The Reformed Doctrine of General Non-electing Love

[Flynn]

G'day Jvdg

The thread was closed. I dont know why. Moderators/Owners, if I am out of line here, please do email or contact me.

I will answer your question jvg and then leave it unless I am asked or invited to comment further.

Bert and Flyn, for a good understanding of the dispute arosen, please will you inform us about the "crux" of this dispute? Please in understandable english.

G'day Jvdg,

I dont speak Dutch, but I see Burt has posted in Dutch, and its in a forum for english speakers. Can someone translate Burt's Dutch comments for me please?

The central issues are:

Does God love all men?

God God extend common Grace to all men?

Does God will and desire the salvation of all men?

Does God offer the gospel to all men, which offer is a well-meant offer of grace to all?

So now by explanations. Love is affection, amor dei: To love is to delight in, to wish well to, to have an affection towards.

In this post I will address two of these four issues by way of quoting Reformed Authorities:

Does God love all men:

a' Brakel:

The Goodness of God

Goodness is the very opposite of harshness, cruelty, gruffness, severity, mercilessness–all of which are far removed from God. How unbecoming it is to have such thoughts about God! Such sinful emotions are found in man. The goodness of God, on the contrary, is the loveliness, benign character, sweetness, friendliness, kindness, and generosity of God. Goodness is the very essence of God's being, even if there were no creature to whom this could be manifested. "The good LORD pardon every one" (2 Chr.30:18); "Good and upright is the LORD: therefore will He teach sinners in the way" (Psa. 25:B); "There is none good but one, that is, God" (Mat. 19:17).

From this goodness issues forth lovingkindness and an inclination to bless His creatures. This is to the astonishment of all who take note of this, which explains why David exclaims twenty-six times in Ps. 136, "For His Mercy endureth for ever." In the following texts we read likewise. "Also unto Thee, 0 Lord, belongeth mercy" (Psa. 62:12); "All the paths of the LORD are mercy" (Psa. 25:10 ). From goodness and benevolence issues forth the doing of that which is good. "Thou art good, and doest good" (Psa. 119:68); "Rejoice the soul of Thy servant: and attend unto the voice of my supplications. For Thou Lord, art good, and ready to forgive; and plenteous in mercy unto all them that call upon Thee" (Psa. 86:4, 6, 5).

This goodness is of a general nature in reference to all God's creatures, since they are His creatures. "The LORD is good to all: and His tender mercies are over all is works" (Psa. 145:9); "The earth is full of the goodness of the LORD" (Psa. 33:5); "For He maketh His sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust" (Mat. 5:45). The goodness which is of a special or particular nature as it relates to God's children is thus expressed: 'Truly God is good to Israel, even to such as arc of a clean heart" (Psa. 73:l); "The LORD is good unto them that wait for Him, to the soul that seeketh Him" (Lam. 3:25). This goodness of God is the reason why a believer, even after many backslidings, is motivated by renewal to return unto the Lord. "The children of Israel shall return... and shall fear the LORD and His goodness" (Hosea 3:5); "But I have trusted in Thy mercy" (Psa. 13:5). This is why they call the Lord "the God of my mercy" (Psa. 59:10, 17). In this goodness they rejoice and this goodness they magnify. "I will sing of the mercies of the LORD for ever" (Psa. 89:l); "Praise ye the LORD. 0 give thanks unto the LORD; for He is good: for His mercy endureth for ever" (Psa. 106:l).

The Love of God Love is an essential attribute of God by which the Lord delights Himself in that which is good, it being well-pleasing to Him, and uniting Himself to it consistent with the nature of the object of His love. The love of God by definition is the loving God Himself, for which reason John states that "God is love" (1 John 4:s). When we view the love of God relative to its objects, however, several distinctions need to be made. We call this love natural when it refers to the manner in which God delights in Himself as the supreme manifestation of goodness. "For the Father loveth the Son" (John 5:20). We call this love volitional when it refers to the manner in which God delights in His creatures. And thus this love is either the love of benevolence or the love of His delight. The love of His benevolence is either general as it relates to the manner in which God delights in, desires to bless, maintains, and governs all His creatures by virtue of the fact that they are His creatures (Psa. 145:9), or it is special. This special love refers to God's eternal designation of the elect to be the objects of His special love and benevolence. This finds expression in the following texts, "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life" (John 3:16); "As Christ also loved the church, and gave Himself for it" (Eph. 5:25). The love of God's delight has the elect as its object as they are viewed in Christ, being clothed with His satisfaction and holiness perfect and complete in Him (Col. 2:lO); "According as he hath chosen us in Him... according to the good pleasure of His will... wherein He hath made us accepted in the Beloved" (Eph. 1:4-6).Wilhemus a’ Brakel, The Christian’s Reasonable Service, trans., by Bartel Elshout, (Ligonier, PA: Soli Deo Gloria Publ., 1992), 1:122-124.

