Thanks, Friend.
Right, so for the former (the Reprobate) those temporally "good" things served only to fit them for their destruction. For the latter, (the Elect) it was the means by which God was drawing him unto Himself.
I'm not saying what God can or cannot have, do, etc. God can do all His holy will, and I'm saying that He does all His holy will. From the aforementioned article by Rev. Winzer:

For it is noteworthy that some reformed divines, those strictly so-called, were not averse to referring to a benevolence in God towards all men, elect and reprobate alike. So Francis Turretin, whilst explaining God’s love of Jacob (the elect) and hatred of Esau (the reprobate), distinguishes it from “God’s general love and the common providence by which he is borne to all his creatures.” [22] The reason for adopting this terminology appears to have been the original relation which God sustained to the creation prior to the fall of man. It is in consideration of the fact that the creature is the perfect work of His own hands, and man in particular is made in His image and after His likeness. Sin has certainly been introduced into the created order so that the creature is now subjected to vanity and man as the image of God is defaced. Yet, the Scriptures sometimes speak of the Creator relating and acting towards the creation as considered in its original condition, as when the shedding of man’s blood and the cursing of a man’s person is forbidden because man is still regarded as the image of God (Gen. 9:6; Jam. 3:9). Hence, some warrant seems to be afforded for the view that God bears a general love to the creature as His creature; and that not on the basis of a disposition or tendency of the Divine nature, but because of the eternal decree to be disposed in this way towards the creature.

What should be kept in mind with regard to this love as expounded by these divines is its generality. If it is appropriate to say that God bears a general love to the creature as His creature, such a love must, by its very nature, be without reference to particular persons or any special purpose. In other words, it is God’s love to mankind considered as a whole, or as the apostle describes it, as a lump of clay (Rom. 9:21). But as God did not only decree to create man, but also “of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour,” the one to love and the other to hate, it is impossible to speak of God’s love to this or that man for this or that purpose without predicating something of God’s special electing love. As John Knox has said: “You make the love of God common to all men; and that do we constantly deny, and say, that before all beginning God hath loved his Elect in Christ Jesus his Sonne, and that from the same eternitie he hath reprobated others.” [23] Consequently, the question as to whether God loves the reprobate becomes rhetorical. The answer must be “no,” because the very nature of the question requires an answer with respect to God’s special purpose to love or not to love particular persons.

It is in this sense that the report’s conclusion is out of accord with those divines who suggest that it is appropriate to think of a general love of God. It does not refer to a general love and providential care which God exercises over His creation as such, but to a special love with regard to “reprobate as well as elect.” Moreover, it suggests that this love “is exercised towards them in their ungodly state” and has some bearing “upon the grace of God manifested in the free offer of the gospel.” [24] In other words, it is not a general love to the creature as a creature, but a special love to the creature as a lost, miserable sinner who stands in need of salvation. All reformed divines, however, are adamant that this love to sinners is restricted to elect sinners.

And yet grace, as a Scriptural term, is never characterized as any of these things toward the reprobate. So I must reject the idea that I'm redefining grace here.

__________________
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

Josh,

How would you respond to Heidi's earlier point that God restrains the moral rebellion of reprobates and thereby lightens their punishment?

__________________
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-

I might grant that, but only because it's Mrs. Zartman and she would revoke my PB Friendship if I countered her.

In reality, though, that's all it is: restraint. It's a part of God's decree. It's not grace.

I won't quibble about terms. Not with Josh. I never quibble about terms with my friends.

(However, if I were to accidentally unbefriend Josh by merest accident . . .)

By the way Josh, you can call me 'Mrs. Zartman'. :-P

__________________
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 ask in fear and trepidation, for I do not want you to lose any friendships.

But if God is restraining them as a means to heap less condemnation on them, then what is it if not grace?

I can settle for 'goodness' or 'tender mercies' :-).

I did!

Providential decree, since it can be no less or more than what He decreed; rather, it is exactly what He wanted.

The words "restraint" and "grace" are not synonomous terms, nor to be taken lightly.

If God's temporal restraint of the wickedness of ungodly men does not alter their eternal destiny, where is the "grace?"

"For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?" Mark 8:36

__________________
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

er . . . well . . . um, Keep up the good work.

(You foul deceiver.)

But the question then is, What exactly did God want when He decreed to restrain the rebellion of a reprobate? Did He do it to ultimately punish the reprobate less? If so, then how is it not grace?

