Thread: A question about Ursinus on God's mercy to the reprobate

I was confused as to the bolded portions of this quote from Ursinus' Commentary on the Heidelberg Catechism, Question 11, 'But is God also merciful?'

'Obj. He who rigorously exacts his right, shuts out every expectation of clemency. God rigorously exacts his right. Therefore with him there is no clemency. Or the objection may be thus stated: He who does not yield any thing in relation to his rights, is not merciful, but only just. God does not yield any thing as it respects his rights, because he punishes every sin with a punishment that corresponds with its just desert. Ans. We deny the minor proposition, because God, although he punishes sin with eternal punishment, does nevertheless yield much as it respects his right. He exhibits great clemency, for instance, towards the reprobate, for he defers the punishment which they deserve, and invites them to repentance by strong and powerful motives. And as to the punishment which he will inflict upon them in the world to come, it will be lighter than they deserved. . . . We also deny the major proposition, if applied either to him who is endowed with such wisdom that he can discover a method of exercising mercy without violating his justice, or when applied to him who, whilst he executes his justice, does not rejoice in the destruction of man, but would rather that he be saved. As a judge, when he passes the sentence upon a robber that he deserves to be put to the torture, and yet does not take pleasure in his punishment, exhibits great equity and clemency, even though he seems to exact the most rigorous demand of the law, so God is far more equitable and clement, although, in his just judgment, he punishes sin, for he does not delight in the destruction of the wicked, (Ez. 18:23; 33:11.) . . .'

This seems to go against what I have understood regarding God doing whatever He pleases and having no conflictedness in doing so. I also do not understand how it can be said that God will 'inflict' a punishment lighter than is deserved.

I want to agree with such statements; but I am unsure how to reconcile them with other things I have understood about God.

Originally Posted by a mere housewife

I was confused as to the bolded portions of this quote from Ursinus' Commentary on the Heidelberg Catechism, Question 11, 'But is God also merciful?'

'Obj. He who rigorously exacts his right, shuts out every expectation of clemency. God rigorously exacts his right. Therefore with him there is no clemency. Or the objection may be thus stated: He who does not yield any thing in relation to his rights, is not merciful, but only just. God does not yield any thing as it respects his rights, because he punishes every sin with a punishment that corresponds with its just desert. Ans. We deny the minor proposition, because God, although he punishes sin with eternal punishment, does nevertheless yield much as it respects his right. He exhibits great clemency, for instance, towards the reprobate, for he defers the punishment which they deserve, and invites them to repentance by strong and powerful motives. And as to the punishment which he will inflict upon them in the world to come, it will be lighter than they deserved. . . . We also deny the major proposition, if applied either to him who is endowed with such wisdom that he can discover a method of exercising mercy without violating his justice, or when applied to him who, whilst he executes his justice, does not rejoice in the destruction of man, but would rather that he be saved. As a judge, when he passes the sentence upon a robber that he deserves to be put to the torture, and yet does not take pleasure in his punishment, exhibits great equity and clemency, even though he seems to exact the most rigorous demand of the law, so God is far more equitable and clement, although, in his just judgment, he punishes sin, for he does not delight in the destruction of the wicked, (Ez. 18:23; 33:11.) . . .'

This seems to go against what I have understood regarding God doing whatever He pleases and having no conflictedness in doing so. I also do not understand how it can be said that God will 'inflict' a punishment lighter than is deserved.

I want to agree with such statements; but I am unsure how to reconcile them with other things I have understood about God.

In my humble opinion, Ursinus erred with this trajectory he took. I read his commentary and must say he was spot on regarding some things, but on others he was way off. Hebrews 10:38 is very clear that God has no pleasure in the person who draws back and is damned. The verb eudokeo means to have a favorable disposition, delight, to be pleased with.

I think I can understand the part about judgment inflicted being lighter than deserved, if what he means is something he says elsewhere -- that it is due to no virtue in the reprobate that they are kept from certain actions which would bring on them greater punishment (I am just unsure if this is also what he means here?). But I am quite confused as to the second part. Robert, I don't believe he is addressing the Hebrews passage?

Would it possibly be that since God is said to desire things in terms of His self revelation to and actions towards us and not 'as He is in Himself' -- and since He invites all men to repent, we can say that He 'would rather' they be saved?

As a sidenote, this is why synods and general assembly's are helpful for both confessions and catechisms; they help to challenge private opinions more than a handful of men or one private person.

Cheers,

Taken individually:

We deny the minor proposition, because God, although he punishes sin with eternal punishment, does nevertheless yield much as it respects his right.

It is His right to punish eternally every sinner from the moment of the first sin, Adam's, so it appears that He does yield much in respect to His rights.

And as to the punishment which he will inflict upon them in the world to come, it will be lighter than they deserved. . .

Every moment of time not spent in the flames of hell makes lighter the punishment all sinners deserve.

does not rejoice in the destruction of man, but would rather that he be saved.

Now that I find disagreement with. God gets all His druthers.

for he does not delight in the destruction of the wicked,

I believe that is so, and amply demonstrated in the case of the judge who takes no pleasure in sentencing the criminal to his just punishment.

Seems to me Ursinus went beyond the pale with the third postulation.

Originally Posted by a mere housewife

Would it possibly be that since God is said to desire things in terms of His self revelation to and actions towards us and not 'as He is in Himself' -- and since He invites all men to repent, we can say that He 'would rather' they be saved?

I think your on the right track here....

I believe Ursinus is talking about common grace or the well meant offer (as we would call it today). Personally, I do believe that there is an element of God's character that does desire that all His creatures come to repentance. I don't believe it conflicts with His sovereign decree or justice...but He certainly reveals His character of mercy to all His creatures. I know many here on the PB will disagree...but I do believe that the majority of the Reformers and Puritans held to this view. I can provide more info. later if you'd like. Here is a great resource if you want to read more on the subject, just scroll down: http://calvinandcalvinism.com/?page_id=214

Brad, thanks: I should of course have interpreted that first statement in light of what he said immediately afterward.

