Does God Love all babies? Don't want to sound un-loving or un-kind. Just curious to know how does God feel toward those He knows that are not His and never will be.
As human beings we can't help love small babies and we have a anger toward those who don't, but yet we know that God doesn't love every one or is there different degrees or kind of love within God?
Does God have a kind of love toward the non elect or is His love only for those He has choesen in Christ alone? Hard to understand and any input would be appreciated.


Thanks.

Question: Does God Love all babies?

It doesn't take a "rocket scientist" to come to the truth on this matter, despite the fact that one's personal feelings may be found contrary to it. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

In His Grace,

I was just thinking a few days ago about the song "Jesus Loves the Little Children." What do you think about it? He certainly does love "red, yellow, black, and white," but so many people take this song to mean "all" as in every single individual.

So than, does this mean God has no love at all toward the non elect? What of common grace or do you not consider that as a type of love? or is the idea of common grace extra biblical? <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/scratch1.gif" alt="" />

From Errol Hulse's article here on the Highway:


http://www.the-highway.com/freegrace_Hulse.html


And from Loraine Boettner:



http://www.the-highway.com/depravity_Boettner.html

Thanks. Lot of good information there.

Here are my feeble notes from MacArthur's talk on the Love of God at last month's Ligonier Conference. Pardon my brevity and 'fill in the blanks'.

3 Categories

1 - God's love for Himself (Intra Trinitarian) John 14:31; 15:9-10; 17:23,26; 5:19-27; 6:36

2 - God's love for humanity Matt 5:44-45; Mark 10:17-22

a Common grace Acts 14:17
b Compassion Jer 13; Jonah 5; Jer 48; Matt 23:37
c Incessant warnings
d Offer of the Gospel John 6:40 (limit not in extent, but in degree)

3 - God's love for His own

John 13:1 love His own to the end
John 14:1 (no empty rooms in Heaven)

Saving love Ezekiel 16; Jer 31:3; Romans 9:6> (riches of His glory)

Why did God chose not to love everyone like this - by His Glory Eph 2; Eph 5; Luke 15; Romans 8

Dear 4ever_l,

Guess I'm going to end up being the contrarian on this one. No, I don't think there is any such thing as "common grace." Grace is always particular and is only for the elect. So, wrt your last query, I regard common grace to be an extra-biblical idea. So why do people (Calvinists) set forth such an idea? It gives an easy, but IMO incorrect, answer to the seemingly universalist passages in Scripture. I'm not interested in a rancorous debate (e.g. if someone is going to call me a "hypercalvinist," be ready with some definitions) on the subject, but would be happy to discuss the issue. Any idea where we should start? Anybody? <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/bigglasses.gif" alt="" />

I always understood common grace to be related more to ability than love. Common grace is not as much a defense of seemingly universalist passages as it is an explanation of good in depraved men. Common grace describes the giftedness God gives even depraved men to do acts that seem good. This does not imply he loves them. Common grace is for the ordering of society.

Hi Bestrech. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/thewave.gif" alt="" />

I am of the opinion that men do not do any good (Rom. 3:10ff). And even when they are not as wicked as they might otherwise be, it is only because one sin is restrained by another. Thus fear of man may keep some from being as wicked as they might otherwise be. But fear of man is itself a sin. A miser may not be as dissolute as he could otherwise be if he were not so niggardly with his funds. But loving mammon more than God, even that is a sin.

So I reject the idea of any goodness in mankind whatsoever. So, in accepting it, it seems to me that your acceptance implicitly -- not explicitly of course or you would not be a Calvinist -- denies the doctrine of total depravity.

Seem right? <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/scratchchin.gif" alt="" />

Obviously, I'm not bestrech, so I hope you don't mind me barging in on this one as it brings back "fond" memories when I studied at the PRC Seminary, where as you might expect, the doctrine of "Common Grace" was thoroughly hated and thrashed almost daily.

Again, I do not presume to speak for bestrech, but for myself. When we speak of the natural man's ability to do something "good", it is meant in relative terms, i.e., that there are acts done by unregenerate men, yes that includes the reprobate, which benefit mankind to one degree or another, even Christians. The act itself as considered from the perspective of what God requires in regard to any act, i.e., whether it is done from a heart that has been recreated to serve the Living God in faith and love, is evil, sinful and has no virtue whatsoever. But it cannot be denied that there are myriad acts, done every day by unregenerate individuals which are "relatively good".

