Psalm 92:6–7 on why God causes the wicked to flourish.

Take note of what the Psalmist calls those who do not understand or accept this teaching. What room is there for those who insist on the so-called doctrine of ‘common grace’, which claims that God’s purpose for sending sun and rain is to bless its recipient? As clarified by the Psalmist here, the reason God prospers the wicked is to destroy them—reprobation.

6 The brutish man does not know,
and the fool cannot understand this.
7 When the wicked flourish like grass
and all the workers of evil blossom,
it is so they can be destroyed forever.
Psalm 92:6–7 (Lexham English Bible)

7 (6) Stupid people can’t know,
fools don’t understand,
8 (7) that when the wicked sprout like grass,
and all who do evil prosper,
it is so that they can be eternally destroyed,
Psalm 92:6–7 (Complete Jewish Bible)

7 ἀνὴρ ἄφρων οὐ γνώσεται, καὶ ἀσύνετος οὐ συνήσει ταῦτα. 8 ἐν τῷ ἀνατεῖλαι τοὺς ἁμαρτωλοὺς ὡς χόρτον καὶ διέκυψαν πάντες οἱ ἐργαζόμενοι τὴν ἀνομίαν, ὅπως ἂν ἐξολεθρευθῶσιν εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα τοῦ αἰῶνος.
Psalm 91:7–8 (LXX) [Corresponds with Psalm 92:6–7 in English Bibles)

Unfortunately, this emphasis of purpose is lost in many other English translations. The Septuagint uses the word ὅπως (hopos: meaning: that/ in order that/so that.) For further reading, refer to this article on Psalms 73 where the Psalmist explain that the purpose of the prosperity of the wicked is to set them on slippery places, and to cause them to fall into ruin.

Is there such a thing as common grace?

An excerpt from Vincent Cheung’s Grace for his own. For further reading, see: http://www.vincentcheung.com/2010/10/16/grace-for-his-own/

When a non-Christian rescues a drowning man, it appears that he performs a good work. And when a non-Christian could rob a bank but does not, he appears to abide by the law and contributes to order in society. Thus it is said that God extends a kind of “grace” that is common to all, that restrains sin in the non-Christians and enables them to perform natural righteousness, although not spiritual good. This is a naïve conclusion. Oh, theologians, are you all but stupid children?

Paul wrote that when those who do not acknowledge God’s law nevertheless attempt to live by a moral standard, they betray an awareness of good and evil, although their standard is not accurate. And when they fail to live up to even their own standard of good and evil, they show themselves to be sinners, and worthy of death. What we are talking about is a manifestation of Paul’s teaching. It is an exercise that exponentially increases God’s wrath against the non-Christians. They show that they are aware of such a thing as good and such a thing as evil, but at the same time they refuse to accept God’s definition of what is good and what is evil, and they fail to live up to even their own false moral standard.

God is certainly the one who decrees and causes non-Christian works, order in society, and the restraint of sin, but he also certainly knows that this results in an increase of condemnation, and has designed it this way…

What happened? Theologians practice lazy humility by calling attention to their finite minds. In this case, and this is a charitable interpretation (we will say more about this in a moment), their minds are so finite that they focus only on the man’s perspective in receiving a million dollars. So they say it looks very good. But the whole thing, including the initial donation, is designed to bring the man to utter ruin. What if I give a hungry man a poisonous roast chicken? It takes care of his hunger, but then it kills him, and I know this would happen and intend for it to happen. Is this grace? It could be called charity only from the hungry man’s ignorant perspective, and only for a few minutes before the chicken melts his stomach and kills him. Is it not more proper to include my knowledge and intention in deciding what to call the scenario?

When it comes to theology, theologians take the wicked man’s perspective and ignore everything else…

If we are asking whether something is God’s grace, then we must answer it from God’s perspective – what does he intend? Of course, as we will soon consider, God may intend more than one thing when he does something. The same thing can be good for one and bad for another. Right now we are asking what he intends relative to the non-Christians. And we must answer that it is not grace, but a most deliberate, prolonged, and frightening display of wrath, only in preparation for an even more intense and permanent punishment…

Now the rest should become even more straightforward. God gives food and water, prosperity, and long life to the wicked. Food and water should remind all men of the God of creation and providence, and stimulate praise and thanksgiving…

But it is not grace if God deliberately sends them to non-Christians, knowing and intending that every drop of water they drink would become another nail in their spiritual coffins…