Yvonne, thank you: it seems though, that if the explanation comes in terms of saying that God is 'lisping' to us -- that we can speak of 'desires' not because we know Him as He is in Himself, but as He acts towards us -- then we cannot actually speak of 'a side of God's character' that really does this or that, regardless of His actions -- we can only speak 'as men' in terms of those actions? So we could possibly say in anthropopathic terms that God 'desires' the salvation of men on the basis of His inviting men to it, but not as if we had 'inside' knowledge of what He 'really', despite His eternal counsels, is like or wants?

(just a note that I am hoping to understand specifically if there is a framework in which Ursinus would have meant this which reconciles it to other things I have understood about God's decrees, more than trying to re-discuss other questions.)

Originally Posted by a mere housewife

Brad, thanks: I should of course have interpreted that first statement in light of what he said immediately afterward.

Yvonne, thank you: it seems though, that if the explanation comes in terms of saying that God is 'lisping' to us -- that we can speak of 'desires' not because we know Him as He is in Himself, but as He acts towards us -- then we cannot actually speak of 'a side of God's character' that really does this or that, regardless of His actions -- we can only speak 'as men' in terms of those actions? So we could possibly say in anthropopathic terms that God 'desires' the salvation of men on the basis of His inviting men to it, but not as if we had 'inside' knowledge of what He 'really', despite His eternal counsels, is like or wants?

(just a note that I am hoping to understand specifically if there is a framework in which Ursinus would have meant this which reconciles it to other things I have understood about God's decrees, more than trying to re-discuss other questions.)

Actually, the link that I suggested includes Ursinus and his views on the subject, it includes the portion you quoted above. I think it might be helpful in placing his writings in proper context. Here it is: http://calvinandcalvinism.com/?p=60 I hope it helps!

Yvonne, I hadn't seen the link earlier, for some reason: thank you. They had quoted this from Ursinus on the will of God -- which I read previously but had not gone back to look at again in this light, and it may have some bearing as it references an improper idea of desire in God, and two respects in which God can be said to desire:

1) Obj. 3. What God desires us to do, we have the power of doing. God desires us to do that which contributes to our well-being. Therefore, we have the ability, of ourselves, to do that which is good, and consequently do not need the grace and influence of the Holy Spirit. Ans. There is in this syllogism, an incorrect chain of reasoning, arising from the ambiguity of the word desire. In the major, it is used in its ordinary and proper sense. But in the minor, it is used improperly; for God is here said to desire, through a figure of speech, by which he is represented as being affected after the manner of men. Hence, there is a different kind of affirmation in the major from what there is in the minor. God desires in two respects. First, in respect to his commandments and invitations. Secondly, in respect to the love which he cherishes towards his creatures, and the torments of those that perish, but not in respect to the execution of his justice.

Yvonne, I would suggest caution in accepting the conclusions of the website which you linked -- more often than not, far from establishing the proper context, the site wholly removes authors from their context in order to attempt to make them look like they denied "limited atonement" or that there is some true, counter-factual desire in God.

Heidi, I'm no Ursinus expert, nevertheless I'm not so sure he necessarily expresses anything unorthodox in this passage. 1.) We can certainly affirm a general love which God has to his creatures as creatures (which has nothing to do with salvation in Christ, or a desire of salvation in Christ, or an intention of salvation in Christ, etc.); through this love, he sustains his creatures even in their judgment and damnation; he has delayed their punishment; he presents sundry of them with his Word of salvation (which, though he has no intention or desire to save them thereby, nevertheless it is an act of condescension to them -- see, for instance, Owen on the works preparatory to regeneration in his Pneumatology). 2.) As to the portion about not delighting in destruction, etc., I think there is certainly an orthodox way of reading this without having to assume a counter-factual desire in God. God, while delighting very much in justice, does not delight in destruction in itself. Now, I have a very different translation in front of me at the moment, and I don't have an original version on my laptop to check the Latin, but I'm not sure Ursinus is indicating that God truly would *rather* save than not save; rather, from his prior comments, he could simply be indicating that God does not delight in destruction itself and truly does stand ready to save any who will come to him through repentance and faith: that is, God is not a cruel, oppressive judge simply seeking to and delighting in inflicting pain and torture upon creatures, but would readily receive the repentance of any. Thus, even in those whom has eternally decreed to leave in their sins, nevertheless he delays their punishment, presents them with his word and gives possibility after possibility for repentance before coming down upon them with the arm of justice. He seems to be merely expressing the Biblical language, without necessarily using it to set forth an idea of counter-factual desires as many do, nor do I think it necessary to see him setting forth any "conflictedness" in God or opposing desires (at least in this passage). I am open to correction on his position here, however.

. . . more often than not, far from establishing the proper context, the site wholly removes authors from their context in order to attempt to make them look like they denied "limited atonement" or that there is some true, counter-factual desire in God.

I was wondering about this too -- though it seems some of the selections themselves, read carefully, would militate against the positions seemingly inferred from them: as with the first quote on this page being the one in which Ursinus addresses speaking in a wrong way about desires in God: Calvin and Calvinism » Blog Archive Ursinus on the Will of God -- if the further statements are read in even that light, it would give a different sense to them than the selective thrust overall might suggest.

Heidi, I'm no Ursinus expert, nevertheless I'm not so sure he necessarily expresses anything unorthodox in this passage. 1.) We can certainly affirm a general love which God has to his creatures as creatures (which has nothing to do with salvation in Christ, or a desire of salvation in Christ, or an intention of salvation in Christ, etc.); through this love, he sustains his creatures even in their judgment and damnation; he has delayed their punishment; he presents sundry of them with his Word of salvation (which, though he has no intention or desire to save them thereby, nevertheless it is an act of condescension to them -- see, for instance, Owen on the works preparatory to regeneration in his Pneumatology). 2.) As to the portion about not delighting in destruction, etc., I think there is certainly an orthodox way of reading this without having to assume a counter-factual desire in God. God, while delighting very much in justice, does not delight in destruction in itself. Now, I have a very different translation in front of me at the moment, and I don't have an original version on my laptop to check the Latin, but I'm not sure Ursinus is indicating that God truly would *rather* save than not save; rather, from his prior comments, he could simply be indicating that God does not delight in destruction itself and truly does stand ready to save any who will come to him through repentance and faith: that is, God is not a cruel, oppressive judge simply seeking to and delighting in inflicting pain and torture upon creatures, but would readily receive the repentance of any. Thus, even in those whom has eternally decreed to leave in their sins, nevertheless he delays their punishment, presents them with his word and gives possibility after possibility for repentance before coming down upon them with the arm of justice. He seems to be merely expressing the Biblical language, without necessarily using it to set forth an idea of counter-factual desires as many do, nor do I think it necessary to see him setting forth any "conflictedness" in God or opposing desires (at least in this passage)

That seems to be very much in keeping with the second sense of desire that Ursinus references in the quote above (from the section on the freedom of the will). Thank you.

