God's Common Grace

[timfost]

Mr. Foster, I am most glad that we do. We are Christian brethren. However, that is not what these quotations address.

Perhaps I'm missing something? I quoted Samuel Rutherford, John Owen, and Francis Turretin to the contrary. Can you point me to specific places where they denied any kind of grace to those non-elect? I did not have enough time to read the whole web page you posted.

Thanks in advance!

 

[C. Matthew McMahon]

Tyler,

I dont like the language of "two wills" either, which is why the title of the work includes the question, Does God have Two Wills? The idea being, if God desires things he does not get, that winds up being an affront to God's character. He is the ever blessed, -ever frustrated God. We cannot have that. The title was on purpose.

Your #1, good. Your #2, good. Both of these, though, are not at the heart of the question.

Lets use the idea of apples. Are apples inherently good with a moral quality of their own? In themselves, not exactly, but attached to God as part of his creation, yes. "...and all was very good..."

When God gives apples to the elect, he has a certain intention to them in giving good things like apples, based on his covenant.

Equally, when God gives the reprobate apples, a good thing in and of itself as created by God, he intends something else entirely; to fill up the measure of their sin.

Romans tells us that the goodness OF GOD should lead to repentence. But if it doesnt, based on God's intention, it leads to preparing vessels of wrath for wrath. His intention is that he fattens them for the slaughter, as Edwards preached, and Turretin and Calvin vividly explain. God has a single intention, i.e. will, in bringing him as Trinity the most pleasure, which is the glorification of himself in both vessels of wrath and vessels of mercy.

God does intend the reprobate to have the temporal good of the physical apple, but with the intention that the disparity of reprobation shows his intent in their preparation for glorifying him as vessels of wrath. He does this until they fill up the measure of their sin, then calls them to judgment to serve glorifying his justice in hell.

Compound sense, God's will as considered in His decree.

Divided sense, God's will as considered in his preceptive will. (A further level of your #2).

Example, a man stands at the base of a towering hotel to look across the parking lot into the woods. He sees trees.

He gets onto an elevator, goes to the top of the building, and stands on the roof and sees the lake on the other side of the trees.

He sees the same thing from two different senses. He perceives them differently based on his perception.

Its an exceedingly important hermeneutical tool.

Otherwise one will wonder why God doesnt get what he desires, or they just ignore it as mysterious, which destroys the doctrine of God. Or that he tells humans, do not kill, then ordains a wife to take her three children and drown them in the local river, or to have a suicide bomber kill 30 in an explosion.

Tyler, you said, "God gives the reprobate things that are inherently good," but this is not really the issue. The question remains, when God gives apples to either group, what does he intend by it?

If he intends to damn them further, is this grace?
Much less, common grace?

If he intends his people covenant blessing, is this "common" or is it special in Christ?

I think in both accounts it negates the overarching hermeneutical tragedy (eisogesis) of the term common grace.

(And notice, the WCF standards dont use that term.)

 

[TylerRay]

Tyler,

I dont like the language of "two wills" either, which is why the title of the work includes the question, Does God have Two Wills? The idea being, if God desires things he does not get, that winds up being an affront to God's character. He is the ever blessed, -ever frustrated God. We cannot have that. The title was on purpose.

Your #1, good. Your #2, good. Both of these, though, are not at the heart of the question.

Lets use the idea of apples. Are apples inherently good with a moral quality of their own? In themselves, not exactly, but attached to God as part of his creation, yes. "...and all was very good..."

When God gives apples to the elect, he has a certain intention to them in giving good things like apples, based on his covenant.

Equally, when God gives the reprobate apples, a good thing in and of itself as created by God, he intends something else entirely; to fill up the measure of their sin.

Romans tells us that the goodness OF GOD should lead to repentence. But if it doesnt, based on God's intention, it leads to preparing vessels of wrath for wrath. His intention is that he fattens them for the slaughter, as Edwards preached, and Turretin and Calvin vividly explain. God has a single intention, i.e. will, in bringing him as Trinity the most pleasure, which is the glorification of himself in both vessels of wrath and vessels of mercy.

God does intend the reprobate to have the temporal good of the physical apple, but with the intention that the disparity of reprobation shows his intent in their preparation for glorifying him as vessels of wrath. He does this until they fill up the measure of their sin, then calls them to judgment to serve glorifying his justice in hell.

Compound sense, God's will as considered in His decree.

Divided sense, God's will as considered in his preceptive will. (A further level of your #2).