The following question was posed to one of the professors at the seminary on this subject, "If you, professor XXX, were driving to the hospital with your wife who was about to deliver a child, and you got stuck in a snow bank and were unable to get out and your pagan neighbor came by and without any solicitation, pulled your stuck car out of the bank, would you thank him for his "good deed"?" This alleged Christian professor didn't take more than a couple of seconds to retort, "No, not on your life! For that act was wicked, evil, sinful and thus there was nothing good about it!"

Many of us who hold to the doctrine of "Common Grace", admittedly aren't too pleased with the use of the term, "grace" to describe the doctrine. Personally, I would rather speak of God's "Common Benevolence" upon all mankind. The fact that all men are created in God's image puts all men on a "common ground" in that they all share that image, distorted and corrupt as it may be due to the noetic effects of the Fall. And, I would also agree, that the "good deeds" of men are, in fact, due to the retraining influence/providence of God. What must be realized, is that this divine restraint and influence upon the wicked to do "relatively good" acts of compassion, benevolence, philanthropy, etc., etc., though sinful, are part of God's eternal purpose to benefit the Church. To admit even this much I think makes the case for "Common Grace", or whatever term YOU would prefer. For the fact that "all things work for good", due to providence, shows that there must be a recognized benefit received by God's elect and thus it is surely appropriate to speak of them as having a "relative good". <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

Oh, let me add but one more item, lest I forget. These works wrought by the unregenerate/reprobate will ultimately be brought as evidence against them at the Judgment and will in no wise serve to earn them God's favor. Yet we also must not diminish the truth that there are going to be various degrees of punishment meted out to the reprobate according to their "works". Perhaps the relationship is similar to the actual "good works" done by the elect, they all being less than perfect, yet they are not only accepted but even worthy of reward. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/scratchchin.gif" alt="" />

In His Grace,

Pilgrim outlined a variation of my understanding of common grace. When reading posts regarding theology, it pays to read the words carefully. I couldn't give any voice inflection to certain important words in my post. Notice I said, "acts that seem good", emphasis on seem. I agree one hundred percent that man is incapable of doing anything righteous apart from the Holy Spirit. Thus the doctrine of depravity is intact.

When we speak of common grace we are speaking of God's good acts through depraved individuals. This is quintessential grace. God can order society and do good through bad individuals. It is not soteriological grace, but something much more "common".

SDG

Pilgrim said:

Of course I wasn't really asking anything beyond whether it made sense. My position is that men do nothing good. This is also the position of Paul. Bestrech is willing, fairly enough, to maintain that the acts seem good. They even have a benefit to the elect. God does use the Canaanites to keep the wild beasts at bay. However, that is sadly not where the doctrine of "common grace" ends, and I think we all know that.


Yes, I think they are serious about their adherence to the three forms of unity there. They also have some ideas with which I would disagree, but their doctrine of common grace is, IMO, unassailable.


But, Pilgrim, I must disagree with you that the definition of a "good work" is "one which benefits mankind to one degree or another." That is simply not a confessional view of a good work -- and I would argue that it is not biblical either. The very plowing of the wicked is sin and their prayers are an abomination (Prov. 21:4; 28:9). Now, in order for a good work to be considered good, it must not only be for the benefit of the neighbor, it must also be from love to God and love to neighbor (Matt. 22:27-30). So also WCF 16.7,

Had you used the terminology that Bestrech used, viz. "seemingly good," I would have been more inclined to agree. But it is simply contradictory to speak of an act that you have described in your own language as "evil, sinful and has no virtue whatsoever" as "relatively good." That means that they are also only "relatively evil" and "relatively sinful" and "relatively without virtue." But I disagree with your characterization of "relativity" when it comes to depravity. Man is not relatively depraved. He is totally depraved. First one must make the tree good; then and only then can one expect good fruit (Mt 12:33).


