Amen this was a great message, and I will share it on my en site, and on various social media platforms. Bill from Redlands. I believe the doctrines of Particular Atonement and Particular Grace are synonymous in nature, not autonomous from each other. Similarly to God’s love, God’s grace is for His elect. Laning warned that when the Lord’s Church thinks they can share any common ground (or common grace) with the lost world, “There’s great danger in that!” I would have to agree with Laning, it can infect the Church like a malignant tumor.
A minor quibble. at the commencement of this talk he pronounces "error" as "air". I hopes he takes this positively - I mean it as a friendly criticism. Please enunciate both syllables; it is a bit confusing. Otherwise, substitute with an equivalent word.
A couple things I wanted to point out. Not necessarily agreeing or disagreeing with this. I thought total depravity meant man is depraved to some extent in every area of his life, not that he is purely evil. If that is the case, then I don’t think Bavinck is contradicting himself. I can’t answer the question of whether man has any good in him at all though. The second thing I’ll point out about Cain is god also told Cain he would protect him when he sent him away, as Cain was worried about people trying to kill him. I am not sure if that would be considered grace or not, but it is something to think about. Lastly, it appears the videos have misspelled Bavinck as Bavink.
That is the common Reformed teaching, which Sproul and others call "Radical Depravity"; that every area of our life is fallen, but that we are not as bad as we *could* be. But isn't it true that minus God's restraint that every man would be as evil as Hitler, no...Satan - if not held in check by God's restraint? For the elect it's grace - for the wicked, it's restraint. Pharaoh was an example for us - a Reprobate who mistreated the Hebrew children, but God allowed him to go just so far - and Pharaoh could not cross that line. Also, Satan himself was permitted to test Job with all manner of wickedness - save God would not allow Satan to kill him. Were God to erase that line, Satan would manifest ultimate evil, and so would man if he were not bridled. Although I am not one to speak on behalf of Protestant Reformed (I am not a member), my understanding is virtually the same as theirs. What is called "Common Grace" in most Reformed churches today is not "Grace". That Reprobate men receive good things is not a grace, or love to them, but the outworking of Providence. It's hard for me to give an example, but - what if a Reprobate were to have a child, and that child would have a child that would be one of the Elect - would it not be necessary for that child's ancestors to be fed, and clothed, and preserved, for that child to be conceived? It is merely the outworking of Providence. It may not be the best example - I've only thought of it at the moment, but I hope you understand what I'm trying to communicate. I'm not a theologian in the strict sense. It's just what I get from Bible reading. Without God's restraint fallen man would be as wicked as it is possible to be - even you, even I. So when Sproul (and most other Reformed) says, "...that does not mean that you are as evil as you could be..." I think he is in error - because one *would* be as wicked as one could be - without restraint, or correction. So, one should not think that because temporal life is going well, and one has everything he needs, that God is pleased with him, or loves him. God is angry with the wicked every day - and if one is outside of Christ, and rejects the Father, is there any reason to believe that God smiles on him because he's given him things, that in themselves, are making his life easier? If one rejects God's Son, but is living at ease, it is also easy to think that they are blessed by God, that he must love them - but that is a trap. Unbelievers are under God's wrath. As Jonathan Edwards pointed out, the temporal things that God gives to the Reprobate are worthless, temporary, they have no value at all - they end up in time in the ash heap, while man, of whatever station, ends up in the grave. What man eats today, ends up as offal tomorrow. Life is fleeting, a vapor. God loves only the Elect - the rest are hated for their sins and sin nature. It's a harsh reality that must be preached. Whoever has ears, let him hear. Judgment is near. Did God love Pharaoh because he gave Pharaoh many good things? Did he love Hitler? Does he love Satan, who has beauty and intelligence? "Common Grace" is not grace; it is not favor, it is not the love of God broadcast indiscriminately to the world. There is no grace in Common Grace, and the term should therefore be rejected, expunged, and cast out of the Church.
![OsamaSon - ik what you did last summer [Official Music Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/4DIQDnu3mr4/mqdefault.jpg)
![[Limbus Company - PV] Chapter.7 - Oblivion](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/VUpkXPkvoxU/mqdefault.jpg)
I'm so thankful for the PRCA exposing the grave error of common grace.
