Ultimately, what are acts of provision and blessings?

And what would you define grace as?

I ultimately see all things from God as an act of Grace for He does not have to do anything, but graciously, lovingly, and mercifully does.
I believe my food is a provision, given to me as an act of grace ultimately. I don't know of any theological reason as to suggest otherwise.

__________________
Jakob (But you can call me Jake if you like)
Pastor in Training
Reformed Baptist
Missouri

God's providence sustains temporal life for all.

God's grace brings eternal life through faith in Christ for the elect only.

__________________
Jim Rush
Elder, Church Of The Redeemer
Independent Reformed
California

TeachingTulip at:
http://TulipTheFlowerOfChristianity.lefora.com

It seems clear to me that God hates evil and evildoers. It also seems clear, he grants evil doers some measure of grace in this life. God restrains them from utter depravity, let's their conscience work, and gives temporal blessings in this life.

So while I disagree with the Arminian who says "God loves you", I also disagree with someone who would say there is no common grace. It seems quite possible that God hates wicked people in his justice, but still allows some measure of his grace to enter their lives, although they are doomed for destruction.

This also leads me into thinking about the free offer of the gospel, which is also a "common" grace.

__________________
Josh
URC
Sioux Center, IA
www.christianhomeschoolstore.com

I don't mean to be difficult, so I am sorry if I seem to be, but I don't see it that way.
I see God's providence as gracious, I see everything I have is God being gracious, and by gracious I mean displaying grace.

God's grace is enough for this life and the life to come. Grace need not always be defined as God's gift imputed upon us.
Paul proclaims "His grace is sufficient for me" in fact there are fourteen points of saving grace listed in the New Testament. Those being:
1. Electing grace
2. Preached grace
3. Regenerating grace
4. Converting grace
5. Justifying grace
6. Adopting grace
7. Ministry grace
8. Sanctifying grace
9. Empowering grace
10. Provisional grace
11. Financial grace
12. Miraculous grace
13. Persevering grace
14. Glorifying grace

Jesus proclaimed I have come to bring "grace upon grace."

I suppose we define grace differently, and I don't see anything sinful regarding that, so that's as far as I am concerned okay. What I see as grace, you see as provision. What you see as provision, I see as an act of grace which is something we don't deserve. Grace is abused in the instances we sin by commission, and Grace is cherished when we choose righteousness over infidelity.

And I hope you never take my posts as authoritative or demanding, I mean them all gently, lovingly, and humbly because I do not know all. And perhaps one day I will see things the way you do, or perhaps not. But that's okay we disagree on this, I don't know of any Scripture suggesting that what I'm suggesting is heretical, wrong, fallacious, or anything. No need to reconcile friends, Spurgeon says.

Was God's provision of the tent peg for Jael to use an act of grace toward Sisera?

Not everything God does is grace for everyone or loving toward everyone. We have to be careful not to take "God is love" to be THE quality of God that drives our interpretation of everything.

Mere provision of food and water is not "grace" in any sense of the word - I know this is disputed among some, but I just cannot see how or why the word "grace" needs to be used in that place, when "providence" is perfectly legitimate and more appropriately reflects the truth of the situation.

__________________
Todd K. Pedlar
member, First Congregational Church, (CCCC) Cresco, IA
http://inprincipiodeus.solideogloria.com
http://puritanwisdom.blogspot.com

"As God did not at first choose you because you were high, He will not now forsake you because you are low."
John Flavel in Keeping the Heart



Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?

Surely the good things which the reprobate receive from God are undeserved and therefore of God's grace.

__________________
Richard
communicant member, FCoS
Perth, Scotland UK

His Name forever shall endure;
last like the sun it shall:
Men shall be blessed in Him,
and blessed all nations shall Him call (Ps. 72:17)

Things which serve to fit the reprobate for destruction are of God's grace? I understand the thought behind it, but I see no such usage of grace in Scripture.