As for prosperity and long life, Psalm 73 states that God sends these things to the wicked in order to slip them up, and so that they would be destroyed. It can be called “grace” only from the wicked man’s false and ignorant perspective, who for now enjoys all these things and is unaware of why they come to him. For a reprobate person, long life does not mean more time to repent, since God has determined that he will never repent; rather, it means more time to sin, and to increase the measure of divine judgment against him. God knows that this is what happens with each additional moment of life that he gives a reprobate person, and there is no disparity between what God knows and what God intends. Therefore, because he knows that each natural benefit increases the reprobate’s condemnation, he also intends it, and if he intends it, it is not grace in any sense of the term. If God does something with the intention to condemn, then by definition, it is not done out of grace…

Should a major doctrine be invented, defined, and formulated chiefly, if not solely, from the perspective of wicked men, rather than from the perspective of God and eternity?…

Their doctrine, in fact, alleges that God shows a truly favorable disposition toward the reprobates, although not in a sense that produces salvation or any spiritual good in them. However, the Bible teaches that God knows all things and wills all things. This means that he always knows and intends the final effects of this natural benevolence, that it would stimulate thanksgiving in the elect, but increase condemnation in the reprobates.

So the theologians must either deny that God knows and wills all things, or they must assume that God is schizophrenic…

 It is better just to renounce the false doctrine…

The true answer is that the good news is considered so only from the perspective of God and his people. It is certainly not good news to Satan. And it is very bad news for the reprobates. Paul wrote that the gospel is a stench of death to some people (2 Corinthians 2:16). A stench of death, in case anyone wonders, is not good news. But to those who would believe, it is a fragrance of life…

 

1 Timothy 4:10 — Does God desire the salvation of all men?

Does God desire the salvation of all men?

1 Timothy 4:10
“For it is for this we labor and strive, because we have fixed our hope on the living God, who is the Savior of all men, especially of believers.”

This verse is a favorite among those who wish to promote the idea of an unlimited or universal atonement. However, closer examination will reveal the folly of such an understanding. Arminians and Amyraldians alike claim that 1 Tim 4:10 is evidence that God desires the salvation of all men. Is this really the case?
Read 1 Timothy 4:10 again carefully.

1. First, let us note what this verse does not say.

It does not say that God is the means of salvation, nor does it say that God is the potential savior of all men. It does not even say that God desires to save all men. 

Rather, it says that God is the savior of all men.

This is further than what the Arminian/Amyraldian would allow. In other words, even if we interpret this verse to mean that God is the “savior of all men” as the Arminian claims, we would still end up refuting the Arminian position. One would ends up with the heresy of universalism.

2. Now that it has been established that this verse does nothing to help the Arminian cause, the next question we will deal with is, “How does the Calvinist explain this verse”.

The solution is easy. Let us look at the Greek language. The word translated in the verse as “Savior”, is “soter” in Greek. Soter can mean savior, but it can also be translated as “Preserver”. Prof. Herman Hanko explains that Christ preserves all men, especially the elect. In the context of the passage, Paul is calling to attention the reason why he is not troubled by reproach he is facing. The reason is that God has his purpose in preserving every man.

Prof. Herman Hanko writes,
“Whether he be elect or reprobate, he is created by God to serve God’s sovereign purpose in history. By his providence, God preserves righteous and wicked alike. The wicked too exist by the word of God, the same word that sustains the entire creation. (See for this use, Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, 612. Thayer, in fact, claims that “preserver” is its original meaning. Hermann Cremer, Biblico-Theological Lexicon of New Testament Greek (Edinburgh: T & T. Clark, 1895) 534). Part of that purpose God has in preserving wicked men is that they persecute the righteous. Persecution also comes through wicked men by the will of God. And persecution is the means God uses to sanctify his people. Peter reminds us that persecution is a fiery trial in which the faith of God’s people is tried as gold is tried in the fire, that it might be to the praise and glory of God (I Peter 1:7). ” Prof. Herman Hanko’s blog here.

There is nothing in 1 Tim 4:10 that teaches a universal love or desire for reprobates. Rather, it seems that only the Calvinist can make sense of this verse. The Arminian, in rejecting the translation of soter as “perserver” and insisting in “savior of all men”, ends up shooting himself in the feet and ends up with universalism – a position clearly condemned in other parts of the bible.

In Summary:
1 Tim 4:10 does not say that God desires the salvation of all men (contrary to those who hold to a well meant offer). Rather, it says that God is the savior of all men. The word “Savior”, or “soter” in the Greek, can also mean “preserver”.
“For it is for this we labor and strive, because we have fixed our hope on the living God, who is the preserver of all men, especially of believers.” — 1 Tim 4:10

Christ preserves all men, especially the elect!