This is the kind of pejorative and name-calling that I was hoping to avoid. The man is not an "alleged" Christian professor because he maintains the doctrine of total depravity with consistency. Now, I would have thanked the man for his time and for his effort because it surely would have cost him both of those things. But he did not do those hypothetical "good works" because he loves God with all his heart, soul, mind, and strength. But it is upon that very principle that all the law and prophets hang. So, thanking someone for his time and service is simply good manners here in Texas. But as Calvinists (rather, as having a biblical view of man) we should not try to assure the man that he is capable of doing good works -- because he isn't.


Good. Then quit. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />


Now I did some snipping there, Pilgrim. But I don't think I distorted what you are saying. I agree (and so would your professor at PRCA Theological School had you asked him) that all the gifts of God are good gifts. But benevolence is not in things. In fact, Pss. 37 and 73 encourage us to look at the latter end of those wicked men who receive them and learn that they were intended for their lifting up and their casting down. However, I would like for you to read very carefully what you have written in the previous quotation. You stated that acts can be both sinful and "relatively good." That is not in accordance with the reformed standards and more importantly, I think it simply injects an element of confusion into our apologetics.

Are the acts of the wicked intended by God to benefit the church? Absolutely so. Everything that comes to pass, comes to pass for God's glory and the church's good. But this includes such things as having my car broken into, persecution for the gospel's sake, affliction from sickness and poverty, imprisonments, etc. IOW, the fact that God intends these things for good does not make them good deeds.


See above. Additionally, the doctrine of "common grace" does not state that God intends all things for the good of the church. It states that he gives good gifts to the wicked because he loves them in a gracious way. If common grace were what you claim it is, then it would be a simple matter of correcting our language and stating our case more carefully. But the doctrine of "common grace" says far, far more than what you are claiming for it.


Let me say what I think you really want to say, Pilgrim. Because I really don't think there is a reason to get into a spitting contest here. You and I agree on this: the works of the unconverted cannot be considered to be good works because they are not done from a motive of love for God or neighbor, or from a goal of God's glory. However, it would be more sinful for them to leave such works undone. That is the wording of WCF 16, and I think it alleviates the problem of having to call that which is intrinsically sinful by the term "relatively good."

So, I think we are agreed on two things at least: unbelievers can do works that for the appearance of them seem good to us. But because they are not performed in faith or love or for God's glory, they cannot be classified as good works -- they don't meet the measure. We can also agree that "common grace" is a really bad term for what we are talking about. If you want to call such works "mere civil good" or "seeming good" or even "less sinful" I will not disagree. But such works do not meet the biblical measure of a good work, and for that reason I reject the doctrine. It leads to or implies a doctrine of partial depravity, which IMO is a contradiction of terms.

Still friends? <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/cheers2.gif" alt="" />

Yessir, but "appearances can be deceiving," and works that seem good can actually be sinful. I don't question that they seem good. But I do question whether they really are good. I've written a rather lengthy reply to Pilgrim, and I think much of it applies to your response as well, sir. You agree that man is "one hundred percent...incapable of doing anything righteous apart from the Holy Spirit." I would simply add, as the Heidelberg Catechism adds, that he is incapable of doing any good apart from regeneration. IOW, there is no influence of the Holy Spirit short of regeneration that enables the unbeliever to do good works. Therefore good works require special, or saving, grace.


I'm not sure we are using the term "quintessential" the same way either. Grace in its purest form? Now, everything that happens, happens because of the predestinating will of God. In that sense we can speak of God's good acts taking place through sinful human beings (e.g. Joseph's brothers selling him into slavery or the crucifixion of the Son of God). But it was not a good act for Joseph's brothers to do so, nor for the Jews and Romans to crucify the Lord of glory. I agree, as I've agreed in my reply to Pilgrim, that everything that takes place happens for God's glory and the church's good. But the fact that God has good ends for everything does not turn sin into "relative good."

