeping

    “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing.” (Matt 23:37)

    You can twist this verse to mean something different, but it is what it is. Jesus weeps because he loves them and mourns their rejection and judgment.

    Geerhardus Vos – The Scriptural Doctrine of the Love of God: “We certainly have a right to say that the love which God originally bears toward man as created in His image survives in the form of compassion under the reign of sin. This being so, when the sinner comes in contact with the gospel of grace, it is natural for God to desire that he should accept its offer and be saved. We must even assume that over against the sin of rejection of the gospel this love continues to assert itself, in that it evokes from the divine heart sincere sorrow over man’s unbelief. But this universal love should be always so conceived as to leave room for the fact that God, for sovereign reasons, has not chosen to bestow upon its objects that higher love which not merely desires, but purposes and works out the salvation of some. It may be difficult to realize from any analogy in our own consciousness how the former can exist without giving rise to the latter; yet we are clearly led to believe that such is the case in God. A logical impossibility certainly is not involved, and our utter ignorance regarding the motives which determine the election of grace should restrain us from forming the rash judgment that, psychologically speaking, the existence of such a love in God for the sinner and the decree of preterition with reference to that same sinner are mutually exclusive.”

    LikeLike

89. Zrim: How does providence being “The almighty and everywhere present power of God; whereby, as it were by his hand, he upholds and governs heaven, earth, and all creatures…” not cover it in ways that common grace being unmerited and non-saving favor would?

    Todd: Because if someone asks me what kind of love did Jesus possess for the non-elect, answering, “providential love” doesn’t make a lot of sense; at least in the normal way we use the term “providence,” but common grace love, distinguished from saving grace love, does, at least for starters.

    LikeLike

90. Doug Sowers: Richard fires back; I think you are an imperfect man because you will not grasp that all spiritual blessings are in Christ and that God only gives Himself to those in Christ.

    RS: My response was to your comment about Edwards being an imperfect man. So no firing back as to trying to be mean.

    Doug Sowers: I am imperfect, BUT you are out of line. All spiritual blessings (since the fall of man) are sourced in the cross of Christ, and amen. But God can give himself to whomever he wants, whenever he wants. King Nebuchadnezzar comes to mind, was he in Christ? God made a donkey speak a human language for crying out loud! Was the donkey in Christ? Take Saul for example, he received spiritual blessings, is he in heaven? Did Judas receive gracious spiritual blessings? How about Israel?

    RS: But all the things you talked about just above were not instances of God giving Himself, but instead of giving things to people. Things that are related to spiritual blessings can actually turn out to be spiritually hardening to people like Judas.

    Doug Sowers: Many people have received blessings from Christ, for a season, and then no more. Remember Nineveh? Did God hate Nineveh? No? Why not, they were not “in Chirst”. Finally on the last day many will come to Jesus boasting about the spiritual blessings they walked in, only to hear, “depart from me, you worker of lawlessness”! In short Richard, your axiom doesn’t hold up to the light of Scripture. I see all sorts of people (and an animal) who were not in Christ receiving spiritual blessings for a time, and then no more.

    RS: I think you are missing something, however. You see someone receiving something that is externally good and you automatically assume that those things are blessings. Was the rich man in the Bible blessed because he had many barns and much grain? No, those things were curses to him.

    Again, I am not arguing that God is not merciful and good to the non-elect in many ways, but I simply don’t see the Bible teaching that those things are grace. A person has to be in Christ to receive the grace of God because all grace flows from Christ. All spiritual blessings are in Christ. So I don’t think it is too far off to say that Christ gives His bride a form of love and true grace that He does not give to those that hate Him.

    LikeLike

91. Doug Sowers: Richard says and God only gives Himself to those in Christ.

    Doug Sowers: I have already proved that is pure balderdash!

    RS: First, balderdash is not pure. Second, you have not proved that.

    Doug Sowers: That is your problem in a nutshell! Since you will not find that taught in the bible, you need to let it go, bro. I have already proved your axiom is false with plenty of examples from Scripture.

    RS: No, you have just demonstrated that you take a definition and run with it.

    Doug Sowers: Think of Balaam’s ass!

    RS: No thanks, I can do without that. I don’t live in San Francisco.

    Doug Sowers: p.s. Jesus said if they didnt praise him the “rocks” would! Would that mean that “rocks” are “in Christ” according to your theory?