__________________
Josh Hicks, Chloë's Dad
Christ Covenant Reformed Presbyterian Church, RPCGA
Facebook - The Calvinist Vent
Board Rules - Signature Rules - Suggestion Box

It is God that multiplies our sorrows.... God, as a righteous Judge, does it, which ought to silence us under all our sorrows; as many as they are, we have deserved them all, and more: nay, God, as a tender Father, does it for our necessary correction, that we may be humbled for sin, and weaned from the world by all our sorrows; and the good we get by them, with the comfort we have under them, will abundantly balance our sorrows, how greatly soever they are multiplied. - Matthew Henry

If everything that is undeserved is from God's grace, that's a very strange definition of "grace", indeed.

If something given by God hardens his heart, and causes that person to become more and more deeply entrenched in his hatred of God (and obviously that is God's intent, since God is Sovereign and nothing comes to pass that is not his decree), can that thing, though undeserved, truly be called a gift of God's "grace"?

This is an issue that I'll soon being dealing with at my church. The recent annual meeting at the SBC has brought up a lot of questions concerning the Doctrines of Grace. Some of my church members are still reforming in these areas but they are more than willing to listen and have open hearts.

__________________
Ivan R. Schoen, B.A., M.A., M.L.I.S.
Pastor of Maranatha Baptist Church (SBC)
Poplar Grove, IL, USA
http://maranatha-sbc.org

Much of the disagreement here is over the use of the term "grace" when discussing what has come to be called "common grace." While I agree whole-heartedly with the concept (as stated above by brothers Josh and Jim) of God's general and providential goodness, the term "grace" itself is misleading and I would shy away from its usage because it can imply something that was not intended by the term. A term such as "common goodness" might actually be more helpful.

The problem is that the Scripture sometimes uses the term "grace" (or "favor" as it is sometimes translated -- both are based upon the Hebrew hen and the Greek charis) -- is applied to specific individuals in Scripture in contexts where the normal understanding of "grace" (i.e., salvific grace) is not applicable (e.g., Joseph in Genesis 39:4 and Jesus in Luke 2:52). If anyone is interested, I posted a paper on this issue at my blog here.

__________________
Tim Phillips
Pastor, Midlane Park Presbyterian Church (ARP)
Louisville, KY
Husband of Scottish Lass
My Blog: Gairney Bridge
My Facebook/My Avatar

Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?

"Wherever the gospel is preached, it is as if God Himself came into the midst of us." ~ John Calvin

I'm beginning to see why reformed Christianity is weak at evangelism.
To a sinner of most any stripe:" God probably hates you but because I don't know for sure, Jesus might love you."

Meanwhile the pentecostal preacher says to the riff raff, I don't care who you are or what you have done. God want to save you now.

__________________
Jeff Allen

First Baptist Church SBC
Christ Follower


"Unto Him that Loved us" Revelation 1:5

What reformed person you know has said such tripe to those whom he's addressing? It certainly is not characteristic of "reformed Christianity." You should watch what you assert. Misrepresentations and caricatures of the Reformed faith such as the above will not be tolerated here. Tread lightly, Friend.

That sounds more like a straw man. I don't know of anyone who is really Reformed who says that. I suppose you might have a few nutcases like Fred Phelps who might say something like that, but I am not speaking of fringe folks but the historic Reformed faith.

I do see two dangers that may come forth -- a hyper-Calvinistic tendency that puts up too many roadblocks for the proclamation of the gospel (but I don't think hyper-Calvinism should be confused with Reformed Christianity), and neo-Arminian tendency that might lead to a false assurance of salvation (or worse: if God loves me anyway, why do I have the need to come to Christ and repent?). Both are dangerous and both are distortions of the gospel.

As Josh noted, no Reformed person in his right mind would say what you have asserted. Cut it out.

As for your quotation from the pentecostal preacher, it's certainly true that they often say such things, and it's a misleading statement for him to do so, because he is not endued with knowledge about who is or is not elect. Since he doesn't, he shouldn't assert such things as he does in your above quote.

Rather, what both should say is that all mankind are born in a state of brokenness and there is only one way to heal the breach and come to a right relationship with God - Jesus Christ, who gave His life to save His people from their sins.

We must never avoid difficult conversations (like "well you say He died to save His people - what about me?") by twisting or misrepresenting the truth. We should, rather, be prepared to trumpet the grace of God to save men and women like you and me, and be willing to engage in the difficult conversations that can come about when the truth is faithfully presented.

Success in evangelism, by the way, Johnny, comes not through gaining professions of faith, but by faithfully professing the truth, no matter HOW many come.