Amen this was a great message, and I will share it on my en site, and on various social media platforms. Bill from Redlands.
I believe the doctrines of Particular Atonement and Particular Grace are synonymous in nature, not autonomous from each other. Similarly to God’s love, God’s grace is for His elect. Laning warned that when the Lord’s Church thinks they can share any common ground (or common grace) with the lost world, “There’s great danger in that!” I would have to agree with Laning, it can infect the Church like a malignant tumor.
Hull church Iowa Good Pastor.
Me again can I find this can of pastors her in maryland
A minor quibble. at the commencement of this talk he pronounces "error" as "air". I hopes he takes this positively - I mean it as a friendly criticism. Please enunciate both syllables; it is a bit confusing. Otherwise, substitute with an equivalent word.
A couple things I wanted to point out. Not necessarily agreeing or disagreeing with this. I thought total depravity meant man is depraved to some extent in every area of his life, not that he is purely evil. If that is the case, then I don’t think Bavinck is contradicting himself. I can’t answer the question of whether man has any good in him at all though. The second thing I’ll point out about Cain is god also told Cain he would protect him when he sent him away, as Cain was worried about people trying to kill him. I am not sure if that would be considered grace or not, but it is something to think about. Lastly, it appears the videos have misspelled Bavinck as Bavink.
That is the common Reformed teaching, which Sproul and others call "Radical Depravity"; that every area of our life is fallen, but that we are not as bad as we *could* be. But isn't it true that minus God's restraint that every man would be as evil as Hitler, no...Satan - if not held in check by God's restraint? For the elect it's grace - for the wicked, it's restraint. Pharaoh was an example for us - a Reprobate who mistreated the Hebrew children, but God allowed him to go just so far - and Pharaoh could not cross that line. Also, Satan himself was permitted to test Job with all manner of wickedness - save God would not allow Satan to kill him. Were God to erase that line, Satan would manifest ultimate evil, and so would man if he were not bridled. Although I am not one to speak on behalf of Protestant Reformed (I am not a member), my understanding is virtually the same as theirs. What is called "Common Grace" in most Reformed churches today is not "Grace". That Reprobate men receive good things is not a grace, or love to them, but the outworking of Providence. It's hard for me to give an example, but - what if a Reprobate were to have a child, and that child would have a child that would be one of the Elect - would it not be necessary for that child's ancestors to be fed, and clothed, and preserved, for that child to be conceived? It is merely the outworking of Providence. It may not be the best example - I've only thought of it at the moment, but I hope you understand what I'm trying to communicate. I'm not a theologian in the strict sense. It's just what I get from Bible reading. Without God's restraint fallen man would be as wicked as it is possible to be - even you, even I. So when Sproul (and most other Reformed) says, "...that does not mean that you are as evil as you could be..." I think he is in error - because one *would* be as wicked as one could be - without restraint, or correction. So, one should not think that because temporal life is going well, and one has everything he needs, that God is pleased with him, or loves him. God is angry with the wicked every day - and if one is outside of Christ, and rejects the Father, is there any reason to believe that God smiles on him because he's given him things, that in themselves, are making his life easier? If one rejects God's Son, but is living at ease, it is also easy to think that they are blessed by God, that he must love them - but that is a trap. Unbelievers are under God's wrath. As Jonathan Edwards pointed out, the temporal things that God gives to the Reprobate are worthless, temporary, they have no value at all - they end up in time in the ash heap, while man, of whatever station, ends up in the grave. What man eats today, ends up as offal tomorrow. Life is fleeting, a vapor. God loves only the Elect - the rest are hated for their sins and sin nature. It's a harsh reality that must be preached. Whoever has ears, let him hear. Judgment is near. Did God love Pharaoh because he gave Pharaoh many good things? Did he love Hitler? Does he love Satan, who has beauty and intelligence? "Common Grace" is not grace; it is not favor, it is not the love of God broadcast indiscriminately to the world. There is no grace in Common Grace, and the term should therefore be rejected, expunged, and cast out of the Church.
the speaker name?
Rev. James Laning
Hi, My husband is the speaker and a minister in the PRCA. He can travel to help!