    RS: Well, I wouldn’t exactly say that, but some people have mighty hard hearts.

    LikeLike

92. Doug Sowers: Richard bellows “But Doug, all things that appear to be blessings are not blessings. The Egyptians gave their gold and jewelry to the Israelites as they left “town” and yet the Israelites used that to make a golden calf with.”

    RS: I am typing in a still and quiet voice. No bellowing here.

    Doug Sowers: This is perhaps your weakest point. Food is surely a blessing, but even food can be abused; so? God gave the nations wine and strong drink as a blessing, does that mean when people abuse wine, that God was lying because he called wine a blessing?

    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: Richard your thinking so hard your brains are ready to fall out!

    RS: Thank you.

    Doug Sowers: BTW, God commanded Israel to ask the Egyptians for their gold and God moved in the Egyptians hearts to make them give their gold to his people. Are you going to indict God because Israel would later use some of the gold on an idol? Boy are you reaching!

    RS: No need to indict God at all. Just saying that people take things that appear to be good and use them to increase their own eternal torments. Not a reach at all.

    LikeLike

93. todd: quoting RS: A second concern is that your position seems to assume that God is like man in terms of feelings and passions. All that God does is self-originated from His own glorious and beautiful self-sufficiency. In other words, God is His own motivation.

    Todd: Jesus displayed true emotion. Doing justice to the emotions displayed and the reasons given for such emotions in Scripture does not make God like man in the sense you are concerned about

    RS: Perhaps we could say that Jesus had true affections and was without passions. The word “emotion”, at least as used in our day, is used to cover both affections and passions.

    Todd quoting RS: Why do you think Jesus was “so hurt” in this?

    Palm 41:9 – Even my close friend, whom I trusted, he who shared my bread, has lifted up his heel against me.”

    David, and thus Jesus, are not simply stating facts, they are lamenting betrayal. Betrayal hurts. When Jesus cried out “Why have you forsaken me?” he was not just quoting Psalm 22 to prove he was the Messiah – he was truly agonizing.

    RS: Notice how you are not going beyond the text in what you are saying and thinking the way you would think. Remember that though Jesus had a 100% human nature, it was not a fallen human nature. Then consider that His human nature was joined to a Divine Person. He knew that this was going to happen and in fact chose Judas so that this would happen. He was not hurt as we are in a selfish way. True enough He agonized on the cross, but that was because He was suffering the wrath of the Father and it seemed like the One that He had shared an infinite and eternal love with from all eternity had abandoned Him. That is not the same thing as what Judas did.

    LikeLike

94. Todd quoting RS: But notice that Jesus wept over Jerusalem. Does it say that He wept over each individual in the city? I am aware that this is a common verse used by those of your position, but does it really mean all that people are trying to say it means?

    Todd: Of course this is the common response of those of your opinion, but Scripture gives us the reason for his weeping

    “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing.” (Matt 23:37)

    You can twist this verse to mean something different, but it is what it is. Jesus weeps because he loves them and mourns their rejection and judgment.

    RS: We can agree that it is what it is, but the question has to do with what it really is. Who were those that kill the prophets and stones those that God sent to them? Was He weeping over those folks? The text may appear to mean what it means, but look at it a little longer. You are making an assumption that Jesus wept over each and every person in the city.

    Todd quoting Geerhardus Vos – The Scriptural Doctrine of the Love of God: “We certainly have a right to say that the love which God originally bears toward man as created in His image survives in the form of compassion under the reign of sin. This being so, when the sinner comes in contact with the gospel of grace, it is natural for God to desire that he should accept its offer and be saved. We must even assume that over against the sin of rejection of the gospel this love continues to assert itself, in that it evokes from the divine heart sincere sorrow over man’s unbelief. But this universal love should be always so conceived as to leave room for the fact that God, for sovereign reasons, has not chosen to bestow upon its objects that higher love which not merely desires, but purposes and works out the salvation of some. It may be difficult to realize from any analogy in our own consciousness how the former can exist without giving rise to the latter; yet we are clearly led to believe that such is the case in God. A logical impossibility certainly is not involved, and our utter ignorance regarding the motives which determine the election of grace should restrain us from forming the rash judgment that, psychologically speaking, the existence of such a love in God for the sinner and the decree of preterition with reference to that same sinner are mutually exclusive.”