Example, a man stands at the base of a towering hotel to look across the parking lot into the woods. He sees trees.

He gets onto an elevator, goes to the top of the building, and stands on the roof and sees the lake on the other side of the trees.

He sees the same thing from two different senses. He perceives them differently based on his perception.

Its an exceedingly important hermeneutical tool.

Otherwise one will wonder why God doesnt get what he desires, or they just ignore it as mysterious, which destroys the doctrine of God. Or that he tells humans, do not kill, then ordains a wife to take her three children and drown them in the local river, or to have a suicide bomber kill 30 in an explosion.

Tyler, you said, "God gives the reprobate things that are inherently good," but this is not really the issue. The question remains, when God gives apples to either group, what does he intend by it?

If he intends to damn them further, is this grace?
Much less, common grace?

If he intends his people covenant blessing, is this "common" or is it special in Christ?

I think in both accounts it negates the overarching hermeneutical tragedy (eisogesis) of the term common grace.

(And notice, the WCF standards dont use that term.)

Dr. McMahon,

Thank you for your response. I think it's clear that we're in very close agreement.

The only difference, so far as I can tell, is on the question of whether there is an element of kindness in God giving the apple to the reprobate to enjoy.

Note that God has decreed (willed) the pleasure that the reprobate takes in eating the apple. He has decreed the satisfaction that the reprobate experiences. He has decreed the nourishment which the reprobate receives. Thus, he has decreed that the reprobate have temporal good. God has given him something good--that is a kindness. Ultimately, God has decreed his damnation, and part of the grounds of that damnation is his lack of gratitude for the apple. However, in the short run, God gave him something good to enjoy. Would you agree?

 

[timfost]

"Were Harris, Rutherford and Owen leaning towards Amyraldianism???"
If they hadn't explained in the fullness of their writings and preaching what they meant, it could very well have been that they were. But they did not, (knowing this after having read all their works. We don't want to proof text the Puritans and such. Keep them in their overall context).

You started out by opposing the very word grace in reference to the non-elect, but you are fine with these men using it with enough qualification. Do you oppose the use of the word or the meaning associated with it? If the meaning, why did your first post oppose the word? If the word, why not disagree with these theologians for using the word? Something isn't adding up...

 

[C. Matthew McMahon]

However, in the short run, God gave him something good to enjoy. Would you agree?

Here is the difference, its not a big one, but it is a move that's crucially important because our theology can't be contradictory. Its just applying the wider brand of thoughtful hermeneutics. We need to know what and how we are saying things theologically.

(Keep in mind, we are theoretically speaking of the reorobate).

In the divided sense you and I should tell this fellow, repent and believe the Gospel, because God shows you HIS goodness in ordering your life, has given you apples, famies, a job, even the very next heartbeat and added breath. (Choose any Edwardian or Calvin sermon in commanding men everwhere to repent and run with such exhortations). In OUR perspective, we dont know the outcome. Maybe they will repent? They should. But even our perspective we are held accountable to how we say what we say to them.

Jesus loves you, God loves you, and like ideas are covenant of grace concepts we cant yet apply to him. We cant say that to someone we meet house to house preaching. But we can exhort him to believe because God has given him good things, i.e. things God deems are good from His creation.

Switch senses.

In the compound sense, consider, after we walk away from exhorting him, (say we are going door to door and preaching), we say, if he doesnt repent, he's going to hate judgment day. Not only is he going to have a stricter judgment because we gave him the Gospel, but he's going to pay for all those acts of God's benevolence which will be damning him further, and heating hell hotter.

Here on the forum, we are even going a bit further because we are talking about God's decreed intention towards "a reprobate". The intention he has in his benevolence which follows all men (see Tuuretins explanation of the 3 forms of love towards creation which is helpful) we say God intended to damn him further for his glory with an apple.

Keep in mind, all this talk never includes grace.

 

[OPC'n]

Understood, though when one dispels of God giving favor to all (grace) one has to use words like "indiscriminate providence" which makes God giving good things based on what exactly? in my opinion this takes away the thought that God can love all men in some sense.

But God doesn't love all men in any sense. The Bible says that God hates the wicked (Psalm 11:5). What they get here on earth isn't for their benefit but for the purpose of God's plan to continue on this earth. God has to make earth livable for his people. If God didn't restrain the wicked, then utter depravity would reign on earth making earth hell and God's people could not thrive or survive. So the wheat grows with the tares and God sends rain/sunshine etc etc to all mankind. He also gives the wicked things that the wicked think are blessings like fame, money, power etc. But God will demand recompense from them one day.