I was using hyperbole and didn,t not mean to offend and I was speaking mainly of myself. I lived in the gay ghetto of Long Beach for many years and saw horrible behavior. It was very easy to write these people off. I wondered why a earthquake did not swallow up the gay pride parade. I know this was a sinful attitute on my part to assume that their sin was worst than mine in God's sights.

Lets be honest? How many of us have written people off?

Reformed Christianity weak in evangelism. Ever hear of Judson, Carey, Whitefield, Spurgeon, Lloyd-Jones? How 'bout MacArthur, Mohler, Piper, Duncan, etc.?

Weak? Hardly.

BTW, Todd nailed it in post #55.

-----Added 6/30/2009 at 12:18:49 EST-----

Not one.

If we have done so, it has nothing to do with (or rather, is wholly opposed to) our Reformed theology which from scripture assumes the total depravity of man, God's free election and Christ's irresistable grace. I would submit its the preacher of free-will that has the greater propensity to "write people off."

The gospel the Reformed preach is "See here Christ offered for sinners, freely and graciously -- though you be the most vile sinner on earth, here stands Christ ready to receive and save if you but turn and place your faith in him." This is a far cry from "God probably hates you."

__________________
Paul Korte
OPC
Flint, MI

They who perceive in themselves discoveries of the divine goodness, so full and absolutely perfect, and who make them the subject of earnest meditation, will never embrace new doctrines, by which the very grace they feel so powerfully in themselves is thrown into the shade. --John Calvin

Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?

More honesty: When I think that as a foolish Christian I went into Mormonism and engaged in horrific temple ceremonies making fun of the biblical God ( As time goes by it just seems worst and worst) I can't tell if I,m elect. I would not choose myself. Actually it is eating me alive.

Johnny, do not try to speculate as to whether you are elect: there is only one question to ask yourself -- is Christ mine? Do you cling to him? If you do, beholding that free promise in Christ, then you see as it were the mirror of your election. I would recommend talking to your pastor about this.

In my opinion, reformed thoughts and theology generally provide the strongest converts because it reveals a more complete Gospel as opposed to some youth conference where we talk down and aisle and say a prayer.

You must understand why the just and righteous hatred God has exists, and why it must be corrected. God hates sinners, but for what purpose? Because you're evil. Seriously, we're wicked. God hates us for our sin, and for suppressing the truth. Who upon realization of their depravity is going to want to know that an omnipotent God who has a furious, perfect and immense hatred for everything you are wants to stay that way?

We are saved from the wrath of God. If I was not a Christian and someone put it to me that God hates me amending that would be on the first of my list, at least I would assume if I was still my same persona.

Sinners in the hands of an angry God, anyone?

Getting back to the original topic, would one say that the Hatred of God towards the Reprobate is different from human hatred in that it is devoid of passions, whereas our hatred(s) are tainted with sinful passions?

__________________
Jacob Peters
Layman
URC
Toronto
Canada

Absolutely.
God's hatred is one that is just, perfect, pure, and righteous. He being perfect, must hate imperfection, He being righteous, must hate unrighteousness.
This is something beyond our comprehension for we are not to attain this status of perfection or pure righteousness, for us to hate this way would be impossible.

It also further goes to show the graciousness of God's towards His elect.

I think it could be said that God hates the "non-Elect" only. Because we were all sinners and scripture is clear that "While we were still in our sins He loved us first; then Called us, then changed us." ( I know this is a mix of two verses.)

God loving the elect is nothing to be proud or a reason to boast. He has every right to hate me. I hate myself when I think how unpure and imperfect I am when compared to Him and His example of love.

That is why we can say, "I know that God hates the wicked, I thank God for Grace because without it He would hate me too."

__________________
Alan Hughes
PCA
Lake Zurich, Illinois

If you think I'm a Hyper-Calvinist, God planned that thought before the foundation of the Earth. If you try to tell me that God only planned some things and not all things, then your problem is with God not me.

To clarify, are you saying that before the elect are regenerated, they are not hated by God?
If this is what you are saying, I would disagree. Regardless if one is elect, before one is regenerated, they are everything God hates.

