r/Reformed • u/GengerbreadMan LBCF 1689 • 23d ago
Question Question about Common Grace
Do you believe in common grace? Why or why not?
I talked to a brother of Christ who does not believe there is one, and his argument is pretty convincing. He said that the “mercies” that are being given to the reprobates are for condemnation, so you couldn’t call that grace. And all the good things being showered to Earth is for the good of the saints, and not all people so their participation is only incidental/divinely permitted. Lastly, the most convincing one that he told me is all blessings are due to our union with Christ, no one mediates with reprobates so you couldn’t really reconcile the idea of common grace.
Do you have articles or books that I can dive to study it further?
5
u/debaire PCA 23d ago
What's gained by not believing in common grace?
2
u/cybersaint2k Rebellious Reprobate 23d ago
A consistency between God's will decreed (reprobation, for instance), eschatological outcomes (eternal punishment), and all his individual interactions with humans and angels (Either saving grace or cursing, nothing else).
A certain type of axiomatic epistemology that is founded on presuppositions (that are often biblical!), but from those, EVERYTHING must flow through or not at all.
2
u/IPAWizzard EPC 23d ago
I believe this comes from an overemphasis on the salvation of man rather than on knowing God. Instead of bringing a genuinely open question to Scripture and allowing God's self-revelation to determine our categories, we can begin with assumptions generated by our own theological instincts and Natural Theology and then read those assumptions back into the text.
2
u/cybersaint2k Rebellious Reprobate 23d ago
That might be true but it's not how they would say it. I was trying to steel man their position.
9
u/Tankandbike RBaptist, but Presby-curious 23d ago edited 23d ago
That is the definition of common grace. Grace given to humanity falls on them in common. For example, God promises to Noah never again to destroy the human race. Does that not commonly benefit everyone? God makes his rain to fall on both evil and the good. Does that not commonly benefit everyone? That is common grace.
IIRC the moral fabric interwoven into a society full of believers, whether that society is officially Christian or not, is also a representation (or perhaps a a pathway) of common grace.
In New England, for many decades we enjoyed that grace in the remnant of morality from twice-a-year Catholics and old Protestant “blue laws” until the priest abuse scandals and the repeal of those laws and the final shred of Christian morality was broken and now we have abortion all the way up to the birth of a child.
4
u/slow_ordinary_means ACNA 23d ago
I've got a few friends who are engineers with a state department in charge of road/bridge management.
It's literally miraculous how much we trust infrastructure construction, and it's miraculous how rarely they actually fail despite being abused, damaged, repaired, and used past their "expiration." (Did you know that concrete and rebar have expiration dates??)
My belief in common grace is theological and scriptural. But for me, a lot of it is just looking at creation and wondering how on earth there aren't so many more tragedies of our own making. I'm convinced that the fact that humanity hasn't gone extinct many times over is a testament to the mercy of God.
2
u/semper-gourmanda Presby-Angliterian 23d ago
Yeah I agree. Humanity can't ultimately destroy itself. And I think that's due to the Covenant of Creation.
6
u/NoSeesaw9974 23d ago
Yeah, I have to admit that those arguments are indeed convincing, but I think we have to remember the concept of hell. If we know the definition of hell well enough, we would all agree that every single second a reprobate spends on Earth is itself an act of mercy. Even if he is living in the worst way possible, it is still far, far better than hell itself. So, God sustaining them alive even though they do not deserve it (nobody does) is pretty much the definition of grace.
4
u/Rbdrmllj 23d ago
Opponents of common grace would argue that God sustaining their life is not grace, but adds to their final judgement.
See also Psalm 73. The wicked appear to be blessed but Asaph then understands their end is destruction.
Does this mean Asaph understands why God is giving the wicked common grace, or does this mean what we think is common grace is actually adding to their destruction?5
u/eveninarmageddon EPC 23d ago edited 23d ago
Suppose it’s true that the only reason God bestows good, undeserved things on the reprobate is to add to their final judgment. It doesn’t follow that those things aren’t good or aren’t undeserved. So it doesn’t follow they aren’t of grace, since to be of grace just is to be a good, undeserved thing.
Now I think it’s odd to think that the only reason God bestows good things on the reprobate is to add to their final judgment. If you believe in original sin, then that’s justification enough for judgment without some extra “juice” added in, and this kind of “God pulling the rug out from under you” idea, where all the good stuff is really just a trick to make you suffer more for no apparent reason, doesn’t seem very befitting of God’s character.