David: So the Reformed have always maintained that God expresses a non-electing love to all mankind, and an electing love to the elect alone.

Does God desire the salvation of all men by will revealed:

1] VIII. (3) The question is not whether there is in God a will commanding and approving faith and the salvation of men; nor whether God in the gospel commands men to believe and repent if they wish to be saved; nor whether it pleases him for me to believe and be saved. For no one denies that God is pleased with the conversion and life of the sinner rather than with his death. We willingly subscribe to the Synod of Dort, which determines that “God sincerely and most truly shows in his word, what is pleasing to him; namely, that they who are called should come to him” (Acta Synodi Nationalis . . . Dordrechti [1620], Pt. I, p. 266). But the question is whether from such a will approving and commanding what men must do in order to obtain salvation, can be gathered any will or purpose of God by which he intended the salvation of all and everyone under the condition of faith and decreed to send Christ into the world for them. Hence it appears that they wander from the true order of the question who maintain that we treat here only of the will of approbation (euarestias), but not of the will of good pleasure (eudokias). It is evident that we treat not of that which God wishes to be done by us, but what he wills to do for the salvation of men and of the decree of sending Christ for them (which everyone sees belongs to the will of good pleasure [eudokias] and not to that of approbation [euarestias]). Turretin, Francis, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, (Phillipsburg: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1994) 1:397.

2] XVI. It is one thing to will reprobates to come (i.e., to command them to come and to desire it); another to will they should not come (i.e., to nill the giving them the power to come). God can in calling them will the former and yet not the latter without any contrariety because the former respects only the will of precept, while the latter respects the will of decree. Although these are diverse (because they propose diverse objects to themselves, the former the commanding of duty, but the latter the execution of the thing itself), still they are not opposite and contrary, but are in the highest degree consistent with each other in various respects. He does not seriously call who does not will the called to come (i.e., who does not command nor is pleased with his coming). But not he who does not will him to come whither he calls (i.e., did not intend and decree to come). For a serious call does not require that there should be an intention and purpose of drawing him, but only that there should be a constant will of commanding duty and bestowing the blessing upon him who performs it (which God most seriously wills). But if he seriously make known what he enjoins upon the man and what is the way of salvation and what is agreeable to himself, God does not forthwith make known what he himself intended and decreed to do. Nor, if among men, a prince or a legislator commands nothing which he does not will (i.e., does not intend should also be done by his subjects because he has not the power of effecting this in them), does it follow that such is the case with God, upon whom alone it depends not only to command but also to effect this in man. But if such a legislator could be granted among men, he would rightly be said to will that which he approves and commands, although he does not intend to effect it. Turretin, Francis, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, (Phillipsburg: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1994) 2:507-508.

3] XXI. The invitation to the wedding proposed in the parable (Mt. 22:1-14) teaches that the king wills (i.e., commands and desires) the invited to come and that this is their duty; but not that the king intends or has decreed that they should really come. Otherwise he would have given them the ability to come and would have turned their hearts. Since he did not do this, it is the surest sign that he did not will they should come in this way. When it is said “all things are ready” (Lk. 14:17), it is not straightway intimated an intention of God to give salvation to them, but only the sufficiency of Christ’s sacrifice. For he was prepared by God and offered on the cross as a victim of infinite merit to expiate the sins of men and to acquire salvation for all clothed in the wedding garment and flying to him (i.e., to the truly believing and repenting) that no place for doubting about the truth and perfection of his satisfaction might remain. Turretin, Francis, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, (Phillipsburg: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1994) 2:509.

David: Thus the Reformed have always maintained that God does by will revealed desire that all men be saved by complying to the commands and gospel offer. Yet by will decreed, he wills not to grant all men saving faith, but the elect.

I hope that helps. If you want to talk via email which is easier for me, email me at Flynn000 [at] Bellsouth.net

David

[jvdg]

Dear Mr. Flynn,

The reason for closing the topic was a request of Mr.Bert Mulder.
He had feelings you didn't understand him, and he meant to be attacked in an unfair way.

You have tried to explain what was the crux of and in the dispute with Bert, but, I'am sorry, this explanation is really to difficult (for me) to give a response at once for now.

My clock (and my wife) says: John, it's bedtime and I have to obey.

Deo Volente tomorrow I like to response by personal message or in this topic.

Best regards.

[Flynn]

Dear Mr. Flynn,

The reason for closing the topic was a request of Mr.Bert Mulder.
He had feelings you didn't understand him, and he meant to be attacked in an unfair way.
You have tried to explain what was the crux of and in the dispute with Bert, but, I'am sorry, this explanation is really to difficult (for me) to give a response at once for now.
My clock (and my wife) says: John, it's bedtime and I have to obey.
Deo Volente tomorrow I like to response by personal message or in this topic.

Best regards.