Originally Posted by Prufrock

Yvonne, I would suggest caution in accepting the conclusions of the website which you linked -- more often than not, far from establishing the proper context, the site wholly removes authors from their context in order to attempt to make them look like they denied "limited atonement" or that there is some true, counter-factual desire in God.

Heidi, I'm no Ursinus expert, nevertheless I'm not so sure he necessarily expresses anything unorthodox in this passage. 1.) We can certainly affirm a general love which God has to his creatures as creatures (which has nothing to do with salvation in Christ, or a desire of salvation in Christ, or an intention of salvation in Christ, etc.); through this love, he sustains his creatures even in their judgment and damnation; he has delayed their punishment; he presents sundry of them with his Word of salvation (which, though he has no intention or desire to save them thereby, nevertheless it is an act of condescension to them -- see, for instance, Owen on the works preparatory to regeneration in his Pneumatology). 2.) As to the portion about not delighting in destruction, etc., I think there is certainly an orthodox way of reading this without having to assume a counter-factual desire in God. God, while delighting very much in justice, does not delight in destruction in itself. Now, I have a very different translation in front of me at the moment, and I don't have an original version on my laptop to check the Latin, but I'm not sure Ursinus is indicating that God truly would *rather* save than not save; rather, from his prior comments, he could simply be indicating that God does not delight in destruction itself and truly does stand ready to save any who will come to him through repentance and faith: that is, God is not a cruel, oppressive judge simply seeking to and delighting in inflicting pain and torture upon creatures, but would readily receive the repentance of any. Thus, even in those whom has eternally decreed to leave in their sins, nevertheless he delays their punishment, presents them with his word and gives possibility after possibility for repentance before coming down upon them with the arm of justice. He seems to be merely expressing the Biblical language, without necessarily using it to set forth an idea of counter-factual desires as many do, nor do I think it necessary to see him setting forth any "conflictedness" in God or opposing desires (at least in this passage). I am open to correction on his position here, however.

Paul, I appreciate your concern, and to some extent expected as much! I do not wish to argue this with anyone, I'm already aware of where people stand. However, if you do happen to read the website in further detail you will see that it does not in fact remove authors from their proper context to make them look like they denied "limited atonement". In fact, this is a common misunderstanding of common grace/free offer of the gospel. Those of us that do hold to it, do in fact believe in a limited atonement....and the website fully adheres to that as well. In fact, the whole paragraph that you addressed to Heidi, is a nut shell exactly what is meant by the website! Anyhow, I do not wish to argue this point...I was simply addressing Heidi's question. I've studied the issue in depth and I do believe that is exactly what Ursinus was speaking of. If anyone can prove that Ursinus meant otherwise than I am open to correction.

Originally Posted by Joshua

Mrs. Merely a Housewife,

I only offer this in this theological context because it's your thread and I know that you invaluably appreciate my deep understanding of such things. But, concerning all this:

The parcaptious stingularizations of the bionical botanies found here can be non-plussedly complexual and oarbound. Thus, when the outlines of ubiquity are not that, we did anyway.

Exactly what I was thinking.

Originally Posted by Joshua

Mrs. Merely a Housewife,

I only offer this in this theological context because it's your thread and I know that you invaluably appreciate my deep understanding of such things. But, concerning all this:

The parcaptious stingularizations of the bionical botanies found here can be non-plussedly complexual and oarbound. Thus, when the outlines of ubiquity are not that, we did anyway.

Joshua, that's Mrs. Merely-Merely a Housewife, to you.

I do hope that someone is collecting these for a posthumous publication of 'Quaint Sayings'. (Oh, and I do hope that it's going to be published soon.)

Originally Posted by Chaplainintraining

Originally Posted by Joshua

Mrs. Merely a Housewife,

I only offer this in this theological context because it's your thread and I know that you invaluably appreciate my deep understanding of such things. But, concerning all this:

The parcaptious stingularizations of the bionical botanies found here can be non-plussedly complexual and oarbound. Thus, when the outlines of ubiquity are not that, we did anyway.

Exactly what I was thinking.

It is the obvious answer, but very well phrased.

Originally Posted by Prufrock

Heidi, I'm no Ursinus expert, nevertheless I'm not so sure he necessarily expresses anything unorthodox in this passage. 1.) We can certainly affirm a general love which God has to his creatures as creatures (which has nothing to do with salvation in Christ, or a desire of salvation in Christ, or an intention of salvation in Christ, etc.); through this love, he sustains his creatures even in their judgment and damnation; he has delayed their punishment; he presents sundry of them with his Word of salvation (which, though he has no intention or desire to save them thereby, nevertheless it is an act of condescension to them --

Paul, the only problem I have with this vein of thought is that the reason Gods does not immediately destroy the wicked is ONLY to have their iniquity come to full measure. To say this is merciful, by only providing them temporal life, is a big overstatement. The delaying of punishment is not for the reprobates benefit in the slightest. In fact, it would be better if they were never born.

Originally Posted by Prufrock

2.) As to the portion about not delighting in destruction, etc., I think there is certainly an orthodox way of reading this without having to assume a counter-factual desire in God. God, while delighting very much in justice, does not delight in destruction in itself. Now, I have a very different translation in front of me at the moment, and I don't have an original version on my laptop to check the Latin, but I'm not sure Ursinus is indicating that God truly would *rather* save than not save; rather, from his prior comments, he could simply be indicating that God does not delight in destruction itself and truly does stand ready to save any who will come to him through repentance and faith: that is, God is not a cruel, oppressive judge simply seeking to and delighting in inflicting pain and torture upon creatures, but would readily receive the repentance of any. Thus, even in those whom has eternally decreed to leave in their sins, nevertheless he delays their punishment, presents them with his word and gives possibility after possibility for repentance before coming down upon them with the arm of justice. He seems to be merely expressing the Biblical language, without necessarily using it to set forth an idea of counter-factual desires as many do, nor do I think it necessary to see him setting forth any "conflictedness" in God or opposing desires (at least in this passage). I am open to correction on his position here, however.