Perhaps it seems to y'all that I'm just being picky or difficult to get along with. My purpose, however, is to clarify and to warn where a lack of clarity on this issue will ultimately lead. Hugs? <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/hugs.gif" alt="" />

That is clearly NOT my definition of "good works". Only those who are regenerated and indwelt by the Spirit of God are capable of doing any "good work". Perhaps I didn't make this clear enough? Or, perhaps you are so passionate about setting forth your rejection of the doctrine of Common Grace, you read into statements things which are not there? <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/Ponder.gif" alt="" />

Here methinks the issue is one of semantics. My use of the phrase, "relatively good" is intended to be synonymous with Bestrech's "seemingly good". For both of us, the actual act performed is NOT inherently good and could not be since it is the fruit of one who is in rebellion to God and all that is good. The unregenerate/reprobate are sinful by nature and therefore incapable of thinking, speaking or doing anything good. You are reading into my words that which is not there nor is that which you are finding fault with even intended in my words. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/nono.gif" alt="" />

This is your opinion based upon an erroneous conclusion that unless one holds to the particular rejection of a doctrine of Common Grace, then one automatically diminishes or discards the doctrine of Total Depravity. Let me assure you, sir... that I hold as tenaciously to the doctrine of Total Depravity as you do. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

We are in full agreement here.

Am I understanding you here as saying that thanking someone for an act which was beneficial to you, even doing a benevolent act at great cost to himself is to be seen as a regional custom where you live, 2) But (conjunction connoting contrast), as a Calvinist one should not thank the man, for to do so would be to "assure the man that he is capable of doing good works?" A clarification would be appreciated.

Once again, you are imposing something wrongly where it was never intended nor ever stated. For your benefit, I shall once again state what I have already stated several times. The unregenerate/reprobate are incapable of doing any good work. Let's hope this is recognized as my actual position. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

Evidently, in all my reading, I have somehow missed something here. For I have never read anyone, at least of any recognition, who holds that "God gives good gifts to the wicked because he loves them in a gracious way." Is this the position which someone like L. Berkhof, H. Bavinck, Charles Hodge, Warfield, Edwards, ??? holds. If so, then I would need to read where this is written. I can tell you that none of the professors I had at WTS ever taught any such thing, nor even hinted at such a thing. And let me assure you that I also reject such a statement as having no biblical basis whatsoever. This isn't one of those proverbial "strawman" thingys, is it? <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/rofl.gif" alt="" />

Well, let's say there is 1/2 an agreement here. Those works performed by the unregenerate are indeed sinful. However, it would also appear that you are not willing to admit that those sinful works can actually result in something beneficial to other men. You mentioned the crucifixion in your other reply and I think that is a perfect illustration that makes MY point. The "hands of wicked men" crucified Christ, for which they shall be judged. Yet the benefit which pursued from that heinous act was immeasurably beneficial, for God intended it for good.... not simply "an appearance of good". Notice, I did NOT say that this act was "good". And therefore, how much more actual benefit "relative good" is to be seen in those sinful acts of men when the acts themselves are not wicked, e.g., saving a child from a burning building? helping an elderly woman cross the street?, et al. Again, those acts are deemed sinful before God. AND.... not "but", and they are also "relatively, seemingly good" in that they actually produce a real benefit to others.

As stated before, I agree that it is unfortunately an unwise way to phrase an otherwise biblical doctrine.

In His Grace,

I personally don’t have a problem with using the term ‘common grace’, because all it is saying is if understood how it was meant, (to quote Boettner) “general influences of the Holy Spirit which to a greater or lesser degree are shared by all men. God causes His sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain upon the just and the unjust.”
See http://www.the-highway.com/efficacious_Boettner.html#8.%20COMMON%20GRACE
For more on what is meant by the term.

Tom

How did you know I prefer the Heidelberg to the Westminster? I agree with you completely, there is none who doeth good, there are none who seek after God. We don't differ here.


If you believe this, then we are using the term the same way. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/BigThumbUp.gif" alt="" /> Grace is credited to God's good works and not man's. To say there is such a thing as common grace is simply giving God glory for his good works through (and in spite of) man's depravity. Man does not get credit for common grace, God does. Common grace does not imply that man does anything good any more than efficacious grace implies that man effects his own salvation.

Perhaps we are closer to agreement than would appear. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/yep.gif" alt="" />

SDG

The difficulty, as I see it, Pilgrim, is that you want to say that the unregenerate are incapable of doing any good works, except that they can do "relatively good works." Now I reject that -- and as soon as you quit referring to them as "relatively good" I will admit that you merely confused me rather than disagreeing with me. However, my confusion - if that is what it is - is a direct result of your referring to [some of] the works of the unregenerate as being "relatively good." In point of fact the historic reformed creeds reject that idea. Now I'm not sure if a "passionate rejection" of something is supposed to make that rejection less palatable in your opinion or why you would suggest that my rejection is more or less "passionate" than your acceptance. But I can assure you of this much: I am not reading into the statements of common grace anything that is not there in the modern literature [see below]. If you mean something different than what has historically been intended, then you should use different terminology. Doesn't that make sense?