Actually, I think I've got it: first, we can distinguish between restraint and actual gifts. The gifts are used to "fatten" reprobates, while restraint is not. Seeing as both are used ultimately for God to punish reprobates eternally with perfect justice, it follows that it's not grace.

So, then, to answer Heidi's objection earlier: she is right that not all divine benevolence goes towards "fattening" the reprobates -- only divine benevolence that is not restraint does. The restraint is still used by God so that He may punish the reprobates in hell exactly as He wants to.

There, I think that does it.

Yes, Ma'am, Mrs. Zartman! My regards to your Batman, but not too that wretched beast that holds you both back from your full potential.

The point is that it does alter a reprobate's destiny to some extent; there is less condemnation on him than there would be otherwise.

But otherwise, I think I solved this wee dilemma above.

I don't actually think that's the distinction that does most justice to all the biblical statements, Ben. I think the reprobate experiences God goodness not just for purposes of fattening up, but because he is the creation of a good Creator.

Are you referring to benevolences of good other than moral restraint?

What is "less condemnation?"

A soul is either consigned to everlasting punishment, or a soul is saved by faith in Jesus Christ and inherits everlasting life.

How can a sentence imposing death be lessened? Or hell lightened? Or condemnation altered, if the guilt and curse remains upon the reprobate soul?

Whose interest is central to God's purposes and intents? The elect or the non-elect?

Ronda,

There are degrees of punishment in hell and reward in heaven. Hitler will be punished more than a reprobate dying in infancy.

"The Lord has made all for Himself, yes, even the wicked for the day of doom." Proverbs 16:4

"The wicked shall be a ransom for the righteous, and the transgressor for the upright." Proverbs 21:18

-----Added 7/1/2009 at 02:36:59 EST-----


Sorry, Ben, but you just introduced "works" into the discussion . . .which will take you down a rabbit trail.

Are you honestly disagreeing with the fact that we have degrees of reward and punishment?

Luke 12:47-48 - That servant who knows his master's will and does not get ready or does not do what his master wants will be beaten with many blows. But the one who does not know and does things deserving punishment will be beaten with few blows.

Matthew 11:21-24 - Woe to you, Korazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! If the miracles that were performed in you had been performed in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes. But I tell you, it will be more bearable for Tyre and Sidon on the day of judgment than for you. And you, Capernaum, will you be lifted up to the skies? No, you will go down to the depths. If the miracles that were performed in you had been performed in Sodom, it would have remained to this day. But I tell you that it will be more bearable for Sodom on the day of judgment than for you.

-----Added 7/1/2009 at 02:49:12 EST-----

Also...

Matthew 16:27 - For the Son of Man is going to come in his Father's glory with his angels, and then he will reward each person according to what he has done.

Ben, I think the unbeliever experiences God's goodness manifested in various ways as true goodness, that is, that God is good not for ulterior motives but because He IS, the fountain of life, ulterior goodness. The unbeliever will be responsible for not worshiping God aright for what he has truly experienced in this regard, but God's goodness does in many instances really lessen his damnation, and keep his heart from being hardened; and I see no biblical evidence that would say that God's purpose in sending the rain on the unjust is the same as God's purpose in sending the plagues on Pharoah (or that I have to look at the rain today and think of it as so much fire and brimstone later).

God is not at cross purposes with regard to the wicked certainly. But the verses Ronda quoted do not lessen the fact that the creations of God do all experience His tender mercies as a Creator, and I would like to understand more of whatever distinctions may be able to be made along those lines.

I'm going to bow out though as I've put forward my objection to views I think do not account for all the biblical data, as best as I can.

Well, the fact is that any benevolence from God that lessens their damnation is only restraint. And God uses restraint only for His elect's good. Seeing as God would not punish someone more than they deserve, it lessens their punishment. But God does not restrain people's rebellion for the purpose of lessening their punishment; it is only because of His love for His elect.

Lastly, I'm not trying to say that God has ulterior motives. It is hard to conceive, since we are humans, that God can be kind to someone without intending their good. But that is only because humans must intend someone's good in order to be kind to that person. The rule does not apply to our sovereign God. God is the only being who can be legitimately kind for the purpose of destruction, without showing grace.