G'day there,
I know how this stuff can be complex, especially if one has thought otherwise for a long period of time. I am more than willing to converse with anyone. I am sorry Bert felt threatened.

Thanks for your patience.

God Bless,
David

[gallio]

G'day Jvdg,

I dont speak Dutch, but I see Burt has posted in Dutch, and its in a forum for english speakers. Can someone translate Burt's Dutch comments for me please?

The central issues are:

Does God love all men?

God God extend common Grace to all men?

Does God will and desire the salvation of all men?

Does God offer the gospel to all men, which offer is a well-meant offer of grace to all?

David

When you mention "all men" do you understand this to indicate "each and every person on earth" or do you understand this to mean "all kinds of people"?

Did God love Esau? Did God desire Esau's salvation?

[gallio]

G'day Jvdg,

I dont speak Dutch, but I see Burt has posted in Dutch, and its in a forum for english speakers. Can someone translate Burt's Dutch comments for me please?

David

Bert's comments indicate he was flabbergasted by your comments and understands you have an axe to grind against our churches. It's more about procedure than about content by the looks of it. Maybe Bert will elaborate tomorrow.

[Bert Mulder]

The central issues are:

Does God love all men?

God God extend common Grace to all men?

Does God will and desire the salvation of all men?

Does God offer the gospel to all men, which offer is a well-meant offer of grace to all?

Esteemed David Flyn:

Ok, now you have given us something to chew on.

Does God love all men? In a certain sense, yes, it can be said God loves all men, just as God loved His creation. And, after all, God is love. That does not mean that God has a saving love for everyone, head for head. In that way he only loves His Church.

Regarding the wicked God saith, through His servant: "Do I not hate them that hate Thee? I hate them with a perfect hatred, I count them my enemies." Just like God saith "Jacob have I loved, and Esau have I hated"

Does God extend common grace to all men? If by common grace you define what our confessions define as His providence, certainly. If by common grace you define anything that lays any ability into men to salvation, absolutely not. DL 3/4 Rej. 5:

Who teach: That the corrupt and natural man can so well use the common grace (by which they understand the light of nature), or the gifts still left him after the fall, that he can gradually gain by their good use a greater, namely, the evangelical or saving grace and salvation itself. And that in this way God on his part shows himself ready to reveal Christ unto all men, since he applies to all sufficiently and efficiently the means necessary to conversion. For the experience of all ages and the Scriptures do both testify that this is untrue. "He showeth his Word unto Jacob, his statues and his ordinances unto Israel. He hath not dealt so with any nation: and as for his ordinances they have not known them," Psalm 147:19, 20. "Who in the generations gone by suffered all the nations to walk in their own way," Acts 14:16. And: "And they (Paul and his companions) having been forbidden of the Holy Spirit to speak the word in Asia, and when they were come over against Mysia, they assayed to go into Bithynia, and the Spirit suffered them not," Acts 16:6, 7.

Does God will and desire the salvation of all men?

Certainly not. The command comes to everyone to repent and believe. So far, that even the revelation of Him in nature leaves men without excuse. But God has, from eternity, predestined certain people to salvation, and reprobated others to eternal damnation.

Does God offer the salvation to all men, which offer is a well-meant offer to all:

We have extensively dealt with this issue in the Dutch portion of this forum. Will get back to this question in further detail, but my answer is, unequivocally, no. On the basis of Scripture and the Canons of Dordt, I reject any WMO.

[Flynn]

Hey Gallio:

When you mention "all men" do you understand this to indicate "each and every person on earth" or do you understand this to mean "all kinds of people"?

In reference to the citations, Calvin, a' Brakel and Turretin, et al, they are speaking of God's love to all men as men: thats why its a general love, not an electing love.

Did God love Esau? Did God desire Esau's salvation?

To the first part of the question, Ill cite Polanus and Calvin:

Polanus:

This goodness of God, by which he is the author of all good things without himself, is either general or special.

General is that, which generally extends itself to all creatures, not only towards them, which have continued in that goodness in which they were created, but also towards those which have fallen from their first goodness, as toward the evil angels, and wicked men.

The special goodness of God is that, by which God wills well to the elect angels, and his chosen among men. Psalm 73:1.

Moreover, the goodness of God, is the fountain of the grace, love, mercy patience and clemency of God.

The grace of God, is God’s most gentle goodwill, and his fatherly favour and will, by which he fatherly embraces us unworthy of it, and no man deserving it. Genes. 6:8, Luke 1:30, Tit. 2:11.

And this grace is truly and rightly termed grace, that makes us accepted before God.

But it is not poured into us.

Neither is it a quality inherent un us, but remains only in God’s himself.

It is distinguished from the gifts, which from God and bestowed upon vs Rom. 5:15, which are called graces freely given.

The love of God, is the most gracious will of God, by which he delights himself takes pleasure in that, wich he approves.

