Gary North denies Murray’s conclusions as they are articulated by Cornelius Van Til in his “book,” Common Grace and the Gospel. North gets points for actually reproducing all the verses in question (unlike Engelsma), however, he does not, in my opinion, give us any exegetical reason to deny that God loves the evil on whom he causes the sun to shine and the rain to fall. Instead, he invokes Romans 12.20:

Why are we to be kind to our enemies? First, because God instructs us to be kind. He is graciously kind to them, and we are to imitate Him. Second, by showing mercy, we thereby heap coals of fire on their rebellious heads. From him to whom much is given, much will be required (Luke 12.47-48). Our enemy will receive greater punishment through all eternity because we have been merciful to him. Third, we are promised a reward from God for being obedient to His commands. The language could not be any plainer. Any discussion of common grace which omits Proverbs 25.21-22 (Romans 12.20) from consideration is a misleading and incomplete discussion of the topic.[Dominion & Common Grace: The Biblical Basis of Progress (Tyler, TX: ICE, 1987), p. 27.]

North argues that, “The wrath of God abides on the unbeliever in the present. But as we shall see, this wrath takes the form of favors (not favor) shown to the unbeliever in history.” Because God plans for the reprobate to be punished more severely for not responding correctly to these “favors” which He gives them, His motive for giving these “favors” cannot be accurately described as gracious. God is contributing to the severity of the punishment of the reprobate. To quote North’s own memorable formulation: “God gives ethical rebels enough rope to hang themselves for all eternity.”

The Case for Common Grace. Murray, however, has a reply for the objection of North and others. He is well aware of the implications of the doctrine of predestination, particularly reprobation. He writes, “It is without question true that good gifts abused will mean greater condemnation for the finally impenitent,” and even quotes North’s prooftext, Luke 12.48. But Murray’s vision penetrates beyond this seeming incompatibility to see how reprobation is not antithetical to God’s grace but requires it:

In fact, it is just because they are good gifts and manifestations of the kindness and mercy of God that the abuse of them brings greater condemnation and demonstrates the greater inexcusability of impenitence. Ultimate condemnation, so far from making void the reality of the grace bestowed in time, rather in this case rests upon the reality of the grace bestowed and enjoyed. It will be more tolerable for Sodom and Gomorrah in the day of judgment than for Capernaum. But the reason is that Capernaum was privileged to witness the mighty works of Christ as the supreme exhibitions of the love, goodness and power of God.

To use Gary North’s terminology: God does give the reprobate “enough rope to hang themselves,” but if that “rope” isn’t truly grace then it isn’t truly “rope.” If North is right, then on Judgment Day the reprobate can plead “not guilty” to the charge of spurning the grace of God.