On what basis do you believe this? Where in Scripture is this kind of thing spoken of? (I don't mean regeneration/justification, but this "turning on" of love).

There is no such thing as an elect reprobate. Reprobation is the diametric opposite of election. You meant unregenerate, of course, but your confusion of terms makes discussing this very challenging.

Justification is a fruit of God's love, not the other way around. God's love is as true and as personal as it can be - he knows his elect from conception, as Jeremiah says.

I would suggest taking a look at something like Sproul's "What is the Reformed Faith" and/or other books before going too much further on in this conversation. There are a lot of places wherein statements you've made conflict with themselves, or with important fundamentals of the Reformed Faith.

__________________
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?

The very source of divine love abides within the Godhead; specifically consisting of the love the Father has for the Son. The elect chosen by the Father are loved only because they are "accepted in the Beloved." Thus, this love and this election is completely unconditional upon the elect's actions or decisions or any virtues or merit. The "reason" God loves us is because He loves His Son, and has willed to bless us, in Him.

"Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ, just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before Him, in love having predestined us to adoption as sons by Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the good pleasure of His will, to the praise of the glory of His grace, by which He made us accepted in the Beloved." Ephesians 1:3-6

-----Added 6/30/2009 at 05:19:24 EST-----

God does not love the reprobate, because they are not blessed and chosen in the Son. They remain rejected by God, and are not "accepted in the Beloved," as are the elect sons of God. (See Ephesians 1:3-6)

God has purpose for allowing reprobates to live; namely, the salvation of His people, and making a full "measurement of sin" in order to forever eliminate all sin:

". . The Lord knows how to deliver the godly out of temptations and to reserve the unjust under punishment for the day of judgment . . .the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation . . ." II Peter 2:9; 3:15

". . Who killed both the Lord Jesus and their own prophets, and have persecuted us; and they do not please God and are contrary to all men, forbidding us to speak to the Gentiles that they may be saved, so as always to fill up the measure of their sins; but wrath has come upon them to the uttermost." I Thessalonians 2:15-16

"Fill up, then, the measure of your fathers' guilt. Serpents, brood of vipers! How can you escape the condemnation of hell?" Matthew 23:32-33


Correct. In actuality, God is heaping coals upon their heads! (e.g. Romans 12:20)

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

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

I do not have a verse in particular. Although I can not off the top of my head think of instances where God has personally loved those whom He has neither "found favor in," nor justified by some instance.

I apologize, I have never used the term "reprobate" prior to this forum. I always assumed it was synonymous with just unregenerate, so I apologize for my misuse of the terms. I simply have always seen people as saved or sinner, reprobate has never been a term I've needed to use I suppose.

I would agree to a sense. That justification is an act of God's love and grace, although I would still adhere to that because people are justified as a fruit/act of God's love it does provide a more real way for God to love man to a more full extent.

Would you please send me a PM with a few examples of these? I am not always the best communicator on paper, when I verbally debate I am more collected and I can explain things more. I'm sure for every seemingly confliction I have a means to clarify it by some manner.

I think this is what I am saying... That we're only loved at the point of justification/regeneration because at that point we are adopted into the family and accepted in the Beloved, where as formerly while in our transgressions we are not.

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

...that means you don't agree. Jake, it's fairly simple: God loves us and therefore acts towards our good. Countless times in Scripture is the love of God the reason, the cause, why God helps us. There is simply no Scripture anywhere that supports the notion that God loves us as a result of our putting faith in Him. It's not as if He grudgingly regenerates us so He can get a good "payoff" at the end.

Otherwise, if you want to keep refusing the points being made here, please provide Scriptural evidence why God cannot love an unregenerate -- why something in the sinner must prompt God's love. (And if you can do that, please explain how you're still a Calvinist. )

No, the text says that it was "in order that God's purpose in election might stand" and it was irrespective of any good or bad they had done (which would include putting faith in a coming Messiah and being justified thereby). The reason was wholly within Himself; His grace was completely and utterly free.

