What about the infants of the non-elect? On what basis are they sent to hell?

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

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

That's a whole other topic. We don't know which infants are going to Hell unless we are talking about those infants whose spiritual state we can assess before they die. Those infants who do go to Hell - a lesser Hell than some - will go because of Adam's sin (and any sins/sinful attitude of their own if they have any). God chooses the reprobate, but it is them who are to blame for their punishment. If it was God who was to blame for their punishment rather than them, they could take some comfort in that.

I'm open to persuasion on this topic as divines like Dabney, Shedd, Kuyper, Berkhof and Van Til have defended the doctrine of common grace, while others like Hermann Hoeksema have disagreed.

I'll read Rev. Winzer's article and other material, and study the Scriptures more closely. At present, I agree with Berkhof when he says,

Another objection to the doctrine of common grace is that it presupposes a certain favourable disposition in God even to reprobate sinners, while we have no right to assuime such a disposition in God. This stricture takes its starting point in the eternal counsel of God, in His election and reprobation. Along the lines of His election God reveals His love, grace, mercy, and long-suffering, leading to salvation; and in the historical realisation of His reprobation He gives expression only to His aversion, disfavour, hatred and wrath, leading to destruction. But this looks like a rationalistic oversimplification of the inner-life of God, which does not take account of His self-revelation.

Where - for instance - are God's good gifts ever called gifts of God's hatred - to anyone, elect or reprobate? If they are gifts of God's loving-kindness, that is more heaping coals of fire on the heads of those who abuse everything good, than if they were motivated by God's hatred pure and simple. It is because they (and even the elect to some extent) abuse gifts of God's goodness (and not hate) that the sin is so abominable and deserves greater damnation.

__________________
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)

Maybe the question should be what provisions of God to people are called "gifts"? Not every provision of food, drink, clothing and shelter, I don't think, can rightly be called a "gift"...

__________________
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?

I think the main point of dispute is this quote you said earlier:

Your objection is basically that the non-CG view is being too simplistic, not making the distinction between God's ultimate purposes and proximate purposes. IIRC this was what Bahnsen said when the topic of common grace is brought up in Van Til's Apologetic. He basically says that we need to keep in mind the proximate/ultimate distinction. The Gospel give to reprobates can still be seen as a mark of divine favor and graciousness, even if only proximately.

I think that distinction fails in regards to this issue, basically because of statements like this one: "It may turn out not to be grace in the end." Considering that God ordains not only His actions but also all human reactions (and His "reactions" to the human reactions, etc.), and considering that God knows exactly for what purpose everything in the universe occurs, I think it's a bit awkward to state that "it may turn out not to be grace in the end." If God never intended for some specific gift to be used towards a reprobate's wellbeing, and if He ordained every step of the process to ensure that this intention was filled out perfectly, then it seems wrong to say that at the moment the gift was given it was still grace. We can say that from a human perspective we can tell it's a gift from God and we ought to praise Him for it, but we can't tell from a divine perspective if it is being used ultimately for blessing or for destruction. And seeing as the ultimate doesn't contradict the proximate, the ultimate must be seen as objective (from God's point of view) and the proximate as subjective (from the human's point of view). Consequently it is wrong to provide that distinction as if it can say anything about God's intentions or dispositions. If God intended from all eternity to create a reprobate for destruction, then at every step of the way that is still His intention.

Again, I must say that I believe the CG position comes up because it is hard to conceive how God may legitimately show kindness and present gifts as a means towards destruction. But this is only because He is the one Being in existence who can ordain free reactions to His actions.

__________________
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've been looking at some NT passages that use the word grace (charis). It seems clear that there is a grace/grace according to the NT that falls short of saving grace.

For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ. (Jude 4)

This passage is particularly interesting in that it explicitly mentions reprobation. Yet it still calls God's goodness to these men "grace" and says that it was their fault and responsibility for turning grace into lasciviousness.

Looking diligently lest any man fail of the grace of God; lest any root of bitterness springing up trouble you, and thereby many be defiled; (Heb. 12:15)

In the KJV margin we have "lest any man fall from grace", so it is clearly not saving grace. So we must call it something else, and Reformed people call it "common grace"

Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace? (Heb 10:29)

This shows that common grace extends further than outward things such as milk and honey/food and clothes and also includes the actings, warmings, convictings and drawings of the Spirit of God, short of salvation itself. These things are portrayed as good spiritual gifts and the God the Holy Spirit is characterised as acting in His capacity as "the Spirit of grace". It is because such influences are gracious gifts that the sin is so wicked and the punishment will be even sorer.