[/quote]
Here methinks the issue is one of semantics. My use of the phrase, "relatively good" is intended to be synonymous with Bestrech's "seemingly good". For both of us, the actual act performed is NOT inherently good and could not be since it is the fruit of one who is in rebellion to God and all that is good. The unregenerate/reprobate are sinful by nature and therefore incapable of thinking, speaking or doing anything good. You are reading into my words that which is not there nor is that which you are finding fault with even intended in my words. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/nono.gif" alt="" />[/quote]


I agree that it is semantics -- what does "relatively" mean and what does "seemingly" mean? They are not the same word and they do not have the same denotations or connotations. A work can be seemingly good while being actually sinful. However, for a work to be relatively good it must be compared with the good. And when compared with the good, no work of the unregenerate measures up. So, if you really think the unregenerate man is incapable of doing any good, as you clearly profess, why do you not simply quit confusing poor souls such as I who are clearly easily confused by such language? I do not think it is "reading into" one's words to follow the ordinary meaning of a word. That is precisely what I'm trying to do. You claim that it is an issue of semantics as though that were unimportant to communications. But apart from the meanings that words have, I don't know how else to understand you, Pilgrim. The term "relatively good" is not the semantic equivalent of "sinful."


Maybe so. But that does not make it any more gracious of you to refer to a Christian man -- one who has not been brought up on charges before his church or any fellow Christians -- as "an alleged Christian professor." I submit to you that such language is pejorative and does absolutely nothing to advance the discussion. I would even maintain that such language positively retards the debate. I don't think referring to me as confused and passionate does, either, but I will not be so quick to defend myself as I am others. I have certainly been confused and passionate before, so it could be happening again. But I hope you will not refer to me as an "alleged" Christian.


The language was clear enough. Perhaps my confusion and passion got in the way, but the language itself was not ambiguous. I would thank the man. Period. But [conjunction of continuation, denoting that there is more to be said] I could not conscientiously thank him for doing a good work because the work was not good. Just like I could not bless him as a Christian if he does not profess Jesus Christ. He may do works that are beneficial to me. Fine. We have no argument there. Where our disagreement lies is whether such a work can properly be called a good work. The Bible and the reformed creeds say it cannot. I agree with both of those sources.


Your actual position is known only to you, Pilgrim. The position that you stated in writing is that the wicked can perform "relatively good" works. Now, the fact that you in one breath say that they cannot do any good works and in the next breath say that they can do relatively good works is confusing. So, if I am as confused as you claim I am, perhaps it is not without cause. On the other hand, if one were to quit using confusing language, perhaps we could nip my confusion "in the bud" so to speak.


It is the position of Richard Mouw, A. Kuyper, John Murray, Iain Murray of BoT, etc. I'm glad you are reading the old masters, because you will not find such silliness in them. However, what you will find in the 20th century is another matter. Why not begin with Murray's Collected Works Vol 4, pp. 113ff.


I cannot say what professors you had at WTS, but I can assure you that the doctrine of common grace and God's desire to save all men is far from a strawman. Apparently you were not at WTS when Murray was there.


Actually, a more careful reading of my previous post would disabuse you of such an [mis]understanding. My exact words on the subject of whether the sinful works of men can result in something beneficial to other men: "Absolutely so." Please read again. However, I also maintained in that post and continue to maintain in this post and by God's grace will continue to maintain in the future, that the works of sinful men are only sinful in themselves. They are not "relatively good," no matter how much God intends them for good. Again, I insist upon a definition of a "good work" that follows the biblical and confessional definition. If you wish to call that semantics, so be it. But words have meanings, Pilgrim, and neither the Bible nor the creeds define a "good work" or "a relatively good work" in terms of its benefit to men.