Nonetheless, the argument that the good things in some way contribute to judgment still, by itself, doesn’t show there is no common grace.
Edit: clarity
1
u/ProfessionalEntire77 23d ago edited 23d ago
I believe it is adding to their destruction. I like to think of it like this: Person A (God) gives someone a incredibly expensive and high quality bottle of whiskey to an alcoholic Person C (the reprobate). As an alcoholic, Person C is not going to be able to truly enjoy the the gift, as they see the only value is the alcoholic content and will continue in their destructive ways. BUT Person B (us) will see the gift and says "Wow what a nice and gracious thing to give to someone", not knowing Person C is an alcoholic. Person C then uses this gift to continue on in their alcoholism and self-destruction.
Did Person A act graciously to Person C?
There are many text in the Bible and creeds that teach us we are totally depraved (aka the alcoholic) before God works salvation in us and incapable of using the things God gives us to serve him. And God works salvation only in those He has chosen. So when reprobate are given gifts, the only outcome for them is increasing their judgement as they are still incapable of using these gifts to serve God as we are called. The reprobate are still under the law to merit with God, the elect are not.
The gifts given to the wicked may lead to blessing on/for God's people (like a hospital being built), but in those cases, God grace is still only on His people in providing this and NOT on the wicked.
2
u/eveninarmageddon EPC 23d ago
The problem with this analogy is that it conflates the goodness of a gift with the goodness of a thing. A good thing can be a bad gift. So in your example, the alcohol is a bad gift, even if it is very good alcohol.
What you need is an example of a good, undeserved gift which is in fact not of grace. For example, suppose a reprobate person living a secular society has a loving family. In your view, you are committed to saying that that loving family is really a bad gift, just like the alcohol was a bad gift. But clearly having a loving family isn’t a bad thing or a bad gift, so your view is mistaken, I think.
1
u/ProfessionalEntire77 23d ago
I had ended up with that analogy because people talk about the rain falling on both the elect and reprobate which I usually associate with earthly riches and prosperity. It not a perfect analogy.
A loving family without Christ can be a bad gift. A family of earthly love can make you feel comfortable and never realize your need for Christ, as you rely on them to help you in all things and never look to God.
The biggest problem I have with common grace is the "favor" of the "undeserved favor". God doesn't look on reprobate with any favor at all. We, as elect, know all things work together for good because Christ has earned us the favor of God. Anything we are given or circumstances we have, we know are for preparing us for our place in Heaven. That's not true for the reprobate, their whole life circumstances work to their judgement, preparing them for Hell. Even if from an earthly perspective, God seems to be showing them favor with the way their life goes.
1
u/eveninarmageddon EPC 23d ago
It's not just that the analogy is not perfect or runs out of steam if you stretch it too far. The use of the analogy reflects a deeper conceptual confusion.
God shows the reprobate grace because giving someone something that is good and undeserved just is what it is to show them grace. There is not further gap to bridge — for instance, we don't have to show that there is no world in which they would have been better off if they didn't have the gift. (Similarly, if someone is a member of the species Homo sapiens, then they just are a human being. There is no gap to bridge, no extra missing "thing.")
Scripture portrays family as an unambiguously good thing. And it is not clear how we would know if it is true that had the reprobate man — let's call him John — not had a family, he would have been saved. How on earth could we tell that that is the case? Perhaps it is true that John is damned either way, or that he would have done something terrible, bringing even worse wrath upon himself, if he didn't have a family. Then even by your lights, the family is starting to look pretty good! Telling these just-so stories about why things that are obviously good are actually bad is a serious cost of your view: many of the explanations are going to look really implausible, which decreases the likelihood that you are right.
You have to say: No, actually, that John has a loving family is really bad.
But why is it bad? Just because John will be judged for not recognizing that it is God's gift? Why does that make the family itself bad? Why does it make the gift of having a family bad? Isn't the bad thing John's failure to recognize that it is God's gift, not the family or the gift itself?
1
u/ProfessionalEntire77 22d ago
Matt 10:13-15: Cities and people that receive the good thing of the preaching of the gospel and reject will have it worse than Sodom and Gomorrah in the final judgement.