Yet to even consider this is to speculate on the desire of the Almighty. In fact, I find the opposite of what you said as being the truth. It would make God insincere if He even thinks of giving a reprobate a 'possibility.' of being saved. This is very cruel if it is the case. Hence I deny CG and the WMO. For some odd reason, so many trip over Ezekiel it makes me wonder why they have such a conflict. As I pointed out in Hebrews 10:38, God has no favorable disposition towards those whom perish.

Originally Posted by Joshua

Originally Posted by a mere housewife

Joshua...

I do hope that someone is collecting these for a posthumous publication of 'Quaint Sayings'. (Oh, and I do hope that it's going to be published soon.)

Your cruelty knows no bounds.

ADMIN NOTE: Stop being a meanie.

I'm very sorry that I acted so wickedly toward you, Friend. My deepest and most sincere of apologies.

Paul, the only problem I have with this vein of thought is that the reason Gods does not immediately destroy the wicked is ONLY to have their iniquity come to full measure. To say this is merciful, by only providing them temporal life, is a big overstatement. The delaying of punishment is not for the reprobates benefit in the slightest. In fact, it would be better if they were never born.

And yet God restrains much of the iniquity for which the sinner would have received greater damnation. I'm sure Paul can take care of himself, but that particular line of reasoning bothers me -- as if evil is somehow fundamental to being.

Originally Posted by a mere housewife

And yet God restrains much of the iniquity for which the sinner would have received greater damnation. I'm sure Paul can take care of himself, but that particular line of reasoning bothers me -- as if evil is somehow fundamental to being.

Yes He does AMH. But I do not know what this has to do with the thread. Perhaps you heard what I did not say. God restrains iniquity in all.

Originally Posted by Joshua

Mrs. Merely a Housewife,

I only offer this in this theological context because it's your thread and I know that you invaluably appreciate my deep understanding of such things. But, concerning all this:

The parcaptious stingularizations of the bionical botanies found here can be non-plussedly complexual and oarbound. Thus, when the outlines of ubiquity are not that, we did anyway.

Originally Posted by Joshua

Mrs. Merely a Housewife,

I only offer this in this theological context because it's your thread and I know that you invaluably appreciate my deep understanding of such things. But, concerning all this:

The parcaptious stingularizations of the bionical botanies found here can be non-plussedly complexual and oarbound. Thus, when the outlines of ubiquity are not that, we did anyway.

Have you been taking lessons from this guy?

Originally Posted by Amazing Grace

Paul, the only problem I have with this vein of thought is that the reason Gods does not immediately destroy the wicked is ONLY to have their iniquity come to full measure. To say this is merciful, by only providing them temporal life, is a big overstatement. The delaying of punishment is not for the reprobates benefit in the slightest. In fact, it would be better if they were never born.

May I ask, where in the Scriptures does it say the reason God does not immediately destroy the wicked is ONLY to have their iniquity come to full measure?

You say, that it would have been better if they were never born at all, however, it was God's good pleasure to create them. So, for what purpose did he create them?? (Romans 9) He bore them with great patience to demonstrate His glory to His objects of mercy! God reveals His character in His dealings with the wicked. And this is exactly what Ursinus was speaking of, in my honest opinion!

Originally Posted by Joshua

Originally Posted by a mere housewife

Originally Posted by Joshua

Your cruelty knows no bounds.

ADMIN NOTE: Stop being a meanie.

I'm very sorry that I acted so wickedly toward you, Friend. My deepest and most sincere of apologies.

It's okay. I forgive you.

I always apologise so nicely when we have these little fallings out, it must be very hard not to forgive me. Especially because you know -- better than anyone -- how sincere I am.

Originally Posted by Amazing Grace

Originally Posted by a mere housewife

And yet God restrains much of the iniquity for which the sinner would have received greater damnation. I'm sure Paul can take care of himself, but that particular line of reasoning bothers me -- as if evil is somehow fundamental to being.

Yes He does AMH. But I do not know what this has to do with the thread. Perhaps you heard what I did not say. God restrains iniquity in all.

Whether or not God's tender mercies are over the wicked as well as the rest of His works is yes, probably, properly, a different discussion; thanks. :-)

Originally Posted by In His Grip

Originally Posted by Amazing Grace

Paul, the only problem I have with this vein of thought is that the reason Gods does not immediately destroy the wicked is ONLY to have their iniquity come to full measure. To say this is merciful, by only providing them temporal life, is a big overstatement. The delaying of punishment is not for the reprobates benefit in the slightest. In fact, it would be better if they were never born.

May I ask, where in the Scriptures does it say the reason God does not immediately destroy the wicked is ONLY to have their iniquity come to full measure?

You say, that it would have been better if they were never born at all, however, it was God's good pleasure to create them. So, for what purpose did he create them?? (Romans 9) He bore them with great patience to demonstrate His glory to His objects of mercy! God reveals His character in the dealings of the wicked. And this is exactly what Ursinus was speaking of, in my honest opinion!

What other reason could exist? It is not me saying it, Christ said it of Judas actually. Christ said it would have been better if he wasnt even born!! There is no mercy involved in temporal life for the reprobate. No offerings of salvation, no holding out an olive branch. You do not find it cruel of God to do such a thing? I know what Ursinus is postulating and I disagree with him and you on positing some unsubstantiated desire in God. You must also have a different translation of Romans 9 than i do. :

I can see this is going to digress this thread. I will see where it goes. In closing, I am not doubting what Urisinus is saying. He is very clear in his words expressed. Common Grace and the WMO.