If I can be permitted to jump into this conversation quickly and piggy-back off of Heidi's posts, I would recommend reading this post by Matthew Winzer on Samuel Rutherford, which addresses a love which God has toward all creatures which is not ineffectual in its purpose. A parallel would be the usage of our scholastics of a three-fold love of God: 1.) Love of the creature; 2.) Love of man; 3.) The special love toward the elect.

__________________
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?

Here are three scriptures that shows how God hates the reprobate. I think it's also important to note that you cannot separate the sinner from the sin. The object that is referenced is the acting agent, which is the sinner. He certainly loves the elect and knows that they will repent and come to salvation at the appointed time.

1. Psalm 11:5 "The Lord tests the righteous, but his soul hates the wicked and the one who loves violence."

2. Deu 12:31 You shall not worship the Lord your God in that way, for every abominable thing that the Lord hates they have done for their gods, for they even burn their sons and their daughters in the fire to their gods.

3. "Your new moons and your appointed feasts my soul hates; they have become a burden to me; I am weary of bearing them. "

__________________
PuritanGeek
Member of LakeOPC
Wickliffe, Oh
Blog: What Justin's Thinking

God's goodness to those not yet and those never to be his elect also has another purpose. It proclaims his goodness for those with eyes to see.

__________________
In Christ's love and service

Mr. Tim Cunningham,
BMus. (Trombone Performance), University of Toronto
Dip. CS, Regent College, Vancouver
Member, First Baptist Church
Vancouver, BC
------------
"I once sat in darkness, and waited for the moon to rise.
I once sat in darkness, and waited for the sun to shine.
I once sat in darkness, when all the light I'd waited for was gone.
Then Jesus came, and now the only true light, ever, shines in me."
– John Deacon -

With which I believe I'd heartily agree, and is why I posted some thoughts from Rev. Winzer in my post above. Here it is again:

In that post Rev. Winzer speaks of an effectual yet non-salvific love, and basically states that Rutherford's point is the same as Berkhof's above: "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." Contra Berkhof, I have argued above that God alone can be kind and give gifts without being loving or gracious -- unlike humans.

But I don't see how God's sustaining one person's existence for the purpose of heaping punishment upon them is somehow an act of love or grace.

It seems that Rev. Winzer is arguing that we can make distinctions in God's love (e.g. towards His creation, towards His elect, towards rational beings), lower the bar of what they entail (e.g. it is "loving" to provide someone existence) and then declare the love to be effectual. But I think that distorts the notion of divine love too much. If we can lower the standards of love, then what use is it to say that God "loves" a reprobate by providing him existence to feel eternal torments?

I believe distinction should always be made between temporal, earthly blessings received by the creation generally, and eternal salvation unto life, which comes only by the grace of God in Christ.

Just as I believe distinction should be kept between law and gospel, so should reprobation be kept distinct from election; Godly wrath against wickedness distinguished from eternal reward; and providence from love and grace.

For if the source of love is in Jesus Christ, then those outside of Jesus Christ cannot know the love of God, or even be known by God. (Matt. 7:21-23)

It is the law that condemns men to death and hell. It is the love of God that rescues men from death and hell.

Maybe I think too black and white, but I cannot comprehend a mingling of divine love and everlasting condemnation. Such makes my brain hurt!

There have been a few pages of posts that, of course, I don't want to look over; if this argument did appear already, then my apologies, just disregard it I guess.

I heard an argument yesterday while discussing this very topic:

1. Jesus fulfilled the entirety of the law.
2. Fulfilling the law involves loving your neighbor.
3. Your neighbor would involve reprobates.
4. Therefore, Jesus loved reprobates.

And of course by extension that involves God loving reprobates, I guess.

Any thoughts?

__________________
Steven Nemes
Phoenix, AZ

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

First, He can love them qua human (i.e. rather than qua God), without actually striving for their eternal salvation.

Second, His love can be spoken of as volitional, acting kindly to all, even if for the purpose of destruction. And as I said above, only God is able to be kind for the purpose of destruction.

Sir, #1 speaks of Christ . . . #2 speaks of men.

Yes, Christians are to love their enemies and all men, because sinners cannot know exacty who are elect and "accepted in the Beloved."

That is why I said believers do not have the privilege of labelling anyone else a "reprobate." We just don't know. Someone really sinning bad today, may be saved tomorrow, by the grace of God; proving to have been elect all along.

But God knows, and I do not believe those He has ordained to hell and reprobated in this life, receive His love and grace at all. And I do not see in Scripture where God is obligated to love any sinner at all.