And this love of God, is both towards himself, and also towards the creatures.

The love of God towards himself, is that wherewith the persons of the Godhead love mutually, and each one the other. John 3:35.

The love of God towards the creatures, is either general or special.

The general love of God, is that with he embraces altogether all things which he has made, and does good unto them, and preserves and sustains them.

For though he hate sin, yet he loves the nature which he has created.

The special love of God is that, which he doth peculiarly prosecute the elect only.

http://calvinandcalvinism.wordpress.com ... ttributes/

Note Polanus's addiction to Ramist bifurcation there.

Now as Esau was part of the human race, he was loved.

And from Calvin, an argument by way of inference. If God loved Saul, and Saul was non-elect, as most believe, then its reasonable to extrapolate that Calvin held that God loved Esau.

The word loved is not employed in an absolute sense, but “pros ti” with reference to a particular object; and therefore it is limited to the successful result of the expedition. In like manner Saul, with reference to a particular object, was dear to God, so that he reigned for a time, and was even endued with the gift of prophecy. (1 Samuel 10:10.) The case is different with believers, whom God has embraced with an unchangeable love, and whom he never permits to fall away from him. Calvin on Is 48:14.

Furthermore, although it is evident from the teaching of Scripture and daily experience that the wicked are sometimes touched by the awareness of divine grace, a desire to love one another must be aroused in their hearts. Thus, for a time in Saul there flourished a pious impulse to love God. For he knew God was as a father to him, and he was attracted by something delightful about His goodness [1 Samuel, chs. 9 to 11]. But as a persuasion of God’s fatherly love is not deeply rooted in the reprobate, so do they not perfectly reciprocate his love as sons, but behave like hirelings. For that Spirit of love was given to Christ alone on the condition that he instill it in his members. And surely that saying of Paul’s is confined to the elect: “The love of God has been shed abroad in our hearts through the Holy Spirit, who has been given to us” [Romans 5:5, cf. Vg.], that is, the love that generates the above-mentioned confidence that we can call upon him [cf. Galatians 4:6]. Calvin’s Institutes 3.2.12.

Now here for example, if Calvin could take this line with regard to Mal 1:2, do you believe when it comes to Roms 9, he would think otherwise:

Hence he says, I loved you. God might indeed have made an appeal to the Jews on another ground; for had he not manifested his love to them, they were yet bound to submit to his authority. He does not indeed speak here of God’s love generally, such as he shows to the whole human race; but he condemns the Jews, inasmuch as having been freely adopted by God as his holy and peculiar people, they yet forgot this honor, and despised the Giver, and regarded what he taught them as nothing. When therefore God says that he loved the Jews, we see that his object was to convict them of ingratitude for having despised the singular favor bestowed on them alone, rather than to press that authority which he possesses over all mankind in common. Calvin on Mal, 1:2.

Two the second part, yes, insofar as Esau was like anyone else, commanded to believe. That is the nature of the preceptive will. Wollebius for example:

Johannes Wollebius (1586-1629):

“Just as the edicts of a magistrate are called his will, so the designation of will may be given to precepts, prohibitions, promises, and even deeds and events. Thus the divine will is also called that which God wants done [voluntas signi], because it signifies what is acceptable to God; what he wants done by us. It is called “consequent” because it follows that eternal antecedent; “conditional” because the commandments, prohibitions, warnings, and promises of God all have a condition of obedience or disobedience attached to them. Finally, it is called “revealed,” because it is always explained in the word of God. It must be observed that this sort of distinction does not postulate either really diverse, or contradictory, wills in God.” Johannes Wollebius, “The Compendium Theologiae Christianae” in Reformed Dogmatics (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1977), 48.

Calvin:

What I have said of the precepts, abundantly suffices to confound your blasphemies. For though God gives no pretended commands, but seriously declares what he wishes and approves [Latin: vult et probat.]; yet it is in one way, that he wills the obedience of his elect whom he efficaciously bends to compliance; and in another that of the reprobate whom he warns by the external word, but does not see good to draw to himself. Contumacy and depravity are equally natural to all, so that none is ready and willing to assume the yoke. John Calvin, Secret Providence, trans., by James Lillie, Article 7, John Calvin’s reply.

That is the point, for the Reformed, the will revealed expressed a desire on the part of God for the salvation of men. See Calvin on Jn 3:16, 2 Peter 3:9 Ps 81:13, and Matt 23:37. I have posted all these at the C&C blog.
http://calvinandcalvinism.wordpress.com/

Gotta go,
David

[Flynn]

Bert says:

Does God love all men? In a certain sense, yes, it can be said God loves all men, just as God loved His creation. And, after all, God is love. That does not mean that God has a saving love for everyone, head for head. In that way he only loves His Church.

David: Well now there are two issues here, at least.