There can be no distinction between "demonstrations of love" and a "true personal love." God does not have non-volitional dispositions. There is no such thing as God acting lovingly without actually loving.

-----Added 6/30/2009 at 05:41:13 EST-----

I think you meant to have 1. be "If God first loved S, then S loves." Otherwise you'd be denying the antecedent.

If I say that I do X because of Y, then I am saying that Y is the sufficient cause of X; i.e. "if Y then X." Therefore 1 John 4:19 should teach "If God first loved S, then S loves."

That being said, God's first loving us is also a necessary cause of our loving Him, and therefore your 1. is not false. But nonetheless that's not the premise you want for your argument.

__________________
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-

Ah thanks Ben; I appreciate your correction.

__________________
Steven Nemes
Phoenix, AZ

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

No prob.

It would appear that verses 4 & 5 are just what the doctor ordered.

Also, I'd like to correct what I previously said about Psalm 5:5. It is not the case that Psalms generally refer to the elect as "righteous" and the reprobates as "wicked"; rather, they refer to regenerates as "righteous" and unregenerates as "wicked." You were right about this, Jake, and in retrospect it seems foolish for me to say that "righteous" comprises both regenerate and unregenerate elected individuals. (I know I wasn't righteous in any sense before conversion!)

In this case, it would mean that God loves the unregenerate elect in some sense (Romans 5:8 etc.), yet He hates the unregenerate elect in another sense (Psalm 5:5). My distinction between actions and persons does not do justice to the text.

So then, in what respects does God love the unregenerate elect? Well, ultimately, He brings them to repentance and justification. In what respects does He hate them? Prior to their conversion, wrath still looms over their heads (they are "children of wrath") and legally speaking they are the ones who have to pay for their own sins -- i.e., until they put their faith in Christ. I think the foremost aspect of God's hatred for the unregenerate elect is that He punishes them for their sin, perhaps "breaking their jaws" (cf. Psalm 3:7) as a means of bringing them to repentance. And ultimately, that is what I would say God's "hatred" of the unregenerate elect is referring to.

But of course, this does not mean that there is some ambivalence or dissonance in the Godhead; it merely entails that the sense in which God hates unregenerates (as noted in the Psalms) is that He brings punishment upon them. His eternal love of the elect and His eternal hatred of the reprobates are different from the "hate" mentioned in Psalm 5:5.

At least, that is the best way I see that avoids contradiction. Again, though, I am up for correction if I am in error.

-----Added 6/30/2009 at 06:02:09 EST-----

Nomad!

This is something I can agree with you on.

What are your thoughts concerning this and reprobates?

Welcome, Nomad. As a new PB member (first post!), you will need to add a signature to your posts. If you click on the link in my signature below, you will see how to do that (it's easy). Please do so, so that we can find out more about you!

__________________
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

Would we all agree that this topic has been exhausted?

__________________
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

Not yet, Josh. I want to answer the question Jake just asked me.

I would appreciate it if at least Ben could get his input in, then you may act accordingly, please.

First, as I implied above, I would say the hatred spoken of in the Psalms is towards unregenerates indiscriminately (i.e. towards both elect and reprobate unregenerates). Therefore the eternal love and hatred of the Father towards the elect and reprobate, respectively, is not really in the scope of such passages as Psalm 5:5. And, lastly, I would say that every single event on earth, every action in God's perfect providence, proceeds to further the glory of the elect (including unregenerates) and the destruction of the reprobate, and in that sense are God's eternal love and hatred manifested.

Not to further prolong this threads surely nearing demise, may I ask how God is loving towards reprobates then?

I'm not going to get sidetracked into the discussion of common grace. But I should point out to you that the elect, before their conversion, are everything you describe above. You must be careful of positing an impossibility in God personally loving a sinner (I realize you said unrepentant, but until the moment we repent we are all unrepentant), because the elect are sinners. And so Paul, the chief of sinners, can say that Christ loved him, personally. Our predestination springs from God's love, and it is because God loves sinners that Christ died for them.

