Quote
speratus said:
Quote
Joe k said:
Quote
speratus said:
Quote
Pilgrim said:

At the risk of being too brief, hyper-Calvinism always posits at least these two points:

1) A total denial of any "Free Offer" of the Gospel. (details to follow)
2) A denial of anything that even hints at what is called, "Common Grace". (admittedly, sometimes with good reason)

Could a HC deny the free offer of "common grace" (i.e., non-salvic) in the gospel call but accept that the reprobate do benefit from "common grace"?


All mankind benefit from the benevolence of the Lord. It is as simple as that. Here is the rub though. "A good life" was used by the puritans for instance to determine ones election. Every instance in ones life was either favor or judgement. "Good harvest this year, Gods favor" "No harvest= God's judgement". THis is so contrary to scripture when taken to such an extremem level. Many puritans who navel gazed all their life actually went mad determining their election. All one has to do is look to Christ and realize this line of thinking is very false. He was scorned, rejected, spit at, hungered, poor, and Lastly died a horendous death. Even Paul was left for dead, shipwrecked, "thorned" etc etc etc.

It would be unscriptural to posit one's election or reprobation based on outward circumstances. However, I was thinking that, perhaps, more moderate hyper-calvinists, considering the reprobate to be permenently dead spiritually, would say the reprobate are not even offered "common grace" in the gospel call as opposed to Calvinists in general who say reprobate are offered and may receive "common grace" in the gospel call.

Pilgrim went to a PRC seminary and will give you loads of articles denying common grace. IT becomes semantics though. What is meant by the term? First off I find nothing common about grace. Does it have to do with favor Love? or just benevolence? The debate becomes moot in my estimation. Perhaps a beteer way of positing the discussion would be to decide if the Lord offers, ahows any type of love for the reprobate at all. And if so what level of love. The Englesma /Moo debate is a fine read. Find it and read it, then you will find what is historically defined as CG and why some deny it according to that definition.

I used to be 100% against any form of it for the reprobate, but now I am undecided. THe parable of the soils appears to destroy the idea that the reprobate do not enjoy any joy from God. Since it shows there that one soil has joy for a while, but then dies.

There never was a sinner half as big as Christ is as a Savior.