The one I am interested in is firstly the historical question. Historically, the Reformed have maintained that God loves ALL men, head for head, with a non-electing love. Thats the specific issue I would like to stay with. I have already cited Calvin, a' Brakel, Polanus, Turretin, which is a pretty impressive list.

In line with the historical question is this: did these men also believe that in some real sense God desires the salvation of all men, by will revealed. Again the answer is clearly yes. The PRC's claimants must face these facts.

Bert says:
Regarding the wicked God saith, through His servant: "Do I not hate them that hate Thee? I hate them with a perfect hatred, I count them my enemies." Just like God saith "Jacob have I loved, and Esau have I hated"

David: Bert, its called the negative inference fallacy. Let's assume Bert is married. Let's assume his wife's name is Joan. Bert says to Joan: "Joan, I have loved you since the day I met you..." Now lets assume Bert has a mother, named Harriet. Can Harriet infer that Bert does not love her? No.

In Reformed theology, hate and love are not mutually exclusive categories.

I have quite a few Calvin citations to this effect, Bert. Will you read them? I will post 1, a shorter one:

But the Apostle seems here to be inconsistent with himself; for if the death of Christ was a pledge of the divine love towards us, it follows that we were already acceptable to him; but he says now, that we were enemies. To this answer, that as God hates sin, we are also hated by him his far as we are sinners; but as in his secret counsel he chooses us into the body of Christ, he ceases to hate us: but restoration to favor is unknown to us, until we attain it by faith. Hence with regard to us, we are always enemies, until the death of Christ interposes in order to propitiate God. And this twofold aspect of things ought to be noticed; for we do not know the gratuitous mercy of God otherwise than as it appears from this—that he spared not his only-begotten Son; for he loved us at a time when there was discord between him and us: nor can we sufficiently understand the benefit brought to us by the death of Christ, except this be the beginning of our reconciliation with God, that we are persuaded that it is by the expiation that has been made, that he, who was before justly angry with us, is now propitious to us. since then our reception into favor is ascribed to the death of Christ, the meaning is, that guilt is thereby taken away, to which we should be otherwise exposed. Calvin, Rom 5:10.

Now Bert replies:

DL 3/4 Rej. 5:

Who teach: That the corrupt and natural man can so well use the common grace (by which they understand the light of nature), or the gifts still left him after the fall, that he can gradually gain by their good use a greater, namely, the evangelical or saving grace and salvation itself. And that in this way God on his part shows himself ready to reveal Christ unto all men, since he applies to all sufficiently and efficiently the means necessary to conversion. For the experience of all ages and the Scriptures do both testify that this is untrue. "He showeth his Word unto Jacob, his statues and his ordinances unto Israel. He hath not dealt so with any nation: and as for his ordinances they have not known them," Psalm 147:19, 20. "Who in the generations gone by suffered all the nations to walk in their own way," Acts 14:16. And: "And they (Paul and his companions) having been forbidden of the Holy Spirit to speak the word in Asia, and when they were come over against Mysia, they assayed to go into Bithynia, and the Spirit suffered them not," Acts 16:6, 7.

Bert, please read Dort carefully there. Dort is NOT rejecting common grace, but it is rejecting the idea that _by_ common grace a man may obtain salvation. When I first saw Hanko cite that article in the 90s it was immediately apparent that he had taken it out of contexts. There is no blanket condemnation of common grace here. Please read the whole sentence with all the connectors.

Bert:
Does God will and desire the salvation of all men?
Certainly not. The command comes to everyone to repent and believe. So far, that even the revelation of Him in nature leaves men without excuse. But God has, from eternity, predestined certain people to salvation, and reprobated others to eternal damnation.

David:
well once again, I can only cite Turretin:

XXV. His truthfulness does not suffer, while he calls to salvation those whom he has nevertheless excluded from salvation by an absolute decree. For that external calling does not declare any volition or intention on God's part by which he wills to save them, but only the proposition of duty and the declaration of the mode or means through which salvation is attainable (with the promise of it to those who may have the prescribed condition). Therefore as the offer of salvation made to them is not absolute but conditional, God cannot be said to deal insincerely with them when he calls them (although he had decreed from eternity to pass by and condemn them). Truly if he would point out to them in the gospel any other way of salvation than that which leads to salvation or if he would exclude from salvation on account of the decree of reprobation those who believe and repent from the heart, it might be said that he treated them with insincerity. But here there can be no hypocrisy either with respect to God (because he sincerely shows the only and infallible way to salvation, seriously exhorts them to follow it and promises most truly salvation to all those who will walk in it viz., to believers and penitents) or as to men (because the offer is not made to them absolutely, but under a condition which they voluntarily and by their own fault despise). 1:387.