The fact that He has chosen to save any of us in Christ, is the only definition of efficacious and amazing grace.

How do you make threads "printer friendly" on PB?

I was wanting to print out this thread to study it more closely in greater comfort.

__________________
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)

Quick question: Does God love the elect because He has elected them, or does God elect the elect because He loves them?

__________________
Jon Adams
Member of Grace Bible Church
Pleasant Hill, CA

What do you mean by God's financial grace, Jake? I assume that's an error

That's a good question. My tentative answer is that God freely chose to love His people and as a result elected them unto eternal life.

Such things as appropriate rain and sunshine on unbelievers/reprobate are not portrayed in Scripture as bad things in themselves but as good gifts. It is the evil, unregenerate will of the reprobate which by its response to God's goodness turns good things into evil.

The reprobate will not spend eternity able to blame God for the fact that they are in Hell because God reprobated them, or for sending "bad, gifts of hatred" to them such as wholesome food and water, but they will blame themselves for sinfully abusing/misusing any such good gifts.

How do you make this thread printer friendly?

No one is saying the gifts from God are "bad" or "of hatred"; the point is that God gives reprobates legitimately good things -- He truly does act kindly towards them -- but this cannot be seen as an example of divine grace, primarily because God is acting only to heap more condemnation upon them.

You may ask in response, How can God act kindly as a means towards augmenting their condemnation? And I reply that only God can do that. For humans, it is essential that we wish a creature's good when we act kindly; for the One who sovereignly ordains and foreknows all events, it is not essential.

And sorry, I don't know about making this printer-friendly.

Under thread tools at the top is an option to print the thread, I just found it.

__________________
Doug
Baptist
Hemet, Ca
Old Time Radio Podcast

Thanks historyb for that technical help.

Dear Ben.

But that still leaves the point that God acting kindly and giving good things is grace if its directed towards a sinner. It may turn out not to be grace in the end but sometimes some Reformed folks look at things only from the perspective of the ultimate purposes of God and not the proximate purposes which He has on the way to achieving His ultimate purposes.

If you don't like the word "grace" being applied to anyone but the elect, surely that just depends on how you define it?

Is mercy not not visiting judgement on someone who deserves it and is grace not giving good things to someone who deserves judgement?

Was it not of God's grace and mercy that the Israelites were taken out of Egypt into the Promised Land? Many of them abused that grace and mercy and proved themselves to be reprobate. It was them that turned gifts of God's grace and mercy into a rod for their backs. Of course God ultimately knew that this would be the case, but that does not mean that in history He also intended to be good, gracious and merciful to the Covenant offspring of Abraham, and that the responsibility for rejecting the Gospel was theirs that rejected it and not God's.

When, under God's sovereign rule, has this ever happened?


No, grace has nothing to do with receiving good things in this life. Good things do not replace Godly justice.

Grace describes Jesus Christ suffering the deserved judgments of His people, which far exceeds mere "mercy." The Christian's excape from deserved judgment, only comes according to the ransom paid by Jesus Christ, which far exceeds "good things."



No, it was a matter of covenant fulfillment, sanctification, and baptism. All of which were non-salvific.


Most of them abused God's sanctification of the race, because they proved to be reprobate of God. Most never received the Abrahamic promises, and most died in the wilderness or as unfaithful children.


Reprobation is a result of God's sovereign decision; not of mens' actions. Yes, reprobates prove to be unrepentant and unfaithful sinners, but that is because God has left them reprobate and accursed, not because they had an optional choice to refuse the goodness of God. (Can you not see the Arminian supposition and glimmer in your remarks?)

I do not understand this statement. Please reword your thoughts.

Meanwhile, I personally believe that the reason many reject the gospel, is because God has ordained their reprobation. Also, the only reason many believe the gospel and exhibit faith in Jesus Christ, is because God has ordained their salvation.

I believe God determines all these things as well as the fate of all souls. Reprobation or salvation is not left up to the choices of sinners, else none would ever escape death and hell.

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

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

Quote from Rush
Reprobation is a result of God's sovereign decision; not of mens' actions. Yes, reprobates prove to be unrepentant and unfaithful sinners, but that is because God has left them reprobate and accursed, not because they had an optional choice to refuse the goodness of God. (Can you not see the Arminian supposition and glimmer in your remarks?)

I see nothing Arminian in placing all responsibility for the reprobates' ultimate condition at their door, and for the elects' salvation solely at God's mercy and grace.