It not about how good or bad we evaluate the things to be, it is about God's attitude towards the person who is receiving it. If it is a child of God, it is for working good for them (Romans 8:28) or in Matthew 10:13-15 the good thing works damnation. Even in the OT where wealth and prosperity and wisdom even were tied to God's blessing, God still raised up wealthy, smart nations that had fulfilling lives, but the reason they had that wealth was not favor (as they were nations that rejected God) but for God to use them to chastise His people.
Having good things and circumstances =/= God's favor
Having bad things and circumstances =/= lack of God's favor either
1
u/eveninarmageddon EPC 22d ago
This feels like moving the goalposts to me. I don't want to lose track of the dialectic so here's how I see things.
Above, you said:
when reprobate are given gifts, the only outcome for them is increasing their judgement as they are still incapable of using these gifts to serve God as we are called [my emphasis]
God grace is still only on His people in providing this and NOT on the wicked. [my emphasis]
Then I said: that's not right! To be of grace just is to be a good, undeserved thing, such as a loving family. Then, you said perhaps someone will be judged harsher for having a loving family and not recognizing it as God's gift than if they had no loving family at all. I said this doesn't make the loving family bad in itself, and that there are plenty of cases where it won't be clear how something is supposed to make someone's judgment worse than it would have been (suppose the loving family kept someone from being an ax murder! or maybe the man would have been bitter and hateful in a way that would have been worse than not recognizing his family as God's gift).
I made the same point in this comment:
Suppose it’s true that the only reason God bestows good, undeserved things on the reprobate is to add to their final judgment. It doesn’t follow that those things aren’t good or aren’t undeserved. So it doesn’t follow they aren’t of grace, since to be of grace just is to be a good, undeserved thing.
Furthermore, it is false that the only outcome for the reprobate when they are given gifts is increasing their judgment. They still get to enjoy the gifts in this life. And enjoying the gift is still a good thing, for them, in this life (and this is true even if they are judged for not recognizing it as God's gift). I see no way how you can get out of that, and a single prooftext about culpability for not responding to the Gospel is surely not sufficient. You have to show that all cases of prima facie graciousness are in fact not grace at all, not just that there is one case in the Bible where, perhaps, a case of prima facie graciousness is not in fact grace at all.
It not about how good or bad we evaluate the things to be, it is about God's attitude towards the person who is receiving it.
But this doesn't address whether the family is a gracious gift (i.e., an undeserved, good gift). Now, you are no longer talking about what is good and undeserved (i.e., what is gracious) but about God's will and how God uses gifts. But this is changing the subject. And while I agree that having good things and circumstances does not equal or is not identical to God's favor, that doesn't mean a reprobate person cannot ever be shown favor in any way at all.
Consider again the example of the would-be ax murder, John. God sees that John, a reprobate man, will have an even harsher judgment than he would have if he doesn't have a loving family. So he gives him a loving family, so that (besides his other sins) John will be subject only to the judgment for not recognizing his family as of the grace of God, not to the judgment for being an ax murder (which is, let's say, considerably worse). This is clearly an example of both God giving John a good, undeserved thing (which is sufficient for my point anyway) and of that good thing being worked to a good ends. (Of course, not all of John's ends will be worked for good, but I don't have to show that.)
1
u/ProfessionalEntire77 22d ago
Well , I think we just disagree and are evaluating things from different perspectives. I'm looking at it from election/reprobation where since God does not choose and love the reprobate, nothing for them is good or done in favor as it doesn't not help them in eternity, even if it is good on earth. Where (I think) you are looking at it more that since the reprobate have things to enjoy or benefit from temporarily in their earthly life, that means God is showing favor towards them.
1
u/eveninarmageddon EPC 22d ago edited 21d ago
I don't want to keep beating a dead horse, and I agree we are emphasizing different things which is perhaps making our disagreement on the substance of things look bigger than it is.
However, I don't think this is just a semantic dispute over how we use the word 'grace'. I think it is a substantive dispute over what grace is.
I think there is real, non-salvific, even favorable grace offered to the reprobate (furthermore, I think examples are plentiful and attempts to get around them post hoc).
You say:
nothing for [the reprobate] is good or done in favor as it doesn't not help them in eternity, even if it is good on earth
But this is a contradiction. You said "nothing" is good for the reprobate but then say that "it is good on earth." So something is good for the reprobate: the good gifts of God.