More later.........

-----Added 7/4/2009 at 02:20:08 EST-----

Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace. (Galatians 5:4)

The grace that these Galatians had experienced must have been short of saving grace otherwise they could not have abandoned the faith. Paul doesn't offer the backsliding of truly saved Christians here.

Continuing backwards through the NT...

I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain. (Gal 2:21)

Paul speaks of a grace that can be frustrated. Clearly it cannot be the irresistible saving grace.

We then, as workers together with him, beseech you also that ye receive not the grace of God in vain. (II Cor 6:1)

Paul speaks of a grace that can be received in vain. Clearly not salvation, which when received cannot be lost.

There are other relevant texts also, but these are sufficient to show that the New Testament teaches that God is gracious to the reprobate even to the extent of the Holy Spirit working in their hearts and lives.

Just because our tiny minds cannot fathom it, doesn't mean that it's not true that there is genuine grace from God that falls short of irresistible saving grace. But our tiny minds can't completely understand God's sovereignty and Man's free agency/responsibility and other biblical concepts.

If words have meaning the NT teaches Common Grace, call it what you will.

Brother, I have just a few comments to make while I wait for others more knowledgeable than me to add theirs.

Jude is saying here that those men are using the doctrine of the free grace of God in Christ as a pretext for their lasciviousness. In fact, they taught what Roman Catholic and Arminian apologists often accuse us of teaching, that under the pretense of a complete justification by faith alone, we may feel free to sin and live according to our concupiscence.

Same as the verse in Jude. Paul is contrasting law with grace, that is, the perfect rightneousness required by the Law with the Gospel of the justification of the sinner by grace alone through faith alone in Christ. Falling from grace means renouncing the benefits of the Covenant of Grace (falling from grace), to go back to the judgement of the Law.

Exactly. This verse is the premise to the one above: frustrating the grace of God in this context means teaching, and living, a doctrine of works righteousness instead of the doctrine of the grace. For, if we really believe that we can earn righteousness through the Law, we are frustrating, disregarding, the gospel of salvation by grace alone, as though Christ died in vain, which is impossible.

I have to say that I am a bit troubled by how the exegesis used to support common grace often seem to align with those used to deny election and irresistable grace.

__________________
Andrea
Presbyterian, attending Baptist church
Perugia, Italy
Owner: federiformata.it

"Quos et vocavit nos non solum ex Iudæis sed etiam ex gentibus" (Rom. 9.24)

__________________
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

Well, you have to go where the Word leads you, even if you have to be more nuanced in your views than you would like.

Election and irresistible grace are clearly taught in Scripture; but there seems evidence that the Spirit works in people without changing them, and this is also called grace (Hebrews 10:29).

We just have to be careful in how we express and explain these things. Plenty of orthodox Reformed divines have believed in Common Grace.

Correct. But I believe that walking down the "common grace" road will eventually lead to the conclusions that Mouw comes to. Mouw takes the idea and runs with it. He takes it to it's logical conclusion which leads to compromise of the Reformed Faith.

__________________
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

Can you name these divines? Before or after Kuyper?

Engelsma, "I believe that the common grace doctrine that we’re talking about originated with Abraham Kuyper, and Herman Bavinck in the late eighteen hundreds and the early nineteen hundreds. And I am not afraid to claim virtually every reformed theologian prior to them, as, at the very least, not teaching and espousing that cultural common grace, which also then is supposed to take manifestation in a well-meant gospel offer on God’s part in the preaching of the gospel to everybody. And even, I wouldn’t hesitate to claim, every orthodox reformed theologian before Bavinck and Kuyper as repudiating that, if not explicitly, then by implication. When I say that, I readily acknowledge that it is common in the Reformed theologians going back to Calvin, and including Calvin, to refer to what I call, “bounties of providence,” whether Mozart’s musical ability, or Plato’s intellectual ability or whatever it may be, as a certain kind of grace. I recognize that. But that does not put those theologians in the camp of those who think that there is an operation of the Holy Spirit upon the hearts of unregenerated people restraining sin, so that they’re partially good, and can even do works that are truly good, because they’re done by God’s grace, much less, launch this project of common grace to ‘Christianize’ society. That was Abraham Kuyper’s terminology, and Abraham Kuyper was after that: ‘Christianizing’ society by a common grace of God."