__________________
Ruben
Moderator
F.P.C.I.
Indiana

Vanities and disguises have covered us, and thereby we are naked; licenciousness hath inflam'd us, and thereby we are frozen; voluptuousness hath fed us, and thereby we are sterved, the fancies and traditions of men have taught and instructed us, and thereby we are ignorant.
John Donne

Board Rules - Signature Requirements - Suggestions?

Calvinistas Conversando
Teología en Mexico
The Howling Wilderness

Jake,

He's not. He may give them gifts, but God does it only for the purpose of their destruction. I believe it was John Gill who likened it to fattening cattle for the slaughter.

Er.. I guess I am a little confused. Are you saying God loves them to destroy them?

No, I am saying that God does not love the reprobates in any sense.

Oh.
Then we are in agreement, I think.
Sounds good to me!

Josh, the thread is dispensed to your will.

There were/are many reprobates in the Covenant. Does God not love them in any sense?

God expressed His love for Old Covenant Israel many times, of which many were reprobate. Christ wept over Jerusalem (circa A.D. 30); how many of them were elect?

Someone might say that in His human nature Christ loved the regenerate, while in His divine nature He had nothing but hatred for them. But surely His human nature reflects and reveals something of the divine?

Philip saith unto him, Lord, shew us the Father, and it sufficeth us. Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father? (John 14:8-9).

Van Til wrote a book defending Common Grace, "Common Grace and the Gospel". In the light of the present discussion, I hope to get a copy. Gary North disagreed with Van Til and said that God had nothing but hatred for the reprobate from all eternity.

Just because we can't understand how God can hate the wicked elect in some sense before they are converted, and love the wicked reprobate in some sense before they are punished in Hell, does not mean that such love and hate in God is not possible.

Are we trying to put God's love/hate in theological boxes?

__________________
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)

Van Til could offer no cogent argument to support his notion that God loves reprobates in some sense. As regarding the well-meant offer, it is an outright contradiction to say that God desires that which He has decreed will not occur. It is likewise a contradiction to say that God has benevolent intentions when He adds to reprobates' condemnation.

Otherwise, if you think Scripture teaches it in places, please cite the verses.

Being as we were Elect before the foundations of time I do not worry about when God placed His undeserving love upon me. I am always remided though that God loves me for no reason of my own. Anything a personal God does is by definition personal.

__________________
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.

Mr. Tallach,

1. Have you read Rev. Winzer's review of John Murray's The Free Offer of the Gospel? I think it touches upon your questions here in a most adequate manner.

2. In response to the quoted question above. No, I'm not trying to do any such thing. God has been pleased to reveal to us His attributes concerning His love for the elect and His hatred for the reprobate. There is simply nothing in Scripture indicating an inner conflict within God that He has decreed something He does not also desire, intend, want. God is pleased with all His does, and He does all His good purpose, and His good purpose is an act borne from what He desires, wants, etc.

So we're not here talking about what's possible, we're here saying what the Scriptures have said. And nowhere have the Scriptures ever shown God showing grace, in the biblical definition of the term, to the reprobate.

Yep. And Carey is considered to be the Father of Modern Missions.

-----Added 6/30/2009 at 10:59:35 EST-----



Romans 9 Young's Literal Translation

10 And not only so, but also Rebecca, having conceived by one -- Isaac our father -- 11 (for they being not yet born, neither having done anything good or evil, that the purpose of God, according to choice, might remain; not of works, but of Him who is calling,) it was said to her -- 12 'The greater shall serve the less;' 13 according as it hath been written, 'Jacob I did love, and Esau I did hate.'

It seems to me to get into the whole counsel of God. If I may sum it up without the intention of rewriting the Scripture: He hates those (unelect) who perform iniquity.

Is that over simplifying it guys?

__________________
Kevin - PCA - Mississippi

"What, for some, is sin, others do to the glory of God. And the good Dr. Pentecost's remarks notwithstanding, I intend to go home tonight and smoke a cigar to the glory of God. It is a kind of incense drifting to Heaven." - Charles Spurgeon

"Thanks be to God for His indescribable gift!" - 2 Corinthians 9:15

Sorry to backtrack a bit, and I don't mean to sidetrack either, but I don't understand how the rain on the just and unjust can be counted as grace (proponents of easy grace seem to constantly point to this example).