Luke 12:13 Someone in the crowd said to him, “Teacher, tell my brother to divide the inheritance with me.” 14 But he said to him, who made me a judge or arbitrator over you?” 15 And he said to them, "Take care, and be on your guard against all covetousness, for one's life does not consist in the abundance of his possessions.” 16 And he told them a parable, saying, “The land of a rich man produced plentifully, 17 and he thought to himself, ‘What shall I do, for I have nowhere to store my crops?’ 18 And he said, ‘I will do this: I will tear down my barns and build larger ones, and there I will store all my grain and my goods. 19 And I will say to my soul, “Soul, you have ample goods laid up for many years; relax, eat, drink, be merry.”’ 20 But God said to him, ‘Fool! This night your soul is required of you, and the things you have prepared, whose will they be?’ 21 So is the one who lays up treasure for himself and is not rich toward God.”

Now this might be about covetousness, but it shows that God gives great amounts of "wealth" to some of the the wicked then charges them for it with their very life and soul.

 

[TylerRay]

Here is the difference, its not a big one, but it is a move that's crucially important because our theology can't be contradictory. Its just applying the wider brand of thoughtful hermeneutics. We need to know what and how we are saying things theologically.

(Keep in mind, we are theoretically speaking of the reorobate).

In the divided sense you and I should tell this fellow, repent and believe the Gospel, because God shows you HIS goodness in ordering your life, has given you apples, famies, a job, even the very next heartbeat and added breath. (Choose any Edwardian or Calvin sermon in commanding men everwhere to repent and run with such exhortations). In OUR perspective, we dont know the outcome. Maybe they will repent? They should. But even our perspective we are held accountable to how we say what we say to them.

Jesus loves you, God loves you, and like ideas are covenant of grace concepts we cant yet apply to him. We cant say that to someone we meet house to house preaching. But we can exhort him to believe because God has given him good things, i.e. things God deems are good from His creation.

Switch senses.

In the compound sense, consider, after we walk away from exhorting him, (say we are going door to door and preaching), we say, if he doesnt repent, he's going to hate judgment day. Not only is he going to have a stricter judgment because we gave him the Gospel, but he's going to pay for all those acts of God's benevolence which will be damning him further, and heating hell hotter.

Here on the forum, we are even going a bit further because we are talking about God's decreed intention towards "a reprobate". The intention he has in his benevolence which follows all men (see Tuuretins explanation of the 3 forms of love towards creation which is helpful) we say God intended to damn him further for his glory with an apple.

Keep in mind, all this talk never includes grace.

Dr. McMahon,

I pretty much agree with you 100%. I just have one caveat to add, and one terminological difference.

The caveat: when you say, "he's going to pay for all those acts of God's benevolence which will be damning him further"--properly speaking, it is not God's benevolence that he is paying for; it is his lack of due gratitude, etc. in response to God's benevolence that he is paying for. I think you would agree.

The terminological difference: I have no problem calling what you term "benevolence" and "goodness" grace. I have no problem using the terms benevolence or goodness, either. I don't see why these three terms cannot be used synonymously.

 

[C. Matthew McMahon]

Dr. McMahon,

I pretty much agree with you 100%. I just have one caveat to add, and one terminological difference.

The caveat: when you say, "he's going to pay for all those acts of God's benevolence which will be damning him further"--properly speaking, it is not God's benevolence that he is paying for; it is his lack of due gratitude, etc. in response to God's benevolence that he is paying for. I think you would agree.

The terminological difference: I have no problem calling what you term "benevolence" and "goodness" grace. I have no problem using the terms benevolence or goodness, either. I don't see why these three terms cannot be used synonymously.

Yes, I agree where you asked the question.

But, the term grace, properly speaking, cannot be applied biblically except by way of Christ's work and benefits toward the elect. Scripture doesn't use that term open ended. It reserves it for concepts in dealing with the benefits of being salvifically in Christ. To me, it muddies the waters.

Keep in mind, on this topic, there are a myriad of important practical applications that often are misunderstood. Consider just browsing this thread again to see the varied questions and clarifications that confessional Christians have on it.

This is why it really is a biblical / hermeneutical question, which then gives way to logic, which then gives way to practical ideas in its outworking.