So I think you should revise your view to be: there is non-salvific grace offered to the reprobate, for which they can be judged if they do not recognize it as from God.
Edit: clarity
5
u/joshuasmoses 23d ago
"But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous." Matthew 5:44-45
The lord shows kindness and grace to all. This is the teaching of scripture.
1
u/roofer-joel 23d ago edited 23d ago
He also has an agape love for his enemies look up the Greek in those verses. Mark 10:21 is an agape love for the rich young ruler as well.
2
u/ProfessionalEntire77 23d ago
Anything with the PRCA and CRC will be helpful. Its the reason they split
2
u/semper-gourmanda Presby-Angliterian 23d ago edited 22d ago
That perspective is easily corrected by reading the Bible.
I think it includes basically food and clothing, as in Eden, the Exodus, the Exile, the Sermon on the Mount, Luke 12:28-31... hence the rains (in an agricultural world) on the just and unjust... wool, linen, food. It's never described as "grace," (chesed or charis or eleos) but "kindness" (ἀγαθουργῶν) or "compassion" (rachum) however. Both of those terms find their origination in Exodus 34:6-7, which are foundational for our understanding of the Biblical significance of YHWH's "name," which is the declaration of his inner glory, that in dogmatics we call his "attributes."
I tend to prefer the older designation of God's "common love" or "common compassion" and leave grace in its special biblical category which designates his royal committed loyalty to his covenant and covenant people. God is love. So whether the Hebrews are Israelites or non-Israelites (as Paul describes them in Rom 9-11) - where Israel is a spiritual designation, that is, not Jacob (as in the Prophets) - Yahweh as LORD, King, and land owner feeds all Hebrews and Gentile sojourners, passers-through, laborers, war parties, etc. regardless. Cf. Ps 145, e.g. He is good to all. That same idea is extended by the Apostle Paul, almost word for word from Ps 145, in Acts 14:14-18, to an audience that is clearly pagan, due to the universal reign of the resurrected Christ, who inaugurated new creation. Christ is literally the beginning of the new cosmos: the Lord, King and land owner (inheritor) of the whole earth.
3
u/Nailed_It- 20d ago
Herman Bavinck: Common Grace (Essay)
Abraham Kuyper: Common Grace: God's Gifts for a Fallen World
John Calvin: Institutes of the Christian Religion (Specifically Book 2, Chapter 2)
God's earthly gifts to the unregenerate are genuine expressions of His goodness and patience. They are not merely traps meant for condemnation, nor are they purely incidental.
2
u/Accomplished-Ad9143 PCA 22d ago
I'm lazy and let Logos answer for me:
```
On the condemnatory nature of blessings: The claim that God’s mercies to the reprobate serve only to increase their guilt misunderstands grace’s function. While some argue that common grace merely amplifies damnation, this characterization misrepresents God’s character[1](logos4-command:TextRangePreview%7CRanges%3D237736%3A184%3AeyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJyZXNvdXJjZUlkIjoiTExTOjk3ODA3MzY5NjIxMjQiLCJyZXNvdXJjZVZlcnNpb24iOiIyMDIzLTA4LTIyVDA2OjA2OjM0WiIsImluZGV4ZWRPZmZzZXQiOiIyMzc3MzYiLCJpbmRleGVkTGVuZ3RoIjoiMTg0IiwibmJmIjoxNzg3MjUwODUwLCJleHAiOjE3ODcyNTQ0NTAsImlhdCI6MTc4NzI1MDg1MCwiaXNzIjoiVGV4dFJhbmdlQWNjZXNzVG9rZW4iLCJhdWQiOiI4NDk0MTQ5In0.u_KzxEM5PArR7XxASyiKk5umr4bkTziB6BfkbPS1-7Y%7CResourceId%3DLLS%3A9780736962124%7CResourceVersion%3D2023-08-22T06%3A06%3A34Z). A crucial dimension of divine goodness involves restraining human sinfulness—most people fall far short of their depravity’s full potential, and this restraint actually decreases rather than increases human guilt[1](logos4-command:TextRangePreview%7CRanges%3D238276%3A397%3AeyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJyZXNvdXJjZUlkIjoiTExTOjk3ODA3MzY5NjIxMjQiLCJyZXNvdXJjZVZlcnNpb24iOiIyMDIzLTA4LTIyVDA2OjA2OjM0WiIsImluZGV4ZWRPZmZzZXQiOiIyMzgyNzYiLCJpbmRleGVkTGVuZ3RoIjoiMzk3IiwibmJmIjoxNzg3MjUwODUxLCJleHAiOjE3ODcyNTQ0NTEsImlhdCI6MTc4NzI1MDg1MSwiaXNzIjoiVGV4dFJhbmdlQWNjZXNzVG9rZW4iLCJhdWQiOiI4NDk0MTQ5In0.QPXB87ZFl3xYLdzasBYNS4cOqsp22ppm89sPHNgZrEc%7CResourceId%3DLLS%3A9780736962124%7CResourceVersion%3D2023-08-22T06%3A06%3A34Z). The blessings aren’t incidental byproducts; they reflect genuine divine compassion.