    RS: We can wax eloquent on things that we think are true, but the question has to do with how they fit with Scripture in the context of Scripture and in light of the great Confessions. I cannot see how Vos’ view lines up with God showing mercy to whom He will and also hardens whom He desires. The wrath of God abides on unbelievers, not His love. God raised up Pharaoh for a specific purpose and it was not because He was showing Pharaoh grace. God hardens the hearts of those whom He pleases and it is not grace that He is doing that.

    WCF ch VI:
    IV. From this original corruption, whereby we are utterly indisposed, disabled, and made opposite to all good,[8] and wholly inclined to all evil,[9] do proceed all actual transgressions.[10]

    V. This corruption of nature, during this life, does remain in those that are regenerated;[11] and although it be, through Christ, pardoned, and mortified; yet both itself, and all the motions thereof, are truly and properly sin.[12]

    VI. Every sin, both original and actual, being a transgression of the righteous law of God, and contrary thereunto,[13] does in its own nature, bring guilt upon the sinner,[14] whereby he is bound over to the wrath of God,[15] and curse of the law,[16] and so made subject to death,[17] with all miseries spiritual,[18] temporal,[19] and eternal.[20]

    Psalm 5:5 The boastful shall not stand before Your eyes; You hate all who do iniquity.

    John 3:36 “He who believes in the Son has eternal life; but he who does not obey the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him.”

    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.
    19 You will say to me then, “Why does He still find fault? For who resists His will?”
    20 On the contrary, who are you, O man, who answers back to God? The thing molded will not say to the molder, “Why did you make me like this,” will it?
    21 Or does not the potter have a right over the clay, to make from the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for common use?
    22 What if God, although willing to demonstrate His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction?
    23 And He did so to make known the riches of His glory upon vessels of mercy, which He prepared beforehand for glory,

    LikeLike

95. RS:He was not hurt as we are in a selfish way.

    Hurting is not necessarily selfish. “Do not grieve the Holy Spirit”

    RS: The wrath of God abides on unbelievers, not His love.

    The Bible tells us both are true, as long as we distinguish the different types of love in God. God loved wicked Israel as a husband, yet his wrath was on the majority of them.

    LikeLike

96. todd quoting RS:He was not hurt as we are in a selfish way.

    Todd: Hurting is not necessarily selfish. “Do not grieve the Holy Spirit”

    RS: But the cause of our pain usually comes from being self-centered. Indeed the Scriptures tells us that the Spirit was grieved, but does that mean that the eternally blessed God the Spirit who was immutable in His infinite joy was crying and being wounded? No, it tells us that He withdrew from them.

    Todd quoting RS: The wrath of God abides on unbelievers, not His love.

    Todd: The Bible tells us both are true, as long as we distinguish the different types of love in God. God loved wicked Israel as a husband, yet his wrath was on the majority of them.

    RS: Does the Bible distinguish different types of love in God? Isn’t it quite a different thing for God to speak of loving Israel as a nation and then telling people that God loves them in our day? A common belief and saying is that “God loves me and a loving God would never send anyone to hell.” Your position is that you can tells sinners that God loves them and that they need to be saved. My position is that sinners already think that God loves them and that they are at ease in their sin and think that a loving God would never send them to hell. So your position is that God loves them and gives grace to them. What else do they need from their view? Instead, the Bible tells us that the wrath of God abides on unbelievers and that He hates all who do iniquity. The love and grace of God are found in Christ and in Christ alone. God does show goodness to all, but the command to all is repent. As John Owen put it, there is no preaching of the Gospel in the Bible based on God’s love for the sinner and there is no preaching of the Gospel based on how Christ died for all.

    LikeLike

97. RS: Does the Bible distinguish different types of love in God?

    Yes, as has been shown in the Scriptures Doug provided

    RS: Isn’t it quite a different thing for God to speak of loving Israel as a nation and then telling people that God loves them in our day?

    Yes, but that doesn’t negate God’s love for wicked Israel. Don’t confuse me for a modern evangelical.

    RS: A common belief and saying is that “God loves me and a loving God would never send anyone to hell.”

    But nobody here has argued that

    RS: Your position is that you can tells sinners that God loves them and that they need to be saved.

    I can tell unbelievers that they are under his wrath yet in his love he offers them the gospel.