It raises, then, even more questions that deal with command and intention too. (I.e. God tells US to love our enemies, but does God love his enemies? How can he tell us to love ours if he doesnt love his? If Jesus is God, does he love his enemies? How does the incarnation reconcile God's intention with Christ's outward actions, like weeping over Jerusalem? Etc. And many others. This is why I think my work on Two Wills is important in this regard. Pastors who teach never dying souls need to get this right.)

Ill say, unpopularly, people today are infected with an irrational hermeneutic that affects their doctrine of God, like John Murray and RL Dabney. It will in turn affect their preaching, or even the practical way they deal with the lost.

There are a lot of concepts to consider in this, and the applications in daily life continue to amaze me as to its importance. Good Hermeneutics in this is king. And I dont know of anyone teaching a satisfactory course in this vein.

(And as you can see, this has absolutely nothing to do with any hyper Calvinistic ideas. As a matter of fact, Two Wills obliterates the HC position, In my humble opinion. I even took time to deal personally through correspondence with David Engelsma dealing with him and his books because of his seeming HC position.)

 

[TylerRay]

Yes, I agree where you asked the question.

But, the term grace, properly speaking, cannot be applied biblically except by way of Christ's work and benefits toward the elect. Scripture doesn't use that term open ended. It reserves it for concepts in dealing with the benefits of being salvifically in Christ. To me, it muddies the waters.

Keep in mind, on this topic, there are a myriad of important practical applications that often are misunderstood. Consider just browsing this thread again to see the varied questions and clarifications that confessional Christians have on it.

This is why it really is a biblical / hermeneutical question, which then gives way to logic, which then gives way to practical ideas in its outworking.

It raises, then, even more questions that deal with command and intention too. (I.e. God tells US to love our enemies, but does God love his enemies? How can he tell us to love ours if he doesnt love his? If Jesus is God, does he love his enemies? How does the incarnation reconcile God's intention with Christ's outward actions, like weeping over Jerusalem? Etc. And many others. This is why I think my work on Two Wills is important in this regard. Pastors who teach never dying souls need to get this right.)

Ill say, unpopularly, people today are infected with an irrational hermeneutic that affects their doctrine of God, like John Murray and RL Dabney. It will in turn affect their preaching, or even the practical way they deal with the lost.

There are a lot of concepts to consider in this, and the applications in daily life continue to amaze me as to its importance. Good Hermeneutics in this is king. And I dont know of anyone teaching a satisfactory course in this vein.

(And as you can see, this has absolutely nothing to do with any hyper Calvinistic ideas. As a matter of fact, Two Wills obliterates the HC position, In my humble opinion. I even took time to deal personally through correspondence with David Engelsma dealing with him and his books because of his seeming HC position.)

Dr. McMahon,
I have no real qualm with anything you've said here. As I said earlier, I can take or leave the language of "common grace." There are excesses in this area on the part of those who affirm common grace and on the part of those who deny it. The important thing is that we maintain a diligence in formulating our doctrine in a way that avoids painting God as passible and/or complex on the one hand, or as showing no benevolence to the reprobate on the other hand. In all of this, we must avoid lapses In our logic (which certain theologians have excused in the name of paradox). At the same time, we should extend charity to those who use slightly different language to describe the same doctrine.

 

[Ryan&Amber2013]

So, here is a thought, and please don't take it the wrong way, as I only say it in love and I say it to myself as well. So, the ditch we as reformed people can easily fall into is that of being so precise about words and theology, that we can easily overlook someone's heart and their intentions. I'm not saying any of us are doing this, but I'm just thinking about the motive of the original post and where the thread went. Many times in my life I wish I would have gleaned all of the beautiful things someone had spoken to me, but rather I chose to focus on nitpicking what they were saying for the sake of precision and theological pride.

I'm not accusing anyone of anything wrong, and I know there's a time and place for debating. I'm just trying to encourage us to be mindful of this if we aren't.

As you were, brothers

 

[timfost]

So, here is a thought, and please don't take it the wrong way, as I only say it in love and I say it to myself as well. So, the ditch we as reformed people can easily fall into is that of being so precise about words and theology, that we can easily overlook someone's heart and their intentions. I'm not saying any of us are doing this, but I'm just thinking about the motive of the original post and where the thread went. Many times in my life I wish I would have gleaned all of the beautiful things someone had spoken to me, but rather I chose to focus on nitpicking what they were saying for the sake of precision and theological pride.

I'm not accusing anyone of anything wrong, and I know there's a time and place for debating. I'm just trying to encourage us to be mindful of this if we aren't.