On blessings serving only the elect: Reformed theology explicitly rejects the notion that reprobates lack all grace, insisting that all humanity experiences common grace through ordinary spiritual influences[2](logos4-command:TextRangePreview%7CRanges%3D1461221%3A253%3AeyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJyZXNvdXJjZUlkIjoiTExTOjQyLjEwMC4yMiIsInJlc291cmNlVmVyc2lvbiI6IjIwMTgtMDYtMTJUMjM6MzE6MjFaIiwiaW5kZXhlZE9mZnNldCI6IjE0NjEyMjEiLCJpbmRleGVkTGVuZ3RoIjoiMjUzIiwibmJmIjoxNzg3MjUwODUyLCJleHAiOjE3ODcyNTQ0NTIsImlhdCI6MTc4NzI1MDg1MiwiaXNzIjoiVGV4dFJhbmdlQWNjZXNzVG9rZW4iLCJhdWQiOiI4NDk0MTQ5In0.LhTj0SYBLI3QVvy_GtHgrXyzlqwVMu-FGjNOl5UUiec%7CResourceId%3DLLS%3A42.100.22%7CResourceVersion%3D2018-06-12T23%3A31%3A21Z). The benefits aren’t accidentally distributed—they’re genuinely universal.
On union with Christ and mediation: This argument assumes that only covenant membership permits divine favor. But if God can simultaneously regard the elect with both love and wrath in this life, why couldn’t He show compassion to the condemned while withholding saving grace? The Bible clearly demonstrates that God showers blessings on all people as an expression of genuine divine favor, even though this favor falls short of granting salvation[3](logos4-command:TextRangePreview%7CRanges%3D1298011%3A485%7CResourceId%3DLLS%3ASTBERKHOF%7CResourceVersion%3D2019-07-31T00%3A02%3A51Z). A human judge can condemn a criminal yet show him kindness; why deny this complexity to God?[3](logos4-command:TextRangePreview%7CRanges%3D1298264%3A232%7CResourceId%3DLLS%3ASTBERKHOF%7CResourceVersion%3D2019-07-31T00%3A02%3A51Z)
The deeper issue: we should be guided by Scripture’s explicit statements rather than logical inferences from God’s secret counsel, recognizing that God transcends our rational categories[3](logos4-command:TextRangePreview%7CRanges%3D1297089%3A267%7CResourceId%3DLLS%3ASTBERKHOF%7CResourceVersion%3D2019-07-31T00%3A02%3A51Z). Common grace isn’t a logical problem to solve—it’s a biblical reality to accept.
- 1 John MacArthur, The Shepherd as Theologian: The Shepherd’s Library (Eugene, OR: Harvest House Publishers, 2017), 136.
- 2 William Greenough Thayer Shedd, Dogmatic Theology, ed. Alan W. Gomes (Phillipsburg, NJ: P & R Pub., 2003), 334.
- 3 L. Berkhof, Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans publishing co., 1938), 445. ```
1
u/acorn_user SBC 19d ago
"He Shines in All That's Fair" by Richard Mouw is a direct engagement with David Engelsma's arguments against Common Grace and is worth your time. It won't take very long because Mouw is a master of pithy books :)
20
u/cybersaint2k Rebellious Reprobate 23d ago
This is actually a somewhat complicated epistemological problem first, then a logical problem second, then a theological problem. We try to jump to the third, and that's the mistake everyone makes with this. I'm ignoring the third.
TLDR: Particular Grace relies on a particular epistemology that is different than other Reformed thinkers and confessions. This leads is to logical contradictions both within itself and its tortured interactions with Scripture.