Originally Posted by Amazing Grace

Originally Posted by Prufrock

Heidi, I'm no Ursinus expert, nevertheless I'm not so sure he necessarily expresses anything unorthodox in this passage. 1.) We can certainly affirm a general love which God has to his creatures as creatures (which has nothing to do with salvation in Christ, or a desire of salvation in Christ, or an intention of salvation in Christ, etc.); through this love, he sustains his creatures even in their judgment and damnation; he has delayed their punishment; he presents sundry of them with his Word of salvation (which, though he has no intention or desire to save them thereby, nevertheless it is an act of condescension to them --

Paul, the only problem I have with this vein of thought is that the reason Gods does not immediately destroy the wicked is ONLY to have their iniquity come to full measure. To say this is merciful, by only providing them temporal life, is a big overstatement. The delaying of punishment is not for the reprobates benefit in the slightest. In fact, it would be better if they were never born.

Originally Posted by Prufrock

2.) As to the portion about not delighting in destruction, etc., I think there is certainly an orthodox way of reading this without having to assume a counter-factual desire in God. God, while delighting very much in justice, does not delight in destruction in itself. Now, I have a very different translation in front of me at the moment, and I don't have an original version on my laptop to check the Latin, but I'm not sure Ursinus is indicating that God truly would *rather* save than not save; rather, from his prior comments, he could simply be indicating that God does not delight in destruction itself and truly does stand ready to save any who will come to him through repentance and faith: that is, God is not a cruel, oppressive judge simply seeking to and delighting in inflicting pain and torture upon creatures, but would readily receive the repentance of any. Thus, even in those whom has eternally decreed to leave in their sins, nevertheless he delays their punishment, presents them with his word and gives possibility after possibility for repentance before coming down upon them with the arm of justice. He seems to be merely expressing the Biblical language, without necessarily using it to set forth an idea of counter-factual desires as many do, nor do I think it necessary to see him setting forth any "conflictedness" in God or opposing desires (at least in this passage). I am open to correction on his position here, however.

Yet to even consider this is to speculate on the desire of the Almighty. In fact, I find the opposite of what you said as being the truth. It would make God insincere if He even thinks of giving a reprobate a 'possibility.' of being saved. This is very cruel if it is the case. Hence I deny CG and the WMO. For some odd reason, so many trip over Ezekiel it makes me wonder why they have such a conflict. As I pointed out in Hebrews 10:38, God has no favorable disposition towards those whom perish.

Well, you're right -- I should have avoided the word "possibility," since it was bound to be mis-taken by someone. Will you rest content with the word opportunity? I, too, reject the so-called Well-Meant offer, nor do I trip over Ezekiel. But our theologians unanimously affirm that God deals sincerely and seriously in the general calling of the reprobate, though he in no-wise intends nor "internally desires" their salvation thereby. Since it is a conditional call, he intends seriously that "there is an intention in [Him] to connect most certainly the thing promised with the condition" (Turretin, Institutes, XV.ii.xvii). The intention of God thereby is not in any way their salvation, but rather the manifestation of their wickedness: nevertheless the way in which that manifestation is accomplished is by an approach of the means of salvation, of Christ himself in the Gospel, to the unbeliever (I would very much recommend a reading of James Durham's first two sermons on Isaiah 53 to see one who understood the balance between that the gospel comes to unbelievers not with any intention on the part of God for their [even potential] salvation, and nevertheless the incredible condescension on the part of God to approach so near unto sinners in the gospel call). Consider Owen's words in his Discourse Concerning the Holy Spirit:

All these things [the external ministry of the Word, internal illumination by the Holy Spirit, conviction of sin and reformation of life] may be wrought in the minds of men by the dispensation of the word, and yet the work of regeneration be never perfected in them. Yea, although they are good in themselves, and fruits of the kindness of God towards us, they may not only be lost as unto any spiritual advantage, but also be abused unto our great disadvantage. And this comes not to pass but by our own sin, whereby we contract a new guilt upon our souls. (Book 3, ch. 2)

Let no one doubt that Owen rejected any notion of God desiring or intending the salvation of the reprobate! If any understood that the gospel was given to the reprobate, not that they might be saved, but for the manifestation of their wickedness, it was Owen -- nevertheless, this does not mean that we cannot speak of the objective means whereby this is accomplished as being "good" or "kind" in themselves.

Originally Posted by Amazing Grace

In closing, I am not doubting what Urisinus is saying. He is very clear in his words expressed. Common Grace and the WMO.

That's exactly what I'm saying there is doubt that Ursinus is advocating a well-meant offer. With respect to the divine decree and purpose, Ursinus affirms that God in no-wise intends the salvation of the reprobate, nor possess any "soteric mercy" towards them; however, if we speak in terms of the historical economy, mercy has been set before the reprobate throughout their lives in the conditional gospel call, until at long last, like Esau, they could find no place of repentance, such that none can stand before God on the judgment day and exclaim, "You have acted cruelly and unmercifully toward me, and gave to me no opportunity of repentance!"

Originally Posted by Prufrock

Originally Posted by Amazing Grace

In closing, I am not doubting what Urisinus is saying. He is very clear in his words expressed. Common Grace and the WMO.

That's exactly what I'm saying there is doubt that Ursinus is advocating a well-meant offer. With respect to the divine decree and purpose, Ursinus affirms that God in no-wise intends the salvation of the reprobate, nor possess any "soteric mercy" towards them; however, if we speak in terms of the historical economy, mercy has been set before the reprobate throughout their lives in the conditional gospel call, until at long last, like Esau, they could find no place of repentance, such that none can stand before God on the judgment day and exclaim, "You have acted cruelly and unmercifully toward me, and gave to me no opportunity of repentance!"

My


I have trouble considering the gospel call to be "conditional."

Grace is unconditional, as was the divine election of those in Christ who are being effectually called.

What is "conditional" is the Law, which contains the commands to repent and believe. But no man will ever find righteousness under those conditions. (Romans 3:20)

Nevertheless, God's Law must be reiterated and should be proclaimed in every gospel call, lest God be considered less than just or "unfair." (Which was the Jewish misunderstanding of the teachings of Ezekiel . . . see Ezekiel 18:29.)

Only then can the good news of being imputed with Christ's righteousness under that Law, according to the unconditional grace of God and the substitutional works of His Son, be appreciated and believed.

The "conditions" of the legal charges will be made known either through natural law (Romans 2:12-15) or the formal law reviewed via the gospel call (Romans 2:16), to reveal the grounds for God's unconditional and immutable judgments (of either condemnation or saving grace)which will be rendered upon every man.