An odd comment on this: I was looking at this statement and thinking, "I can see an argument being made for the case that there was an element of grace in the plagues."

Think about it: God was displaying His might and power, revealing himself to the Egyptians through these acts of judgment. Many knew where these plagues were coming from, do we assume that there were none converted by this? We see other instances in the OT where kings were converted to the way of the Lord by the judgment of God, why not this? Is this beyond the pale in discussing the concept of grace, or is it just a different animal than grace?

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

Sorry, but your conclusion does not follow from the premises. What you have done is a good example of eisegesis, that is reading your conclusion into the texts of Scripture rather than demonstrating that your conclusion is a good and necessary consequence of the texts.

In each example you have cited, the word grace can refer to the full extent of saving grace when the term is meant doctrinally rather than experientially. It is the doctrine of saving grace that is twisted to derive lascivious conclusions about Christian practice (Jude); the true doctrine can be professed with the lips but not believed in the heart by a false professor (Hebrews 12) or disavower (Heb. 10, Galatians 5, 2 Cor 6) as the result. Since the subject of Gal 2. is the Apostle Paul referring to something he is not doing with reference to true saving grace, that Scripture is not relevant to a discussion of whether common grace exists or not; in fact none of these passages speak to the question of common grace.

The idea behind "grace" is that its giver gives something given to someone who doesn't deserve it, or to someone who deserves the contrary of what is received. If the reprobate (as a class) receive anything from God which they do not deserve, or anything from God that is contrary to what they deserve, than they have received, some form of a "grace" from God.

What all sinners deserve to receive from God is death (Gen 2:17, Rom 6:23a) and that immediately (Gen 2:17). If God allows the reprobate to experience anything other then immediate death for sin commited, he is giving them something they do not deserve and, in fact contrary to what they deserve.

Whatever God's long term reasons for giving the reprobate what they do not deserve may be, or whatever the long term effects of these gifts in the lives of the reprobate may prove to have, those reasons do not change the fact that the reprobate who do not experience death immediately after sinning are experiencing some level of blessing from God, and that blessing is not what they deserve.

__________________
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 son 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 -

Dear Timmo,

I stand corrected, but I would dispute whether none of these passages indicate undeserved goodness on the part of God to the reprobate and even the resistable strivings of the Holy Spirit with the reprobate which fall short of regeneration (e.g. Acts 7:51)

In Jude 4, it was a grace of God that these men heard the Gospel message of grace, even if they responded by using it as an excuse for sin.

Hebrews 12:15, indicates that they had to look to themselves and their ostensible brothers to make sure that their faith was not spurious. These people had heard the Gospel by grace, if not had influences of the Spirit upon them, also by grace.

Hebrews 10:29. I would not like to be dogmatic in saying that these people had experienced nothing of the Spirit of God/Grace of God, although clearly not regeneration, especially in the light of Hebrews 6:4-6.

Galatians 5:4 In God's grace they heard the message of grace and for a time looked as if they had received it by grace - but it was temporary faith.
(See e.g. Galatians 1:6)

Galatians 2:21 Although Paul wasn't frustrating God's grace, the implication is that the Galatians were by turning to a false Gospel.

II Corinthians 6:1 They received the grace of God. Whether it involved only the outward call of the Gospel or also some influences of the Spirit that fell short of conversion, I don't know?

If you wish to correct these thoughts further, I will not demur.

Whatever God's long term reasons for giving the reprobate what they do not deserve may be, or whatever the long term effects of these gifts in the lives of the reprobate may prove to have, those reasons do not change the fact that the reprobate who do not experience death immediately after sinning are experiencing some level of blessing from God, and that blessing is not what they deserve.

I agree. The point of contention here seems to be that because God's ultimate attitude to the reprobate is one of hatred, contempt and loathing, we should not call any of the good things that He gives to them grace/gifts of grace or common grace. Whatever the logic in that it seems to contradict the language of Scripture about these things the reprobate receive, including the "common operations of the Spirit". (WCF IX IV).

Yours,
Richard.

-----Added 7/5/2009 at 11:28:15 EST-----

Well Robert Dabney's "Systematic and Polemic Theology" (1871) and Charles Hodge's "Systematic Theology" (1871-3) for a start.