    RS: My position is that sinners already think that God loves them and that they are at ease in their sin and think that a loving God would never send them to hell.

    Yes, in that case we would emphasize God’s wrath. Others think just the opposite, that they are too dirty to ever be loved, then our approach might be a bit different.

    RS: So your position is that God loves them and gives grace to them.

    My position is not necessarily my approach. God’s wrath is also on them and yet he has shown them kindness by giving them life. We may label that kindness common grace, but I wouldn’t normally use that language with unbelievers. My approach and language in explaining the gospel depends on the person’s understanding and attitude.

    LikeLike

98. todd quoting RS: Does the Bible distinguish different types of love in God?

    Todd: Yes, as has been shown in the Scriptures Doug provided

    RS: But the Scriptures he provided don’t really do that on the individual level.

    Todd quoting RS: Isn’t it quite a different thing for God to speak of loving Israel as a nation and then telling people that God loves them in our day?

    Todd: Yes, but that doesn’t negate God’s love for wicked Israel. Don’t confuse me for a modern evangelical.

    RS: One, what does it mean for God to love Israel? Does it mean He had deep feelings for them or does it mean that He set them apart from all other nations as His people? Two, love in the NT is for God to take away the sins of people and then for His love to dwell in them and give them a true love for Himself. All of that is because of Christ and found only in Christ. While you are not a modern evangelical, at times your position does seem to trickle that way.

    Todd quoting RS: A common belief and saying is that “God loves me and a loving God would never send anyone to hell.”

    Todd: But nobody here has argued that

    RS: Your position is that God loves everybody. While you try to nuance that, not all who listen to you will. When unbelievers hear that, they just assume that God loves them and a loving God would never send anyone to hell. While you don’t argue that, it seems that your position would certainly lead people to believe that. 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?

    LikeLike

99. Todd quoting RS: Your position is that you can tells sinners that God loves them and that they need to be saved.

    Todd: I can tell unbelievers that they are under his wrath yet in his love he offers them the gospel.

    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? 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 quoting RS: My position is that sinners already think that God loves them and that they are at ease in their sin and think that a loving God would never send them to hell.

    Todd: Yes, in that case we would emphasize God’s wrath. Others think just the opposite, that they are too dirty to ever be loved, then our approach might be a bit different.

    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.

    Todd quoting RS: So your position is that God loves them and gives grace to them.

    Todd: My position is not necessarily my approach. God’s wrath is also on them and yet he has shown them kindness by giving them life. We may label that kindness common grace, but I wouldn’t normally use that language with unbelievers. My approach and language in explaining the gospel depends on the person’s understanding and attitude.

    RS: I would just argue that being born and living is not always a kindness. But again, I simply say that all the grace of God is found in Christ. I don’t know the intent of God toward anyone but the elect that He draws to Himself out of the world and those He has revealed something about in Scripture. I don’t know that we could say that Judas was shown kindness by the mere fact that he was alive.
    Matthew 26:24 “The Son of Man is to go, just as it is written of Him; but woe to that man by whom the Son of Man is betrayed! It would have been good for that man if he had not been born.”

    LikeLike

100. 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?

     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.

     LikeLike

101. 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.

     LikeLike

102. 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)

     LikeLike

103. 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.

     LikeLike

104. 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.

     LikeLike

105. 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.

     LikeLike

106. 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!

     LikeLike

107. 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?

     LikeLike

108. 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.

     LikeLike

109. 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!

     LikeLike

110. 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.

     LikeLike

111. 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.

     LikeLike

112. 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!

     LikeLike

113. 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?

     LikeLike

114. 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,

     LikeLike

115. 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).

     LikeLike

116. 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!

     LikeLike

117. 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?

     LikeLike

118. 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.

     LikeLike

119. 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.

     LikeLike

120. 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”.

     LikeLike

121. 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.

     LikeLike

122. 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.

     LikeLike

123. 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.

     LikeLike

124. 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.

     LikeLike

125. 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.

     LikeLike

126. 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.

     LikeLike

127. 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.

     LikeLike

128. 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.

     LikeLike

129. 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.

     LikeLike

130. 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.

     LikeLike

131. 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!

     LikeLike

132. 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?

     LikeLike

133. 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.”

     LikeLike

134. 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?

     LikeLike

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.