Originally Posted by Prufrock

Originally Posted by Amazing Grace

In closing, I am not doubting what Urisinus is saying. He is very clear in his words expressed. Common Grace and the WMO.

That's exactly what I'm saying there is doubt that Ursinus is advocating a well-meant offer. With respect to the divine decree and purpose, Ursinus affirms that God in no-wise intends the salvation of the reprobate, nor possess any "soteric mercy" towards them; however, if we speak in terms of the historical economy, mercy has been set before the reprobate throughout their lives in the conditional gospel call, until at long last, like Esau, they could find no place of repentance, such that none can stand before God on the judgment day and exclaim, "You have acted cruelly and unmercifully toward me, and gave to me no opportunity of repentance!"

Too bad we cannot ask him!!!! In my study of Ursinus, I have concluded, perhaps wrongly, that he posited a 2 will theory and WMO/CG theology. I am by no means condemning the man, just saying how I read him. In my estimation, the call to the reprobate is heaping hot coals on their head. I see no mercy at all, only judgment. The Gospel has two prongs. One is to convert the Elect, the other is to harden the reprobate. I also do not think anyone will be able to impugn God on withholding salvation from them if they sought it. The more the reprobate hears the good news, the harder he becomes. I believe Esau went to damnation with a bigger hatred of the Lord.

-----Added 12/15/2009 at 04:03:08 EST-----

Originally Posted by Prufrock

Well, you're right -- I should have avoided the word "possibility," since it was bound to be mis-taken by someone. Will you rest content with the word opportunity? I, too, reject the so-called Well-Meant offer, nor do I trip over Ezekiel. But our theologians unanimously affirm that God deals sincerely and seriously in the general calling of the reprobate, though he in no-wise intends nor "internally desires" their salvation thereby. Since it is a conditional call, he intends seriously that "there is an intention in [Him] to connect most certainly the thing promised with the condition" (Turretin, Institutes, XV.ii.xvii). The intention of God thereby is not in any way their salvation, but rather the manifestation of their wickedness: nevertheless the way in which that manifestation is accomplished is by an approach of the means of salvation, of Christ himself in the Gospel, to the unbeliever (I would very much recommend a reading of James Durham's first two sermons on Isaiah 53 to see one who understood the balance between that the gospel comes to unbelievers not with any intention on the part of God for their [even potential] salvation, and nevertheless the incredible condescension on the part of God to approach so near unto sinners in the gospel call). Consider Owen's words in his Discourse Concerning the Holy Spirit:

All these things [the external ministry of the Word, internal illumination by the Holy Spirit, conviction of sin and reformation of life] may be wrought in the minds of men by the dispensation of the word, and yet the work of regeneration be never perfected in them. Yea, although they are good in themselves, and fruits of the kindness of God towards us, they may not only be lost as unto any spiritual advantage, but also be abused unto our great disadvantage. And this comes not to pass but by our own sin, whereby we contract a new guilt upon our souls. (Book 3, ch. 2)

Let no one doubt that Owen rejected any notion of God desiring or intending the salvation of the reprobate! If any understood that the gospel was given to the reprobate, not that they might be saved, but for the manifestation of their wickedness, it was Owen -- nevertheless, this does not mean that we cannot speak of the objective means whereby this is accomplished as being "good" or "kind" in themselves.

I am sorry I am the guy Paul!! But opportunity is still not good for me. I also affirm the sincerity of God in all He does. I believe he is 100% sincere of presenting the Gospel to the reprobate in order to bring judgment upon them.

Ronda, if I may be permitted to say, you are setting up a different formula than the Reformed churches profess. Yes, salvation, considered absolutely and a priori is free from conditions, since the very conditions of the covenant administered (e.g., faith, repentance) are part of the testamentary grant bestowed upon the elect. Nevertheless, in terms of the gospel call itself, the Reformed tradition is all but unanimous in affirming that it is conditional. If the covenant does not have any a posteriori conditions, then most of scripture is thrown out. See, for instance, WLC 32.

Originally Posted by Prufrock

Ronda, if I may be permitted to say, you are setting up a different formula than the Reformed churches profess. Yes, salvation, considered absolutely and a priori is free from conditions, since the very conditions of the covenant administered (e.g., faith, repentance) are part of the testamentary grant bestowed upon the elect. Nevertheless, in terms of the gospel call itself, the Reformed tradition is all but unanimous in affirming that it is conditional. If the covenant does not have any a posteriori conditions, then most of scripture is thrown out. See, for instance, WLC 32.

Yet God provides what he requires Paul. ie Faith and repentance. This is why it is no offer, but a bestowal of every promise that Comes from the hands of our Lord.

Originally Posted by Amazing Grace

What other reason could exist? It is not me saying it, Christ said it of Judas actually. Christ said it would have been better if he wasnt even born!! There is no mercy involved in temporal life for the reprobate. No offerings of salvation, no holding out an olive branch. You do not find it cruel of God to do such a thing? I know what Ursinus is postulating and I disagree with him and you on positing some unsubstantiated desire in God. You must also have a different translation of Romans 9 than i do. :

I can see this is going to digress this thread. I will see where it goes. In closing, I am not doubting what Urisinus is saying. He is very clear in his words expressed. Common Grace and the WMO.

Yes, Christ said that of Judas ,however, the Scriptures do not say that it is the Ultimate End for which they were created as you have eluded to. And also I believe it is dangerous ground to speak of some unsubstantiated desire in God. Here are the verses that I was speaking of, that more precisely address the end for which they were created;

22"What if God, although willing to demonstrate His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much (AQ)patience vessels of wrath (AR)prepared for destruction?

23And He did so to make known (AS)the riches of His glory upon (AT)vessels of mercy, which He prepared beforehand for glory," -Romans 9: 22-23

The problem with this discussion, is that when the words "common grace" and "free offer" are mentioned there is an immediate reading into that.....that God must have some intention to save the reprobate, that God did not provide an effectual limited atonoment but instead an universal atonement etc. And quite honestly, this is not a clear understanding of the traditional view of common grace or the free offer at all! Even the Westiminster Confession speaks of God's common grace to the reprobate. Calvin, Rutherford, Kuyper, Bavnick among others all held to this idea! For those that would like to understand the traditional view of common grace without jumping to immediate conclusions then I would suggest this article by Louis Berkhof: Common Grace by Louis Berkhof http://www.westminsterconfession.org...s-turretin.php Also, this one by Samuel Rutherford: http://www.westminsterconfession.org...s-turretin.php

Once someone has a proper understanding of the traditional view of common grace, then we talk more about this subject.