Quote from Engelsma
But that does not put those theologians in the camp of those who think that there is an operation of the Holy Spirit upon the hearts of unregenerated people restraining sin, so that they’re partially good, and can even do works that are truly good, because they’re done by God’s grace, much less, launch this project of common grace to ‘Christianize’ society. That was Abraham Kuyper’s terminology, and Abraham Kuyper was after that: ‘Christianizing’ society by a common grace of God.

I don't think that Hodge or Dabney would call the works of the unregenerate "truly good". More likely "outwardly good" or "good as far as they went". Neither do I think that Hodge and Dabney who were both postmillennialists would believe that society can be Christianised without large numbers of people in the society being converted and being salt and light. Nor do I think they believed in a third class of people who were "partially good"

I'd have to check up on the "well meant Gospel offer". I think Hodge and Dabney would say that when the Gospel is preached, the Spirit regenerates some, leaves others and works by common and not saving operations on others.(?)

Richard,

This issue can very easily be solved in a systematic-theological manner without appealing to the nuanced meanings of "grace" in various passages. Even though I believe that God intends well-being for the elect only (i.e., even though I believe that all grace is grace towards the elect), it is still proper for me to speak of "grace" or "graces" that God imparts to reprobates -- so long as these "graces" are referring to gifts irrespective of God's intentions. It's when the term "grace" is used equivocally that problems arise in the dispute, for example when someone says that God could not sustain the existence of a sinner who deserves hell immediately except by grace, and then that person says therefore that God intends good for the creature using a second definition of "grace." I believe in "common grace" if by that you mean God imparts gifts to the reprobates; I deny it vehemently if by that you mean God desires their well-being as a result of this gift. The former is shown by many Scriptures you have provided; the latter is not.

If I am not mistaken the structure of this debate is exactly the same as a section of the Clark/Van Til debate: Clark's point was that the well-meant offer logically contradicts other parts of the Reformed faith (and therefore it's foolish to presume that we can find such prooftexts in Scripture), whereas Van Til's point was that he thought it was taught in various texts (and therefore it's foolish to presume that we can deny it by our "human logic"; it's just an "apparent contradiction").

Therefore, Richard, if you can combat the logical difficulties that have been shown in your position, and if you can show that the Bible speaks of God's gracious intentions towards reprobates (since that is what the Kuyperian doctrine of common grace is) rather than His gifts towards them, then you will have succeeded in establishing that common grace is Biblical.

That's a great observation, and a distinction that should help us avoid talking past each other.

__________________
Trevor James
Ruling Elder, St. Paul's RBC
Oreland, PA.

1689 London Baptist Confession

Brothers, before we all look too hard for what God hates, (too late?)

We need to remember that God, our God has described himself as LOVE. Some of these posts including the origanal post seem to forget that if not for Grace, God would hate us too.

I think Calvin said somewhere Election is to great a thing to think about all the time because it could drive a mortal mad. Instead Calvin wrote verse by verse about what was clear and what is clear is that He loves the unworthy. Probably because that is His nature.

__________________
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.

Well, I doubt I can do any better than Van Til!

But there is the point that they are called graces in Scripture, whether we're talking about the elect or not. They're not called operations of God's despite, hatred, loathing and contempt in the case of the reprobate.

There is also the case that if God can be nuanced in His attitude to the elect before they're converted and even afterwards, why may He not be nuanced in His attitude to the reprobate before the Spirit stops striving with them or they end up in Hell.

You may plead "logic" but I don't feel I am forced to choose between God both having hatred for the reprobate and God being gracious to the reprobate in this life, by Scripture, any more than I'm forced to choose between God's sovereignty and Man's genuine responsibility.

There are sometimes mysteries and paradoxes in theology. Why does the Spirit strive with men who He knows He is not going to save? An ultimate reason will be that their condemnation will be greater because of the grace they have received. Is that the only reason, or are there other proximate gracious reasons, which is why common grace is called grace

Both Hodge and Dabney held to common grace as well as Kuyper.

The Gospel offer is well meant to all who hear it. If any who hears believes they will be saved. Because the chill is in their will rather than in something like their arms and legs, the "can't" is as much a "won't" as a "can't". It is a moral and not a metaphysical can't/won't, so they are completely responsible for what they do with the message.