You are mixing things up. First, I never said that the crucifixion had an appearance of good. Second, what I did say was that some of the works of evil men have an appearance of good. Third, I also said that even those sinful works of men that God intends for good are not actually good in themselves. Finally, I then argued from the greater to the lesser. If the most wicked act of all time could be used by God to benefit his people, it does not follow that any act committed anywhere that is used by God to benefit his people is ipso facto a good act. Now, if you think that is demonstrating your point, all well and good. Then quit arguing for the other side. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />


I'm glad you have begun to add the word "seemingly" to your claim for the unregenerate. It is "seeming" because it is merely the appearance of good. Why do you not want to use the terms "more or less sinful?" The Westminster Confession uses exactly such terminology. And again, if the discussion is to advance, I think you must demonstrate from the Scriptures or the creeds that "producing a real benefit to others" makes an otherwise sinful act "relatively good."


And because words have meanings, why not use the terminology that does not confound Arminianism and Calvinism together? And since you have read such stalwarts of the faith as Edwards, Berkhof, Bavink, Hodge, and Warfield, perhaps you would be so kind as to reference where in their works I can find the definition of a "relatively good" work. I am willing to begin with the theologians, even though at the end of the day a theologian is one person. We must compare our doctrine to the Scriptures and to the creeds of the church. So ultimately I would like to see where in the reformed creeds we find this doctrine of "relative good."

Thank you for your time. I genuinely hope I'm being of benefit and not wasting it.

Hi Tom,

I think this is the first time we have interacted on The-Highway.


The problem with the idea, Tom, is that it either maintains that God in doing such things is being gracious to those he does not intend to grace, or it maintains that the things themselves have grace in them. I think both of those ideas are false, but I'm willing to discuss with you which of them you think is true...or some third thing that I may be missing here.

I don't think we are so far apart as Pilgrim and I are. But, as I averred to him, "words have meanings." Up to now there have been three different definitions of what "common grace" is. For you it is man doing "seemingly" good works (though I prefer WCF's "more or less sinful"); for Pilgrim it is man doing "relatively" good works; and for Tom it is God sending rain and sunshine on all men alike. Are all of these "common grace?" How can a term that is decidedly contrary to the idea of grace as Calvinists have historically explained it (as particular) become invested with so many meanings? I think the terminology is, itself, suspect. Further, I am convinced that it leads to other errors (real errors, not just communications errors) that neither you nor Pilgrim nor (I trust) Tom would want. //Note, also, that this dicussion is taking place under a banner that refers to the love of God. We should not suddenly claim that is not what the discussion is about.//

So, much of my purpose in these discussions -- and I am devoting more time to it than I could otherwise justify apart from that purpose -- is to help clarify terms that are, quite honestly, both confused and confusing. The terminology of "common grace" is poorly defined, and IMO it is impossible to defend articulately.

As far as the Heidelberg is concerned -- I don't think there is a fundamental difference between the Westminster Standards and the Three Forms. Differences of expression to be sure -- but that is why we must examine those differences and determine if they are saying the same thing. I've become convinced that with respect to the fundamental tenets of the Reformed Faith, there is no significant difference between the 3 forms and Westminster.

I'm afraid that any further discussion with you over this issue will be an exercise in futility for you are wanting to see things (meanings) in my words which simply are not there. I have never said that the unregenerate do "relatively good works", but rather that the acts which they do can be "relatively good". Now, I have tried on two occasions to clarify/qualify what I mean by "relatively good", in that the works, i.e., acts performed are sometimes beneficial to those whom are recipients of those acts. Methinks you are needlessly arguing over words and refuse to accept their various meanings.

For years I heard all these types of fruitless arguments by those in the PRC which were anything but convincing. And I also was subject as have countless others, e.g., Berkhof, Boettner, Edwards, etc., etc., to the charges of these men that if one doesn't hold to their rejection of Common Grace, regardless of who one defines it or the terms used, then they are "less than Reformed", contradict the Confessions, etc., ad nauseam. But let me assure once again, that I hold wholly, without reservation or qualification to the doctrine of Total Depravity as set forth in the Scripture and iterated by all the Reformed Confessions and taught by the Reformers and Puritans throughout history. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

There is NO disagreement here! <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/rolleyes2.gif" alt="" /> I have never referred to any work done by the unregenerate as a "good work"! I agree 100% with the Bible and the Reformed creeds, in so far as the are in agreement with the Bible, on this matter, which I believe they are.