Originally Posted by Prufrock

Ronda, if I may be permitted to say, you are setting up a different formula than the Reformed churches profess. Yes, salvation, considered absolutely and a priori is free from conditions, since the very conditions of the covenant administered (e.g., faith, repentance) are part of the testamentary grant bestowed upon the elect. Nevertheless, in terms of the gospel call itself, the Reformed tradition is all but unanimous in affirming that it is conditional. If the covenant does not have any a posteriori conditions, then most of scripture is thrown out.

I agree with your second sentence.

I have been taught, within Reformed churches, by fine Reformed teachers, that the gospel invitation does not contain a conditional choice, but rather, includes the commands of God to repent and believe.

IOW's, the a posteriori condition to the Covenant of Grace was the performance and fulfillment of the Covenant of Works (Law).

All men are duty bound to obey the commands under the first covenant, and the good news is that, even though no man will be saved by obeying these commands, the sons of God will be declared righteous according to the unconditional promises of a "better" Covenant of Grace, through faith in Christ, who performed all good works and legal obligations on their behalf.

Originally Posted by In His Grip

Originally Posted by Amazing Grace

What other reason could exist? It is not me saying it, Christ said it of Judas actually. Christ said it would have been better if he wasnt even born!! There is no mercy involved in temporal life for the reprobate. No offerings of salvation, no holding out an olive branch. You do not find it cruel of God to do such a thing? I know what Ursinus is postulating and I disagree with him and you on positing some unsubstantiated desire in God. You must also have a different translation of Romans 9 than i do. :

I can see this is going to digress this thread. I will see where it goes. In closing, I am not doubting what Urisinus is saying. He is very clear in his words expressed. Common Grace and the WMO.

Yes, Christ said that of Judas ,however, the Scriptures don't say that is the Ultimate End for which they were created as you have eluded to. And also I believe it is dangerous ground to speak of some unsubstantiated desire in God. Here are there verses that I was speaking of, that more precisely address the end for which they were created;

22"What if God, although willing to demonstrate His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much (AQ)patience vessels of wrath (AR)prepared for destruction?

23And He did so to make known (AS)the riches of His glory upon (AT)vessels of mercy, which He prepared beforehand for glory," -Romans 9: 22-23

The problem with this discussion, is that when the words "common grace" and "free offer" are mentioned there is an immediate reading into that.....that God must have some intention to save the reprobate, that God did not provide an effectual limited atonoment but instead an universal atonement etc. And quite honestly, this is not a clear understanding of the traditional view of common grace or the free offer at all! Even the Westiminster Confession speaks of God's common grace to the reprobate. Calvin, Rutherford, Kuyper, Bavnick among others all held to this idea! For those that would like to understand the traditional view of common grace without jumping to immediate conclusions then I would suggest this article by Louis Berkhof: Common Grace by Louis Berkhof The Will of God and the Gospel Offer: Samuel Rutherford and Francis Turretin - The Westminster Presbyterian

Once someone has a proper understanding of the traditional view of common grace, then we talk more about this subject.

Like you Heidi, I have read legion of pages on the subject. Common benevolence I profess. Common Grace I deny. I assure you I am not jumping to conclusions. It is a good debate. I respect the other side.

Like you Heidi, I have read legion of pages on the subject . . .

Robert, I haven't actually read a legion of pages -- on any subject (I read very slowly): the lovely Marianne Dashwood avatar is Yvonne :-). I'm going to have to concentrate on learning how to make manicotti, but did want to say thanks again to those who helped me understand about Ursinus' statements and how they reconcile with a theological framework. I have thought more about it, and I think I do understand better now.

Originally Posted by Amazing Grace

Originally Posted by Prufrock

Ronda, if I may be permitted to say, you are setting up a different formula than the Reformed churches profess. Yes, salvation, considered absolutely and a priori is free from conditions, since the very conditions of the covenant administered (e.g., faith, repentance) are part of the testamentary grant bestowed upon the elect. Nevertheless, in terms of the gospel call itself, the Reformed tradition is all but unanimous in affirming that it is conditional. If the covenant does not have any a posteriori conditions, then most of scripture is thrown out. See, for instance, WLC 32.

Yet God provides what he requires Paul. ie Faith and repentance. This is why it is no offer, but a bestowal of every promise that Comes from the hands of our Lord.

I explicitly said that in this very post which you have quoted. So I will say it again: "Yes, salvation, considered absolutely and a priori is free from conditions, since the very conditions of the covenant administered (e.g., faith and repentance) are part of the testamentary grant bestowed upon the elect."

Also, I don't want to get into a debate over whether "offer" is an appropriate term, but you also notice that I did not use the term above -- I only used the word "call."

Originally Posted by Joshua

Originally Posted by In His Grip

Even the Westiminster Confession speaks of God's common grace to the reprobate.

Can you kindly reference this for me? I'd like to take a look.

Yes, I am more than happy to.

"Berkof quotes this on page 435 in his Systematic Theology. On the same page Berkof quotes The Westminster Larger Confession as Q. 60, there has been a misprint and it should read Q.68 from the confession.

Q. 68. Are the elect only effectually called? A. All the elect, and they only, are effectually called:[279] although others may be, and often are, outwardly called by the ministry of the Word,[280] and have some common operations of the Spirit;[281] who, for their wilful neglect and contempt of the grace offered to them, being justly left in their unbelief, do never truly come to Jesus Christ.

Proofs for Q68:

Matthew 7:22. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? Hebrews 6:4-6. For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come, If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame.