If the Spirit is sometimes striving graciously with those who don't become believers this increases their guilt. Of course if the Spirit wanted to regenerate them He could. How these things are fully resolved I don't pretend to know but I am content to believe that God has compassion on sinners, even ones that are not going to Heaven. The full hatred of God will be felt by the reprobate in Hell. Those who have spurned more of God's (common) grace in this life - all other things considered -will have a sorer punishment.

Richard,

First, after I made a distinction between the two meanings of grace used in arguments for common grace -- i.e., between (1) gifts irrespective of divine intentions and (2) divine intentions of well-being -- you repeated to me that the Bible verses speak of grace as if it is helpful to your argument. Please realize that I am not averse to the actual use of the words "common grace"; I am averse rather to the concept that is usually contained under the label of "common grace." Therefore pointing to verses that mention the word "grace" in some sort for reprobates does not assist your position very well, unless you can show that these verses are showing a divine intention for the well-being of reprobates -- a divine intention for something that will not actually occur. In other words, if you can show only that the "graces" spoken of in Scripture towards reprobate are in the category of (1) above and not (2), then you are not proving your doctrine of common grace.

Second, identifying an unqualified nuance that exists in God's treatment towards the elect does not assist your proof of common grace. What is necessary is that you show specifically how the nuance involved in God's relationship with the elect allows the concept of common grace. This involves defining and qualifying God's relationship with the elect, not just stating that a nuance exists with the elect; therefore your specific nuance of common grace exists with the reprobate. You have to define and qualify the nuances of God's relationships with the elect and reprobate and show how the relationships are logically connected.

Third, if I may not plead for logical consistency, then the analogy of faith that undergirds the entirety of the Reformed faith is gone. There may be some things that are weird to understand, but there are never contradictions in God. Therefore unless you can counter the charge that the concept of common grace is an absolute contradiction, you cannot plead paradox.

Fourth, it is certainly true that the Gospel offer is "well-meant" by the preacher (if that is what you are saying), but that is not what the doctrine of the "well-meant offer" is dealing with. That doctrine teaches specifically that God Himself desires for reprobates to repent, which I repudiate. This offer and the view of common grace you are espousing are intertwined if not identical.

Fifth, certainly it is the case that reprobates are the ones who turn God's gift unto their own destruction, but you must also realize that God ordains all the reprobates' reactions. It seems that to be consistent with your view that God really desires reprobates' good, but then they twist it to another purpose, is to allow a free-willist view of God. On the contrary, I believe that the correct view is that God's intentions are carried out not only in His actions, but in everything that occurs by His decree, including reprobate reactions. Therefore the fact that reprobates are the ones who turn God's gifts unto their destruction does not imply that the view of common grace you are espousing is true.

Ben

Dear Ben,

First, after I made a distinction between the two meanings of grace used in arguments for common grace -- i.e., between (1) gifts irrespective of divine intentions and (2) divine intentions of well-being -- you repeated to me that the Bible verses speak of grace as if it is helpful to your argument. Please realize that I am not averse to the actual use of the words "common grace"; I am averse rather to the concept that is usually contained under the label of "common grace." Therefore pointing to verses that mention the word "grace" in some sort for reprobates does not assist your position very well, unless you can show that these verses are showing a divine intention for the well-being of reprobates -- a divine intention for something that will not actually occur. In other words, if you can show only that the "graces" spoken of in Scripture towards reprobate are in the category of (1) above and not (2), then you are not proving your doctrine of common grace.

You haven't yet explained why the Bible uses the term grace about these gifts to the reprobate if they're not gracious in any sense. God doesn't ultimately desire the well-being of the reprobate, but He does proximately for his own good reasons desire their temporal well-being. To flatten things out by saying because of the decree that in time God has nothing but hatred for the reprobate, would make God seem to be less gracious than He is. It would also be misleading to say that in time God has nothing but love for the elect.

Second, identifying an unqualified nuance that exists in God's treatment towards the elect does not assist your proof of common grace. What is necessary is that you show specifically how the nuance involved in God's relationship with the elect allows the concept of common grace. This involves defining and qualifying God's relationship with the elect, not just stating that a nuance exists with the elect; therefore your specific nuance of common grace exists with the reprobate. You have to define and qualify the nuances of God's relationships with the elect and reprobate and show how the relationships are logically connected.