And I believe you are mixing Romans 5:8 with Ephesians 1:3-7 in multiple parts.
God performed an act of gracious love towards us, yet the question was does God personally hate unregenerated people? And I answered with a yes.
At least that's my take on this.

Maybe you should show some Scriptural support for your position?

I'm in a bit of a hurry, but would those of you who believe that there is no common grace, say that the Gospel comes to the non-elect in hate?

Also if the elect can be objects of God's wrath in some sense before their conversion, surely the reprobate can be objects of God's grace in some sense in this life.

How is it "grace" when all the gospel does for the unregenerate is stumble them and cause them to more deeply trust in themselves and their own autonomous status?

We can debate what it means for the elect being objects of God's wrath before conversion in a different thread.

However, in regard to this particular situation, if the Bible said the reprobate were objects of God's grace in some sense in this life, then we'd have to agree. But it doesn't. You can't argue from the existence of statements which seem to call the unregenerate elect objects of God's wrath prior to conversion that the contrary must therefore be true. That's a simple logical fallacy.

There is only so far as I can go, it does extend into philosophy as I stated in my original post.

What is an unregenerate Christian but everything God hates? A worker of iniquity, wicked, sinful, a person who commits deeds as good as menstrual cloths, self righteous, a person who walks in the flesh.
THese are all things God hates, and this is all an unregenerate Christian is, what is there for God to love in a person who is everything He hates and has nothing of Himself in there?

The main source of this statement is based in Psalm 5:5 "You hate those who perform iniquity."

If you've not got Scriptural support for such a position, then you'd probably better examine whether you can rightly hold that position, all philosophical gerrymandering to the contrary.

But again, you need to deal with the clear statement that has already been quoted - that is, that God loved us even while we were still in our sins (i.e. unregenerate). The clear places in Scripture need to hold sway over the not-so-clear, and help you interpret the other places.

There is no such creature. There may be one who is elect, but not regenerate, but there is no unregenerate Christian, in the proper sense of the word.

To quote my pastor:

If this were the case -- if God has nothing but hatred for all unregenerates (without discriminating between elect and reprobate) -- then no one would be saved.

A distinction must be made between God's love of persons and of their actions. Yes, the "God hates the sin but loves the sinner" statement rears its ugly head.

God loves the elect as persons from eternity, but hates all their evil actions. God hates both the reprobates' persons and actions from eternity. This, and this alone from what I have seen, accounts for all the Scriptural evidence. But if I am mistaken I would appreciate correction.

__________________
Ben Maas. . . . .Facebook
In college, attending First Presbyterian Church (PCUSA), Ada, OH, and
Belle Center Reformed Presbyterian Church (RPCNA), Belle Center, OH
When at home, attending Covenant Presbyterian Church (OPC), Mansfield, OH

“Prayer is as natural an expression of faith as breathing is of life.”
-Jonathan Edwards-

God's righteous and just hatred towards reprobates is deserved.
I am not speaking if God can act lovingly towards us, God does act lovingly towards us, that's why we have Christ, obviously. However, I am speaking of a personal hatred of sinners. Romans 5:8 and John 3:16 are only expressions of gracious undeserved love towards sinners but does not constitute a personal deep affection and love for the reprobate.

In my opinion, God did send Christ for the sinners, in order that He might be able to fully love us completely for our sin is justified by the blood of Christ and we are no longer seen before the Father as what we formerly were which enables untainted pure love for He willingly sees not our sin because it has been justified.

Scripture supports that God does do thing in and out of love, because God simply is love, but God is also more than love. I need not lecture you on this subject, however I am not aware of God loving an unregenerate person in a personal deep affection as He does a regenerate. I don't think it can continue to fit the nature of God to personally love an unregenerate because if God were to personally love that person, He is personally loving all that He hates.
And I emphasize the word "personal" for a reason.

This is correct, I did not mean to say unregenerate Christian. I know there is no such thing, this is the proverbial Freudian slip.

Here's the problem: the Bible nowhere says that God does all these things for us so that He might love us, but because He loves us. God's love for all His elect, regenerate and unregenerate, is the cause of His actions, not the effect.

Romans 5:8 -- but God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us.

God cannot show His love to us thusly unless love is the cause.

-----Added 6/30/2009 at 04:13:12 EST-----

Also, for the record, I deny common grace. I like to term it "providential benevolence" as John Gill says; it's merely fattening the cattle for destruction.