That both prosper due to the rain is not common grace; many a man has drowned with his pockets full of gold - the rain on the unjust may easily be a judgment in that it both fulfills and causes him to focus on his temporal goals. He follows that rabbit trail to its end in damnation. Where's the grace? To me, it's an odd example, and denigrates what 'grace' really conveys.

Mr. Henry's opinion on the matter:

__________________
Kevin, husband of a truly angelic woman, and father to ten.
Zion United Reformed Church of Sheffield
Ontario, Canada

Yep! Should this thread have been called, "What is Grace?"

A death row inmate may have steak and lobster as a last meal but it may as well be sardines and crackers.

I've seen the term "common grace" used numerous times to promote man-centred theology (and that's one of the reasons I shy away from using it).

-----Added 7/1/2009 at 12:19:03 EST-----


Well said, IMHO. I'd also side with Pastor Winzer against Professors Murray and Stonehouse on this subject.

-----Added 7/1/2009 at 12:25:02 EST-----

Dr. Richard Mouw is an example of someone that has used the term "common grace" to promote un-Biblical teachings, IMHO.

__________________
Soli Deo Gloria,
Jeff - FCC - Georgia


"Every word of God is pure" — Proverbs 30:5

"For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst, and to provide for it." — Patrick Henry, A.D. 1775

Dear Joshua,
Feel free to call me Richard.

I don't think there is any inner conflict within God, along with the many Reformed theologians who believe/have believed in Common Grace.

I haven't read Rev. Winzer's review, and will be interested to do so.

Regarding Common Grace being gifts of God's hate to fatten the reprobate for the slaughter, I think if the reprobate abuse/misuse gifts of God's grace some of which were designed for the salvation of sinners e.g. the preaching of the Gospel, they are then more truly fattened for the slaughter.

"Some prefer to say that they are expressions of His goodness, kindness, benevolence, mecy, or longsuffering, but seem to forget that He could not be good, kind or benevolent to the sinner unless He were first of all gracious." -Berkhof

If you want to challenge that and say how can God be gracious to those he doesn't intend to save, I'd say I don't know.

Common grace is undeserved favour e.g. sparing a reprobate to live on this earth for seventy years and letting him hear the gospel many times. If it does not result in that person's conversion we learn that it was not intended to lead to that person's and God did not have an eternal saving love for that person. If what God showers on someone is blessed by the Spirit to their salvation then we learn that God had an eternal saving love for that person.

You seem to be positing that God can only have one type of love/grace for the sinner, and it has to be saving love. This leads you to redefine gifts of God's grace so portrayed in Scripture e.g. long life, food, etc, as "gifts" of God's hate. Since the reprobate could be/should be cast immediately into Hell, however long they are on Earth is of God's grace (not saving grace unless it results in salvation, and then they wouldn't be reprobate).

Re Arminianism, we know that they have a different doctrine of Common Grace, whereby the sinner can co-operate with the Holy Spirit's common operations in the soul to manufacture his/her salvation. This is completely erroneous, and the Reformed should make clear that they are talking about something different.

I have been taught that allowing reprobates their earthly lives, is a matter of patience and long-suffering on the part of God, not grace. (Romans 9:22)

For the very definition of "reprobate" is one rejected by God, and one that is consigned to death and hell without hope of grace or favor at all. For this strong reason, a Christian should be very careful about judging others as "reprobate," for it is terribley serious, and really not in our province to judge the eternal fate of others. Only God knows these things . . .

(Entering the fray, here, being the wife of Jim, aka REFORMED RUSH, along with whom I have fought a battle lasting several years against the teachings of a supposed "common grace." Together, we have been accused of hyper-calvinism for doing so, more times than we can count.)