Another biblical passage to support this grace of God acting in the heart of the sinner without actually saving him is shown in the Parable of the King and the Wedding Feast;

Math22:1 And Jesus answered and spake unto them again by parables, and said, [2] The kingdom of heaven is like unto a certain king, which made a marriage for his son, [3] And sent forth his servants to call them that were bidden to the wedding: and they would not come. [4] Again, he sent forth other servants, saying, Tell them which are bidden, Behold, I have prepared my dinner: my oxen and my fatlings are killed, and all things are ready: come unto the marriage. [5] But they made light of it, and went their ways, one to his farm, another to his merchandise: [6] And the remnant took his servants, and entreated them spitefully, and slew them. [7] But when the king heard thereof, he was wroth: and he sent forth his armies, and destroyed those murderers, and burned up their city. [8] Then saith he to his servants, The wedding is ready, but they which were bidden were not worthy. [9] Go ye therefore into the highways, and as many as ye shall find, bid to the marriage. [10] So those servants went out into the highways, and gathered together all as many as they found, both bad and good: and the wedding was furnished with guests. [11] And when the king came in to see the guests, he saw there a man which had not on a wedding garment: [12] And he saith unto him, Friend, how camest thou in hither not having a wedding garment? And he was speechless. [13] Then said the king to the servants, Bind him hand and foot, and take him away, and cast him into outer darkness; there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth. [14] For many are called, but few are chosen.

This parable of our Lord Jesus clearly shows that unsaved people are in the church, that they outwardly display a faith in Christ and yet when they come to judgement it is only the Lord who can distinguish them from true believers. This man had no wedding garment and this refers to the circumcision of the heart made in the rebirth. For unless a man is born again (John 3) he can nowise enter the kingdom of heaven. It further demonstrates the general call of the gospel to all men and that some men receive the news with joy and yet are never truly changed in the heart (Ezek.36:26) and (Ezk.11:19) and therefore remain in their original condition.

In conclusion, Common Grace (effects are ordinary i.e. not effectual) has confused many over the years mainly because of Kuiper’s categories of (1) and (2). Correctly stated these should be designated under God’s Providential Care for all His creatures. This would then agree with the WCF 1646 and then Common Grace would be limited to category (3) of Kuiper’s categories.

People may ask why has God called people into the church through an operation of the Holy Spirit? And yet leaves them without hope. This is not an easy answer and yet we must say that Jesus spoke about it in His parable of the Tares and the Wheat (Math.13:25-40) There are unbelievers in the church, we may not know who they are but God knows and it is His plan hat they are in the church and yet remain unsaved."

Originally Posted by a mere housewife

I was confused as to the bolded portions of this quote from Ursinus' Commentary on the Heidelberg Catechism, Question 11, 'But is God also merciful?'

'Obj. He who rigorously exacts his right, shuts out every expectation of clemency. God rigorously exacts his right. Therefore with him there is no clemency. Or the objection may be thus stated: He who does not yield any thing in relation to his rights, is not merciful, but only just. God does not yield any thing as it respects his rights, because he punishes every sin with a punishment that corresponds with its just desert. Ans. We deny the minor proposition, because God, although he punishes sin with eternal punishment, does nevertheless yield much as it respects his right. He exhibits great clemency, for instance, towards the reprobate, for he defers the punishment which they deserve, and invites them to repentance by strong and powerful motives. And as to the punishment which he will inflict upon them in the world to come, it will be lighter than they deserved. . . . We also deny the major proposition, if applied either to him who is endowed with such wisdom that he can discover a method of exercising mercy without violating his justice, or when applied to him who, whilst he executes his justice, does not rejoice in the destruction of man, but would rather that he be saved. As a judge, when he passes the sentence upon a robber that he deserves to be put to the torture, and yet does not take pleasure in his punishment, exhibits great equity and clemency, even though he seems to exact the most rigorous demand of the law, so God is far more equitable and clement, although, in his just judgment, he punishes sin, for he does not delight in the destruction of the wicked, (Ez. 18:23; 33:11.) . . .'

This seems to go against what I have understood regarding God doing whatever He pleases and having no conflictedness in doing so. I also do not understand how it can be said that God will 'inflict' a punishment lighter than is deserved.

I want to agree with such statements; but I am unsure how to reconcile them with other things I have understood about God.

This doesn't answer your question about Ursinus himself, but I think gets at what lies behind your discomfort.

The first and second bolded phrases can be accepted by reading these illuminating comments from Thomas Goodwin. You will have to read from p.71 to p.72 at the following link:
Christ Our Mediator - Google Books

Your third and fourth bolded phrases are well addressed by Rutherford, at the link below, where you'll need to read from p.549-551
Christ dying and drawing sinners to ... - Google Books

If God rejoiced in destroying the wicked, they would be annihilated.

I love the way you two talk to each other on here

Even married people occasionally have to talk!

Originally Posted by py3ak

This doesn't answer your question about Ursinus himself, but I think gets at what lies behind your discomfort.

The first and second bolded phrases can be accepted by reading these illuminating comments from Thomas Goodwin. You will have to read from p.71 to p.72 at the following link:
Christ Our Mediator - Google Books

Your third and fourth bolded phrases are well addressed by Rutherford, at the link below, where you'll need to read from p.549-551
Christ dying and drawing sinners to ... - Google Books

If God rejoiced in destroying the wicked, they would be annihilated.

Yes, that answers the ground of my concerns about the first two quotes, which were indeed centered around a dim idea that the cross was necessary because God *must* exact all His due by nature. I think it's a little alarming that I can only remember coming across that [what Goodwin says at the first link] *affirmed* once before -- & in the Journal of Emily Shore; either my memory, or the world, is less than it used to be.

They won't let me get to page 549 in the second link, no matter how hard I try? {edit: this is actually page '14' somehow, in the little box beside the 'contents' link}

Originally Posted by Prufrock

I love the way you two talk to each other on here

Paul, I love the way Ruben talks to me on here too. Of course he isn't big on 'public displays of affection', so I try to avoid calling him 'poookie woookie' -- it can be extremely difficult, at times. As you may imagine.

Yes, but if you look at the page numbers on the scan you will see 549,550,551 and so forth.

Paul, I love the way Ruben talks to me on here too. Of course he isn't big on 'public displays of affection', so I try to avoid calling him 'poookie woookie' -- it can be extremely difficult, at times. As you may imagine.

We can imagine, Heidi. I myself have a hard time not calling him 'Batibooie Ratitooie'.