No, I was not at WTS when Murray was there. What I can tell you that those that were there never taught that "God desires to save all men". This was true in class as well as in private conversations. For example, in all the times I talked with Van Til personally, not once did he ever even hint of such a thing. The same could be said of others, e.g., Clowney, Gaffin, Frame, Poythress, et al.

However, what you are now speaking of is more related to the issue of the "Free Offer", the other "whipping boy" of the PRC, which should you so desire to thrash, can be done in a new thread.

In His Grace,

Whether you continue to answer and discuss these things is, of course, completely up to you. You may recall that I was in process of answering a question by 4ever_learning. The question he asked was whether the love of God toward all men (including reprobate infants in the context) was not a part of common grace. Bestrech then added something to the conversation, to which you then jumped in. I have no problem with you jumping in. And I have no problem with you jumping out. But for the record, I do think I have been gracious toward you, and I have tried very hard to understand what you have been saying, even in the face of you making distinctions that I cannot understand. You said I am confused -- well, what else could I be in light of making distinctions such as "not a relatively good work" but "acts that are relatively good?" If I had said something like that would you not have been confused by it? I admit to still being confused. I have no idea what that distinction is....


The difference you are attempting to maintain is not one I can see in Scripture or in the reformed creeds. I simply ask you, if I am confused can you not see how such distinctions are confusing? If you mileage varies on that, I'll be happy to examine your reasons. I have never said otherwise.


Yes, I have refused to accept your definition of good, because our reformed creeds and Scripture itself has a different definition. As I have repeatedly offered, if you have a Scripture or portion of a reformed creed that defines a good work as "beneficial to those who are the recipients" then fine. I will gladly acquiesce. But I would suggest that you consider that your frustration is less with me and more with the fact that your position cannot be defended from the creeds. Why is it unreasonable for me to expect and require that we use terms in a way that is compatible with the reformed creeds?


Suit yourself. As I said, you jumped in and you should consider yourself free to jump out without the necessity of apology to me. I'm still pretty new at this, so if I have overstepped the bounds of some internet propriety, I do apologize -- and assure you that it was done from ignorance. However, dear friend, outside cyberspace a debate generally involves setting forth reasons and responses. You have set forth your reasons and I have responded. I have set forth my reasons -- and you have simply insisted that you are reformed. Fine, I have never once called you any of the things you complain about above. Please reconsider your language, sir.



So you say. So, if the unregenerate do not do good works, why do you think your "alleged Christian professor" should have thanked his hypothetical neighbor for doing a good work?

[/quote]No, I was not at WTS when Murray was there. What I can tell you that those that were there never taught that "God desires to save all men". This was true in class as well as in private conversations. For example, in all the times I talked with Van Til personally, not once did he ever even hint of such a thing. The same could be said of others, e.g., Clowney, Gaffin, Frame, Poythress, et al.[/quote]

So, do you plan to read Murray's article?


Excuse me, sir. I understand you are the moderator and I have no desire to get on your "wrong side," which I have apparently done since the debate has not really been advanced by your last post. You spent the post scolding me rather than discussing the issue. However, I think it is dead on respecting the original question that 4ever_learning asked and I answered. The original post was about the love of God toward infants. In the context of that discussion, and not on a separate topic, he asked about the love of God for the unbeliever in the context of common grace. Further, my reference to Murray was because you asked about who was teaching such a doctrine that God loves the non-elect. Surely I don't have to start a new thread to answer your question, do I?

So, if you want to shut down the thread, that is of course your privilege as moderator. But I would like respectfuly to register my comment that I think your decision is more related to the fact that you have tired of the discussion than to it being off topic.

Antikathistas,


Someone not too long ago asked the question of how The Highway began, I thought you'd like to read Pilgrims words...[color:"FF0000"][b]Brief Description of The Highway[/b][/color] Additionally, you can get to [color:"0000FF"][b]The Highway home page[/b][/color] at bottom right-hand side of all pages. The music playing is: Bach's "Jesu, Joy of Man's Desiring".
ENJOY!

Perhaps that is the real issue. If those involved in the discussion do not hold a commonly agreed upon definition, then equivocation becomes a problem. I think the link to Boettner's article was a good starting point for the definition.


More or less sinful is more theologically accurate.