XXX. Although God is said to will the salvation of all (1 Tim. 2:4) and not to delight in the death of the sinner (E:k. 18:23), it does not on that account follow that he has reprobated no one because the same Scripture elsewhere testifies that God does not have mercy upon some and ordains them to condemnation. It is one thing, therefore, to will the salvation of men by the will euarestius (i.e., to be pleased with it); another to will it by the will eudokias (i.e., to intend it). One thing to will the salvation of all indiscriminately; another to will the salvation of all and everyone universally. The latter is incompatible (asystaton) with reprobation, but not the former 1:389.

XXI… But here (as we said before), we do not treat only of the approving will (by which he holds the salvation of men dear), but of the decretive (by which he intended to send Christ into the world to acquire salvation for all if they would believe). According to this hypothesis, the decretive will is necessarily made void and frustrated. 1: 402

David: Turretin says over and over that God wills the salvation of all men. And he says this will is an expression of his approving will. And then he also says this approving will exhibits a "desire" on the part of God for the salvation of men. He even cites Dort to this end.

http://www.theologyonline.org/blog/?p=236

Bert:
Does God offer the salvation to all men, which offer is a well-meant offer to all:

We have extensively dealt with this issue in the Dutch portion of this forum. Will get back to this question in further detail, but my answer is, unequivocally, no. On the basis of Scripture and the Canons of Dordt, I reject any WMO.

The doctrine of the Offer is everywhere in Calvin, Turretin, Trelcatious, and many others, English and Continental from the 16thC and 17thCs.

Turretin:
VIII. There is no contradiction between the absolute decree of election (which relates to a few) and the revealed will (which offers salvation indiscriminately to all through faith in Christ). The offer of salvation (made through the gospel) is not made absolutely, but conditionally (under the condition of faith and repentance). Although these two things are diverse from each other (to offer salvation indiscriminately to all under the condition of faith and absolutely to decree salvation and faith to a few), yet they cannot be reckoned contradictory because they do not refer to the same thing and are not to be understood in the same respect. The one pertains to the revealed will of approbation, the other to the secret decretive will. 1:394.

Now, Bert, our conversation can only move along properly if you read and interact with what I have posted.

Take care,
David

[gallio]

.....

David: Well now there are two issues here, at least.

The one I am interested in is firstly the historical question. Historically, the Reformed have maintained that God loves ALL men, head for head, with a non-electing love. Thats the specific issue I would like to stay with. I have already cited Calvin, a' Brakel, Polanus, Turretin, which is a pretty impressive list.

In line with the historical question is this: did these men also believe that in some real sense God desires the salvation of all men, by will revealed. Again the answer is clearly yes. The PRC's claimants must face these facts.

Bert says:
Regarding the wicked God saith, through His servant: "Do I not hate them that hate Thee? I hate them with a perfect hatred, I count them my enemies." Just like God saith "Jacob have I loved, and Esau have I hated"

David: Bert, its called the negative inference fallacy. Let's assume Bert is married. Let's assume his wife's name is Joan. Bert says to Joan: "Joan, I have loved you since the day I met you..." Now lets assume Bert has a mother, named Harriet. Can Harriet infer that Bert does not love her? No.

In Reformed theology, hate and love are not mutually exclusive categories.

.........

Pretty far fetched, what you're stating here. Of course love and hate are mutually exclusive. Your statement contradicts all logical thought and in the process makes Romans 9:13 a completely meaningless verse. Also, the comparison of the love to a wife vs. the love to a mother is not valid. Such loves are not mutually exclusive.

[Flynn]

gallio schreef:

Pretty far fetched, what you're stating here. Of course love and hate are mutually exclusive. Your statement contradicts all logical thought and in the process makes Romans 9:13 a completely meaningless verse. Also, the comparison of the love to a wife vs. the love to a mother is not valid. Such loves are not mutually exclusive.

Hey there, you realise that that is not an argument.

Lets try again. The Trinity is seen by cultists as a contradiction: God is 1 and three.

But we know that a contradiction is only such if it is A and non-A in the same sense. God is 3 in one sense, and 1 in another sense.

So now love and hate. The negative inference fallacy asserts that one cannot infer a negation from a simple positive. "I love red smarties," cannot be taken to mean "I hate green smarties." Smarties are a type of sweet like M&Ms.

So we have this proposition: God loves and hates the same person in different senses. He loves them as they are creatures, hates them as they are sinners.