As you were, brothers

Point well taken.

Thanks for your wise input, brother.

 

[Jeri Tanner]

So, here is a thought, and please don't take it the wrong way, as I only say it in love and I say it to myself as well. So, the ditch we as reformed people can easily fall into is that of being so precise about words and theology, that we can easily overlook someone's heart and their intentions. I'm not saying any of us are doing this, but I'm just thinking about the motive of the original post and where the thread went. Many times in my life I wish I would have gleaned all of the beautiful things someone had spoken to me, but rather I chose to focus on nitpicking what they were saying for the sake of precision and theological pride.

I'm not accusing anyone of anything wrong, and I know there's a time and place for debating. I'm just trying to encourage us to be mindful of this if we aren't.

As you were, brothers

I think the PB is always the time and place for debate. Imprecisenesses (real noun?) in the so-called finer theological points can cause trouble to the church and diminish our understanding of God's glory. I am very thankful for the threads that debate issues like this, even when they get heated, and for the great minds and hearts on the board that care so passionately about the truth. I hold that there is charity behind the harsher expressions here when coming from a mature Christian, especially one ordained to the ministry. It often takes plain-spokenness so that those of us following along are able to consider the views expressed and hopefully align a little closer to Scripture. [emoji4]



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Alan D. Strange]

I, too, have concerns with this discussion.

Not that Matthew vigorously argues the position that he does (here and on another related thread on the atonement as sufficient/efficient), but that he depicts his approach as the Reformed tradition.

Dear brother, that is just not so, either from the standpoint of Dort or Westminster. Any number of original and secondary sources may be cited here, as some have, that demonstrate the tradition is broader than you construe it. There's not really a scholarly debate about the breadth of the tradition on these points.

Now you may wish to argue that the tradition should not be as broad as it is and that Scripture warrants a narrowing of it. But your arguments will have to be made from Scripture and not the tradition, since the majority report of the tradition affirms something more and quite different than the kindness of God for the reprobate being only a fattening for the slaughter.

I do not believe, to be clear, that the tradition excludes the most particular Calvinistic sorts of arguments (supralapsarianism, atonement only for the elect in every sense, etc.). One can see, at several points how carefully it was construed (Dort sets forth an infra position, for example, while not ruling out the supra). What I mean, Matthew, to be blunt, is that I don't think what you argue is outside the tradition or the standards, though I think, at points, it does not reflect the broader language of the confessions. But you want to rule others out of bounds when I think that you ought to be arguing biblically and exegetically with them, not historically and confessionally (on which grounds they, and you, are in bounds).

It seems to me, brother, that it is you who has brought the heat into this discussion and have alleged irrationality on the part of men in the Reformed tradition. I disagree that this has been (per a previous post) the way that we should discuss these sorts of things. I think that those of us who are confessional should be able better to discuss points that, whether we think they should be or not, are within confessional bounds.

Peace,
Alan

 

[Ryan&Amber2013]

I think the PB is always the time and place for debate. Imprecisenesses (real noun?) in the so-called finer theological points can cause trouble to the church and diminish our understanding of God's glory. I am very thankful for the threads that debate issues like this, even when they get heated, and for the great minds and hearts on the board that care so passionately about the truth. I hold that there is charity behind the harsher expressions here when coming from a mature Christian, especially one ordained to the ministry. It often takes plain-spokenness so that those of us following along are able to consider the views expressed and hopefully align a little closer to Scripture. [emoji4]



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

This is true as well. I always find great value in your posts.

 

[Andrew P.C.]

We who prefer not to use the label "common grace" are wary of Kuyperian tendencies to want to redeem sinful culture and "plunder the Egyptians" by retaining that which is "good", owing to "common grace".

To be fair, Kuyper is newer to the discussion and brings a whole host of other issues that have problems.

 

[Andrew P.C.]

One should be careful in this discussion. On one hand, there is the idea that receiving rain is undeserved. I don’t think this is debatable. However, what can be brought into the discussion (either knowingly or unknowingly) is the idea of God’s Love for individuals. One should be careful to suggest that God loves this individual who is yet his enemy. The reprobate are vessels prepared for destruction.

I don’t have a problem saying “common grace” since the old Divines used this phrase. Yet, they made it clear that there is no internal conflict where God “desires” something without it coming to fruition.

 

[C. Matthew McMahon]

I, too, have concerns with this discussion.