May I respectfully ask if this is not true also for other important doctrines? Unconditional Election could, and sometimes does, lead to a host of errors. Does this, then, mean we reject it? I'm sure you agree we should keep it.

I originally posted my understanding of common grace so that the doctrine would not be confused with the love of God. His beneficence toward society and unregenerate men (common grace) is not necessarily love. (It is love when that beneficence is turned toward regeneration.)

I agree with your concern and with your view of depravity. I'm just not ready to jettison a term that has become a well accepted means, in Reformed circles, of describing God's work in unregenerate society.

SDG

Dear Bestrech,


I'm not convinced that the doctrine of unconditional election leads to a host of other errors, bestrech. Of course I don't want to commit the "slippery slope" fallacy, but given the equivocation over what the term "common grace" even means I continue to question it's utility. I can tell you -- and so do the creeds -- precisely what we mean by unconditional election. If some abuse the doctrine, of course, that is not the doctrine's fault.


I think that is quite wise, bestrich. I agree it is not love, and perhaps we would disagree over whether it is grace. FWIW, in the Battles translation of Calvin's Institutes of the Christian Religion we can find the term, but the fact is Calvin means something quite different from the term than what the CRC defined in 1924.


When we have a single definition in Reformed circles of what common grace is, I will decide at that point whether to agree with you or not, sir. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

I will not likely be on the inet tomorrow, so have a good and restful Sabbath day.
<img src="/forum/images/graemlins/cloud9.gif" alt="" />

I figured that Jesus would never expect of us or command us to do something that He does not do, or that is contrary to His nature, so what do you all make of these verses?




____________________________________________________________

I know I am no theologian, and I only have the tools available to me. But it seems to me that the meaning of the word love is very clear. What do y'all make of this passage?

Michele

This solution assumes that God's nature is only love. His nature also includes justice. We must stress both God’s holiness and justice and his absolute love and mercy. The only way we can see the glory of grace is to see both his law and his love fulfilled on the Cross. They must not be proclaimed in such a way that they are pitted against each other, but rather that they meet and are fulfilled in Christ. Horatius Bonar makes this marvelous point in The Everlasting Righteous saying,

Tertullian also recognized this and stated, “Just as Christ was crucified between two thieves, so this doctrine of justification is ever crucified between two opposite errors.” Of course, the errors he spoke of were a wrong consideration of God’s love and holiness. IMHO there is a danger in the polarization of either of these “complete” sides of God. In context God is Bi-Polar: (1) because of who He is He must judge (2) because of who He is He must love. How can God express perfectly His love without compromising His holiness and justice and His justice without compromising His love? To compromise either would be not to be God. The only solution was to sacrifice Himself on the Cross—Self-Satisfaction through Self-Substitution.

Does God love all babies is the wrong question. It polarizes the question of God's nature before you even begin answering the question. Maybe a question like, Is God holy and loves all babies would be a better presentation of the question.

I did not offer this up as a solution. I should have probably said, "in light of this discussion that seems to revel in God's "hatred" of the non elect, what do you all think of this passage?"

Of course I know that God is both love and justice. My copying the passage was not intended to be unbalanced.. only to show another side to this discussion.

Michele

This is not entirely true. He does not worship himself, yet he expects us to. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/spin.gif" alt="" /> The only reason I point this out is to differentiate between Jesus and us. He was indeed "a man with like passions as we", yet he is also God very God. So there is a difference between him and humankind. He judges and sends people to Hell. We don't. Therefore hatred from a justice aspect is entirely consistent with the nature of God.

Regarding the definition of agape, I found the outline which was posted somewhat lacking. Biblical agape is not mere sentimental passion or good will towards someone, but that which seeks the ultimate honor, benefit and blessing for the one loved. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/read.gif" alt="" /> In this sense, then, God does not love those who are predestined for damnation.

Christ command for us to love our enemies also has biblical qualifications and parameters. We are not to love satan, our archadversary. "Do not I hate them, who hate thee" is also a passage with honor. In Scripture, context is vital. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/coffee2.gif" alt="" />

SDG

So you don't think God is being gracious by causing His sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain upon the just and the unjust?

Tom

Did not the Son worship the Father?

Sure, the Son and the Father are different persons of the Godhead. The Son did not worship the Son.

SDG