__________________
Ronda Rush
Church of the Redeemer
Independent Reformed
California


" . . .It is written, 'Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.'" Matthew 4:4

This in my opinion is the one chance that common grace has to stand as a doctrine.

But in my opinion the argument is flawed, for it is built off a human notion. Humans cannot legitimately and truly give gifts and act kindly without also intending another human's good. But God can. And I say that if God has intended from all eternity to give gifts to reprobates for the purpose of heaping more condemnation upon them (and only God is capable of giving gifts for the purpose of destruction), then certainly no well-meant grace is involved.

-----Added 7/1/2009 at 12:51:42 EST-----

The argument is whether longsuffering necessitates true graciousness. (See his Berkhof quote.) I deny this, BTW.

Praise God for your fortitude! It's also nice to see that you got your own profile on the PB.

Peter taught that the long-suffering of God, is purposed to work salvation . . .God allows the wicked to continuing living, while all His elect are being born and gathered into the kingdom. (II Peter 3:15-18)

It is the same spiritual principle of Genesis 50:20 and Romans 8:28.

I hope no one would argue that a sinner is not part of creation, or that this is an inaccurate description of the Creator.

Surely God is very good to many unregenerate people in keeping them from the outer limits of sin, for which they would have greater punishment. If His goodness to the reprobate were only a means of fattening for destruction, then its a bit ineffectual as the reprobate would often be more fattened for destruction without it.

__________________
Heidi
Indianapolis, Indiana

Patience must dwell with Love, for Love and Sorrow
Have pitched their tent together here:
Love all alone will build a house tomorrow,
And sorrow not be near. -Christina Rossetti

I don't think it's ineffectual at all. A reprobate whom God has providentially prospered will use that prosperity to augment his own pride and rebellion, and therefore he will be more condemned than otherwise (as one example). Every gift a reprobate receives from God is used against Him and therefore heaps more condemnation upon the reprobate.

Second, the fact that the Lord is good to all does not mean He intends good for all.

Ben, I wasn't speaking of material prosperity. I was speaking of the fact that not all unregenerate people are allowed morally to degenerate to states in which they would receive even greater damnation. If God's goodness to the reprobate can only fit into the terms you are willing to accept, then it is ineffectual in its intent that regard.

That's a good point; reprobates will receive less punishment if and when their moral characters are augmented by God.

I'll have to think about this more. I keep going through all these thoughts in my head and I need to sort this out.

Thanks for bringing up the idea.

Ben, I certainly haven't worked through all of this either. I wonder if there may be a distinction to be made between the way God interacts with man as Creator, because man is a work of His Hands (someone asked, what is there for God to love in the reprobate? -- what is there for God to love in a Zebra? He made it; He cares for it; it displays His glory even in a ruined state. So Beethoven can write incredible music because He is one of God's amazing creations) and the way God interacts with men under the covenant of works? (I don't believe that creation is covenant)
Calvin seems to support such a distinction being able to to be made in the way He deals with the doctrine of God, first as Creator and only afterwards in the sphere of sin and redemption?
And Scripture seems to be speaking of God more as Creator in passages about His goodness to the non-elect.

Heidi,

The fact that God restrains sin in this world, is not a matter of grace towards the reprobate; lessening their sentence of death or consignment to hell, in any degree, but is a matter of grace towards His elect.

God restrains sin from reaching its uttermost on this earth, for the protection, well-being, and survival of His elect.

God's truth and providential workings are like a two-edged sword; at the same time wielding judgment against the wicked non-elect, and blessings for the elect.

This is seen throughout the O.T. in the prophets' warnings to ungodly peoples about suffering the wrath of God for their unbelief, through punishments and judgments, while always including promises of perseverance, blessings, and salvation to the faithful, spiritual seed.

Thanks for the response Ronda.

I think the problem still remains though that they do experience the goodness of God in restraint of their sin, and this experience is one that actually leaves them less fattened for destruction.

I also don't think that the view does justice to verses like Psalm 145:9. I think there are probably more distinctions involved in that the sinner experiences God as a good Creator (and creation - even of himself - as a good).