What the Bible does say though is that God does hate people who perform iniquity/sin.

I can not comprehend God righteously and justly maintaining His position as perfect, just, holy, and righteous while having a personal love and affection for those whom are as Christ said "Children of Satan", objects of His wrath, and are everything He is not. The reason this does not function in my mind is because God is partaking and loving something contrary to Himself because there is nothing more to the object He would be loving than everything He isn't.
There is nothing more to an unregenerate than sin. I don't see how God can love a person who is nothing more than wicked and sinful. I can understand God has done evidences of love and grace towards that person in order that He might love them to create unity, but I do not theologically understand what you are attempting to hold to.

Although I'm not sure of this explanation, the Psalms often refer to the elect as "the righteous" and reprobates as "the wicked"; therefore I am inclined to interpret Psalm 5:5 as referring to reprobates only. But I would appreciate others' input on that.

That's what makes grace grace. God does not love us as a result of anything good in us, but only because He has freely chosen to do so. There is absolutely nothing in us that would prompt God to love us. It is His choice.

Then what does it mean when the Bible says that God loved Jacob, yet hated Esau, before either were born or had done good or bad? What does it mean when the Scriptures say that God has loved us with an everlasting love? When has God's disposition changed toward His elect?

You might not be able to see how God can love a person who is nothing more than wicked and sinful... but Scripture plainly says that he loves his elect with an everlasting love. One reason you can't understand this is because you're finite, just like me and you have never elected anyone, something God did before the foundation of the world. I can't understand it, either, but Scripture is clear about the relationship between God and His elect, and that he LOVES them prior to their being regenerate. When Scripture speaks, we must listen, whether our finite brains can wrap themselves around the concept or not.

Furthermore, you're not quite correct when you say there is nothing more to an unregenerate than sin. If that unregenerate is elect, then there IS more to him than simply sin... there is election... and calling... and justification...and sanctification...and glorification - all fruit of the eternal electing love of God. FAR MORE than sin - God's mark was placed on that unregenerate prior to the foundation of the World. To say that there is nothing more than sin to that unregenerate elect person is to denigrate God's eternal purpose and miss a fundamental truth about God's redemptive work.

And I agree, and I believe that because of grace which declares us righteous in the eys of God which permits God to love us fully and unconditionally. I'm just suggesting that before justification such a pure act of love is not conceivable for it creates a separation from God judicially, at least until justification occurs.

I am not aware of the "before the birth" aspect being recorded, I (quickly) just skimmed Malachi 1 and Romans 9. And for what reason did God love Jacob? My answer would be a form of justification which would enable this. But that's actually getting a little too technical for me to strongly stand and debate.

And I do believe God loves the elect with an everlasting love, simply from the point at which that love was out poured in a personal way, which is at the moment of regeneration/justification. Not to confuse the two, they're just so instantaneous and close in the happening.

I would also like Scripture supporting as to where God has a personal love for the elect before the point of justification. I am only aware of demonstrations of love, but not a true personal love.

And where as you're technically correct regarding your second paragraph. I would still suggest that even though there are elect reprobates, before the moment of conversion of the reprobate occurs, there is no justification or glorification. Justification being the required act for a true personal love from God the Father, in my opinion.

I'm trying to remain open minded in this, so if I seem difficult I apologize. I am trying hard to explain my points in clarity.

I am inclined to believe that God does not love the reprobate. They have clearly turned their backs on him, spit on him, and disregarded his commands, though they carry authority in themselves.

One common objection I receive from various friends when discussing the subject is: what about the fact that God doesn't just destroy the reprobate upon creating them? He lets them live, enjoy life, have children, have earthly pleasures, and so on.

My response is that it is not love nor grace to allow a desperately wicked person to live on, continuously breaking God's commands and bringing more and more hell upon himself.

1 John 4:19 says "We love because he first loved us." From this we can draw the principle that there are persons that God does not love:

1. If S loves, then God first loved S.
2. S does not love. (Think of any person who is not loving.)
3. Therefore, God did not first love S.

__________________
Steven Nemes
Phoenix, AZ

Good philosophy must exist, if for no other reason, because bad philosophy must be answered - C.S. Lewis