This is exactly what Calvin said. Take this for example:

Quote:

There seems to be an allusion in the word, hilasterion, as I have said, to the ancient propitiatory; for he teaches us that the same thing was really exhibited in Christ, which had been previously typified. As, however, the other view cannot be disproved, should any prefer it, I shall not undertake to decide the question. What Paul especially meant here is no doubt evident from his words; and it was this,—that God, without having regard to Christ, is always angry with us,— and that we are reconciled to him when we are accepted through his righteousness. God does not indeed hate in us his own workmanship, that is, as we are formed men; but he hates our uncleanness, which has extinguished the light of his image. When the washing of Christ cleanses this away, he then loves and embraces us as his own pure workmanship. Calvin Commentary 3:25

And the one I have already adduced:

But the Apostle seems here to be inconsistent with himself; for if the death of Christ was a pledge of the divine love towards us, it follows that we were already acceptable to him; but he says now, that we were enemies. To this answer, that as God hates sin, we are also hated by him his far as we are sinners; but as in his secret counsel he chooses us into the body of Christ, he ceases to hate us: but restoration to favor is unknown to us, until we attain it by faith. Hence with regard to us, we are always enemies, until the death of Christ interposes in order to propitiate God. And this twofold aspect of things ought to be noticed; for we do not know the gratuitous mercy of God otherwise than as it appears from this—that he spared not his only-begotten Son; for he loved us at a time when there was discord between him and us: nor can we sufficiently understand the benefit brought to us by the death of Christ, except this be the beginning of our reconciliation with God, that we are persuaded that it is by the expiation that has been made, that he, who was before justly angry with us, is now propitious to us. since then our reception into favor is ascribed to the death of Christ, the meaning is, that guilt is thereby taken away, to which we should be otherwise exposed. Calvin, Rom 5:10.

So back to Romans 9. We have two propositions: Jacob I loved, Esau I hated.

These are actually not mutual negations. Jacob is loved, is not saying Esau is not loved. Esau is hated, is not saying Esau is not loved. There are two simple statements, here, both are a simple positives. Now if Paul had said, God says: I ONLY love Jacob, and I ONLY hate Esau, that would prove your case. But we cant insert ideas into Scripture. Any "reasoning" we utilise has to be bounded by Sacred Scripture.

So now back to the history question, but bringing it to bear on this problem:

So like Kimedoncius said:

"It is also called Love, according to that Romans “9. Jacob I have loved, but Esau have I hated.” God surely loves all men. For he loves all things that be, and abhors nothing that he has made, and has mercy upon all, and spares all, as it is in II. of Wisdom. But there be degrees of love. For he loves some, as his creatures, others as members of his son, as Augustine at large shows. Tra. No. in Joh. And very fitly Thomas in the foresaid place, Art. 3. God loves all men, yea, all his creatures, as far forth as he wills any good to all. Yet he wills not every good thing to all. Therefore as much as to some men he wills not this good ting, which is eternal life, he is said to hate and reprobate them."

http://calvinandcalvinism.wordpress.com ... eral-love/

Kimedoncius was a colleague of Paraeus and Ursinus and the governor of the Heidelberg University around the 1590s. He was then a well-known Reformed theologian.

Turretin makes a similar reference to Esau in his Institutes:
Quote:

XVI. Second, not more happily is the love of God here distinguished into comparative and absolute. Is it maintained that Paul, when he speaks of the love of Jacob and the hatred of Esau, wishes only to intimate that God loved the former more and preferred him to the latter (just as the word meaning “to hate” is often put in the Scripture for “to love less,” Gen. 29:31). Although God may be said to have embraced some with a peculiar love (so as to give faith to them), it does not follow that he was unwilling to save others. For various degrees in the love of God towards men can be conceived no less than towards other creatures. We answer as follows: although we readily grant that sometimes hatred is put for a diminished love among men, yet we deny that with Paul God’s hatred towards Esau can be thus understood. It is opposed to his loved Jacob, which is said to be according to election (kat’ eklogen). Therefore this love necessarily includes the purpose of having mercy upon and saving Jacob; the hatred denies it and marks the purpose of reprobation by which he was freely passed over and excluded from salvation (so that thus far the Reformed theologians have uniformly held it) Nor if, in the effects of God’s general love and the common providence by which he is borne to all his creatures (according to the variety of subjects distinguished by a greater or less excellence of nature), there are degrees, does it forthwith follow that there are degrees affectively in God’s special and saving love. Since his love cannot be vain and inefficacious, those whom he loves unto salvation he ought to love fully and even unto the end (Jn. 13:1) Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, 1:400.

http://calvinandcalvinism.wordpress.com ... eral-love/

See how Turretin completely agrees with your reference to a mutually exclusive love? He is expressing the very same sentiment by saying that God's love of Jacob is not absolute.

You see, its not irrational. It would only be irrational if it was a loving and a hating the same person "in the same sense." Of by denying a universal negation, eg, if God had said, Jacob ONLY do I love, and then for me or anyone to assert that God does indeed love the non-jacobs of the world.

You might not be able to understand it, and that might be because you have already decided what is and is not theologically possible for God.