I would have to do further study on this and Common Grace generally. But I don't see that in Scripture, God's relationship with the elect and with the reprobate is purely defined by the decrees to reprobate or elect. God has ultimate purposes for these groups, but he also has multiple proximate purposes in what He does.

Third, if I may not plead for logical consistency, then the analogy of faith that undergirds the entirety of the Reformed faith is gone. There may be some things that are weird to understand, but there are never contradictions in God. Therefore unless you can counter the charge that the concept of common grace is an absolute contradiction, you cannot plead paradox.

You can plead for logical consistency, but where there is a conflict we sometimes have to leave things hanging in our tiny minds. I do not believe that there is any contradiction in God, just that your solution to the apparent conflict is reductionist, simplistic and flattens the data of Scripture. You're basically saying that because you can't understand how references to grace in connection with the non-elect could be really gracious - in the sense that God desires their well-being in some sense (not savingly) - that therefore you will redefine them as hatred on God's part. Why is it important? It makes God seem less gracious than He might be for a start. If you ask me to resolve how God can intend the temporal good of the reprobate and therefore be gracious to them, I don't pretend to have a full answer to that. Who said we would understand God to perfection? Maybe we'll understand better in glory?
I'm not going to jump at a solution when I don't think its the full story.

Fourth, it is certainly true that the Gospel offer is "well-meant" by the preacher (if that is what you are saying), but that is not what the doctrine of the "well-meant offer" is dealing with. That doctrine teaches specifically that God Himself desires for reprobates to repent, which I repudiate. This offer and the view of common grace you are espousing are intertwined if not identical.

Certainly the work of God in the hearts of the reprobate can be mysterious - e.g. the passages in Hebrews - in that He wrestles with some and brings them to conviction and other spiritual experiences, but then leaves them.
But we must never say that He intended to convert them, otherwise they would have been converted.

Fifth, certainly it is the case that reprobates are the ones who turn God's gift unto their own destruction, but you must also realize that God ordains all the reprobates' reactions. It seems that to be consistent with your view that God really desires reprobates' good, but then they twist it to another purpose, is to allow a free-willist view of God. On the contrary, I believe that the correct view is that God's intentions are carried out not only in His actions, but in everything that occurs by His decree, including reprobate reactions. Therefore the fact that reprobates are the ones who turn God's gifts unto their destruction does not imply that the view of common grace you are espousing is true.

Yes. But God does no violence to the reprobate to force them to sin. Therefore their wicked use of grace is their own fault and responsibilty, not God's. Everything is ordained by God for the elect and reprobate. Does it follow that God has nothing but love for the elect and hatred for the reprobate? Nothing-buttery can flatten important points.

I'll bow out of this now. You've obviously read up a lot more on this subject and theology generally, than I have. I'll study it further. We don't see eye to eye, but greater men than us have disagreed about this topic.

Richard.

Richard,

One of the main points I was trying to deliver is that there is a significant distinction between (1) the fact that God gives gifts to both elect and reprobate, and (2) God's purposes or intentions in giving those gifts. In my estimation, you have assumed that the giving of gifts always implies well-meant intentions. I believe this is evident from this quotation of yours:

You haven't yet explained why the Bible uses the term grace about these gifts to the reprobate if they're not gracious in any sense.

If you assume that "grace" (a gift irrespective of intentions) implies "gracious" (which you take to mean good intentions), then you have assumed what you are trying to prove and therefore begged the question. On the contrary, we must remember that for God, who alone can sovereignly decree true reactions to His workings with humans, a gift does not imply a good intention of Him. You seemed to misunderstand the point I was making regarding reprobates' reactions when you said this:

I am not arguing that it is God's fault that reprobates twist their God-given gifts, but I will wholeheartedly argue that it is God's intention that they do so, since that is what He decreed. And therefore it is false to claim that He intends that they do otherwise. Seeing as common grace claims exactly that, it follows that common grace is false.

As I have pointed out above, I honestly think that this entire discussion comes down to the fact that for humans, gifts imply good intentions, whereas for God, this is not necessarily true. Humans cannot foreordain reactions to their gift-giving, but God can.

Otherwise, it is also important to remember that my view does not entail that God has no hardships for the elects and no blessings (gifts) for reprobates. But I will argue that everything works for the good of the elect (Romans 8:28) and for the destruction of the reprobate.

Ben