Not that Matthew vigorously argues the position that he does (here and on another related thread on the atonement as sufficient/efficient), but that he depicts his approach as the Reformed tradition.

Dear brother, that is just not so, either from the standpoint of Dort or Westminster. Any number of original and secondary sources may be cited here, as some have, that demonstrate the tradition is broader than you construe it. There's not really a scholarly debate about the breadth of the tradition on these points.

Now you may wish to argue that the tradition should not be as broad as it is and that Scripture warrants a narrowing of it. But your arguments will have to be made from Scripture and not the tradition, since the majority report of the tradition affirms something more and quite different than the kindness of God for the reprobate being only a fattening for the slaughter.

I do not believe, to be clear, that the tradition excludes the most particular Calvinistic sorts of arguments (supralapsarianism, atonement only for the elect in every sense, etc.). One can see, at several points how carefully it was construed (Dort sets forth an infra position, for example, while not ruling out the supra). What I mean, Matthew, to be blunt, is that I don't think what you argue is outside the tradition or the standards, though I think, at points, it does not reflect the broader language of the confessions. But you want to rule others out of bounds when I think that you ought to be arguing biblically and exegetically with them, not historically and confessionally (on which grounds they, and you, are in bounds).

It seems to me, brother, that it is you who has brought the heat into this discussion and have alleged irrationality on the part of men in the Reformed tradition. I disagree that this has been (per a previous post) the way that we should discuss these sorts of things. I think that those of us who are confessional should be able better to discuss points that, whether we think they should be or not, are within confessional bounds.

Peace,
Alan

I understand why you would say this, and Id refer you to Two Wills which is quite exstensive on the subject matter. Its impossible to rewrite it here, with all its intricacies.

I didnt say anything about a lesser or broader reformed viewpoint, except for mentioning Edwards, Owen, etc., though I said Murray and Dabney are in error on the topic of this hermeneutic, and that the WCF doesnt use the term common grace.

The reason I wrote Two Wills is because this very important hermeneutical principle isnt as hashed out as it ought to be. Id like to see the Reformed Community make a correction on it overall.

As for the heat...Im not sure I brought heat. Maybe just a spark or two.

 

[earl40]

I wonder if this all comes down to Our Lord gives good things to His unelect creatures based on they being His created creatures.

 

[Polanus1561]

absolutely not.

I agree with Matthew, it all comes down to God's intention. Do not just look at temporal benefits.

 

[Alan D. Strange]

Matthew:

I believe you had posts that implied that your position was that of the broader Reformed tradition, citing Augustine, Calvin, Turretin, and others as supporting you strictly, when, in fact, these can be cited in support of a proper doctrine of "common grace" or its equivalent (Westminster itself does not make nomenclature the issue, citing the covenant of works and grace as "commonly called" that--meaning that they were and rightly could be called other things). Tim Foster quoted several divines supporting some sort of common grace and you implied that he was taking them out of context; he wasn't, though.

I grant you that doesn't solve the matter. The defenders of common grace could all be wrong and you and the highest sort of Calvinists right, but that's a scriptural argument you must make. I will take your word for it that that's what you are doing in your writings (Two Wills; though I am particularly interested in your thesis--how is that available?).

As to heat rather than light, Matthew, this concerned me most. Your tone was so dismissory of your opponents, as if no thinking person could ever argue as they were arguing. I am particularly thankful as I look through this thread that that all appears to have been removed, especially the contemptuous noises reduced to writing that seemed wholly unworthy of you. I gather that you have strong feelings about this matter. That's fine. And I glad to see that things seem to be coming back more into bounds, although the appeal to the moderators in #26 remains, which is quite curious, given all that you had said in the debate, including the tone of your replies.

Hopefully, on this and like threads, we can have the kind of discussion that I just read back in 2007 with Matthew Winzer, Scott Clark, and others about the love of God for the reprobate. The tone was better and much more collegial on what, in any case, is a very difficult question. These are hard questions because Scripture speaks in some strong ways both about God's election and reprobation, as well as his love for and care over the whole of his creation. I don't believe that we are presented with a Procrustean bed in which we must chop off one to accommodate the other, all in the name of being consistent and rational.

I gather that we differ here and will likely continue to. Let's try to do it amiably.

Peace,
Alan

 

[C. Matthew McMahon]

Alan,

I appreciate your candor and comments.

Two Wills in book form is here.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Ebook version here:
http://www.puritanpublications.com/...d-really-have-two-wills-by-c-matthew-mcmahon/