So I come back to this tradition:
Quote:

We now see what the Prophet means that God would, as it were, close his eyes, while the Assyrians wantonly laid waste the whole world: and when this tyranny should reach the holy land, what else could the faithful think but that they were forsaken by God? And there is nothing, as I have already said, more monstrous, than that iniquitous tyranny should thus prevail among men; for they have all, from the least to the greatest, been created after God's image. God then ought to exercise peculiar care in preserving mankind; his paternal love and solicitude ought in this respect to appear evident: but when men are thus destroyed with impunity, and one oppresses almost all the rest, there seems indeed to be no divine providence. For how will it be that he will care for either birds, or oxen, or asses, or trees, or plants, when he will thus forsake men, and bring no aid in so confused a state? We now understand the drift of what the Prophet says. Calvin, Hubakkuk 1:14

Thats the Calvinist tradition.

Hope that helps,
David

[Flynn]

These are actually not mutual negations. Jacob is loved, is not saying Esau is not loved. Esau is hated, is not saying Esau is not loved. There are two simple statements, here, both are a simple positives. Now if Paul had said, God says: I ONLY love Jacob, and I ONLY hate Esau, that would prove your case. But we cant insert ideas into Scripture. Any "reasoning" we utilise has to be bounded by Sacred Scripture.

I want to come back to this, as I should make this clearer.

Let me restate my words: Just because it says Jacob I loved, it does not mean, or preclude, that a non-Jacob could be loved in "any" sense.

So for example, I might say, "My mother I loved, my father I hated."

I can say this, even tho I really do love my father in some rightful sense.

Matthew 19:19 19 honor your father and mother,' and 'love your neighbor as yourself.'"

Obviously honor must include love. So I am to love my father and mother, in one sense.

Luke 14:26 "If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters-- yes, even his own life-- he cannot be my disciple.

Lets pick on the father.

So both proposistions are true, I can love my mother, and hate my father.

At no point is there a contradiction, a case of A and Non-A in the same sense.

And the other thing, the expression in Roms 9, is idiomatic, just like Jesus saying we must "hate our mother and our father...."

Hope that helps,
David

[Bert Mulder]

Esteemed Mr. David Flyn:

I am sorry I gave you a second chance. Your own citations, no your own words condemn you. Respectfully, seems as are speaking out of both sides of your mouth at the same time.

Have you ever considered a career in politics, seeming as you are a natural.

I cannot debate with this sort of mixed up logic, without very quickly this debate becoming very unedifying.

Good bye, Mr. Flyn, and may our good God grant you more grace, and open your blind eyes.

I will leave you with a citation of our Lord's words:

14And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias, which saith, By hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not perceive:

Hope sincerely that this was not said concerning you. And by the way, that text itself condemns any wellmeant offer. The Word of the Lord is a two edged sword.

Soli Deo Gloria

[Flynn]

Hey Bert,

Do you always engage in ad hominem remarks when unable to engage and process an opponent's argument?

Its completely fine with me if you choose not interact with the historical documentation. That documentation does not need me to feel good about myself for it to be able to communicate its own truth. Dont get me wrong, I am not bent out of shape or anything. I more than enough understand the inability to respond to the historical data.

The evidence stands unchallenged.

Have a good day,
David

[Polemicus]

Hey Bert,

Do you always engage in ad hominem remarks when unable to engage and process an opponent's argument?

Its completely fine with me if you choose not interact with the historical documentation. That documentation does not need me to feel good about myself for it to be able to communicate its own truth. Dont get me wrong, I am not bent out of shape or anything. I more than enough understand the inability to respond to the historical data.

The evidence stands unchallenged.

Have a good day,
David

Dear mr. Flynn, don't be upset by Bert's responses. That's the way he reacts, when someone forces him to argue. He only can stick to his own preoccupations and wants to elaborate on his own prejudice.

If he cannot triumph, when time and again his thoughts are proofed to be false, he starts to bring the person in disgrace, as if he has blind eyes of the soul and is a heretic. This way is a characteristic for people who confess that their thoughts are by nature darkened, but show that they by heart believe to be exclusively correct and that all the rest is stupid and blinded.

With respect to the way you argue.

Polemicus.

[jvdg]

Hey Bert,

Do you always engage in ad hominem remarks when unable to engage and process an opponent's argument?

Its completely fine with me if you choose not interact with the historical documentation. That documentation does not need me to feel good about myself for it to be able to communicate its own truth. Dont get me wrong, I am not bent out of shape or anything. I more than enough understand the inability to respond to the historical data.

The evidence stands unchallenged.

Have a good day,
David

Dear mr. Flynn, don't be upset by Bert's responses. That's the way he reacts, when someone forces him to argue. He only can stick to his own preoccupations and wants to elaborate on his own prejudice.

If he cannot triumph, when time and again his thoughts are proofed to be false, he starts to bring the person in disgrace, as if he has blind eyes of the soul and is a heretic. This way is a characteristic for people who confess that their thoughts are by nature darkened, but show that they by heart believe to be exclusively correct and that all the rest is stupid and blinded.

With respect to the way you argue.

Polemicus.

Polemicus, I have to warn you about this very negative response about Bert.
Your reaction is just that what you declares Bert to be guilty of.