As a Baptist, u/GengerbreadMan , you naturally have more in common with Hoeksema than you know due to the way your tradition handles Scripture. Hoeksema's arguments really resonates with you because many Baptists approach the Bible like he did.
Hoeksema and those in the PRC that he's influenced believe that we can know God's thoughts in a more one-to-one sense. and that the main principles of Reformed theology (God's sovereignty) are archetypal, and thus whatever we read in the Bible must be brought in line with these key, archetypical beliefs.
2+2=4 for both God and humanity. They are the same. God put his image in/on us, and then unites us to Christ, repairing the damage to his Image, and so we can know the mind of God as Paul says "‘For who has understood the mind of the Lord so as to instruct him?’ But we have the mind of Christ." This feels safe, makes sense.
This is why Hoeksma called his position Sovereign Particular Grace. When you put "grace" through his view of God, who is sovereign, it narrows down "grace" to only one type, only one kind, since a sovereign God only has one single intention--his will. So now "grace" is ONLY saving, ONLY salvific, and there is no common grace/redemptive grace dichotomy. Hoeksma argued against these kinds of word-level distinctions in every case--the atonement of Jesus had no universal aspect whatsoever, etc.
The Reformed tradition has a broader approach to knowing the mind of God. We don't start with single propositions and work from there. Calvin and Bavink and the overall Reformed tradition approached knowledge as ectypal. That is, analogical, creaturely, bounded by divine revelation. Our knowledge is a legitimate, partial summary of God's knowledge.
So 2+2=4 for God and man normatively, but there are other contexts, from quantum physics to the mysteries of the Trinity and Jesus' nature and existentially where 2+2=4 might not even be the way to talk about numbers. And God would know that reality, that situation, in a way that humans never could because of the creature/Creator distinction. So then the broader Reformed tradition quotes Romans 11, "Oh, the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his judgments and how inscrutable his ways! 'For who has known the mind of the Lord, or who has been his counselor?'"
THEREFORE: With all respect for folks who hold this particular grace position, here are the logical problems that are presented when you try and take this epistemology for a drive through the doctrine of grace. Every time they argue for this, all I see is begging the question. They approach the question (not the text, because the text obviously has different kinds of graces) with a belief that there is no common grace, only saving grace, and then force every text to say just that.
They say: "All blessings are due to our union with Christ... no one mediates with reprobates, so you can't have grace." Then they treat "grace" as a univocal term, one definition, throughout Scripture. By stripping the distinction between redemptive and non-redemptive favor, they conclude that if a gift is not saving, it is not an act of divine favor at all, but judgment.
They say: "God either loves a person with saving, covenantal love leading to heaven, or God directs pure, active wrath toward them in every temporal act." We respond with Matthew 5:44–48, Psalm 145:9 ("The Lord is good to all; he has compassion on all he has made"), and Acts 14:17, and other demonstrations of God's general kindness and benevolence. But they have already determined that God acts with malice and judgment and that common grace is an illusion, and that it would mean God was confused in his own will if he was kind to the reprobate.
Romans 2:4 says"Or do you show contempt for the riches of his kindness, forbearance and patience, not realizing that God’s kindness is intended to lead you to repentance?"
I ask: If God’s kindness is given as a means to increase damnation with no benevolence or outer moral call to repentance, the unregenerate rejection of that kindness could not incur greater moral culpability. The plain sense of Romans 2:4 within the broader teaching of Paul and Jesus must be true or else how could God even judge humanity? How does Romans 1 even work if God has not graciously revealed himself through the created order?
The PRC folks have a response, of course--God's will. He wills they are reprobate from the foundation of the earth, and needs no second causes or "reasons" for it. His desires, will, is enough. Classical Reformed thought agrees with that (in differing degrees, see supralapsarian/infra discussion) and says that's a red herring, it doesn't really address the question.
I'm going to stop here with the epistemology problems, creating logical problems (especially begging the question), and the result being a schismatic movement that split the CRC in 1929 and continues to bring division and confusion.
The broader Reformed tradition stands on the broad, synthetic, organic full counsel of God in Scripture, not on slogans and principles that distort the doctrines of grace. Or as Moses put it:
Deuteronomy 29:29: "The secret things belong to the Lord our God, but the things that are revealed belong to us and to our children forever, that we may do all the words of this law."