Profound discussion! Despite being Roman Catholic, I follow both you and Lane (through Reformed Forum) and it was great to see you interact. Excellent Christian minds at work here, we need more of this!
This is probably one of the most beautiful dialogues ever held between two Evangelical theologians who hold an orthodox view of the Christian faith. Irrespective of denominational differences, people should learn to agree like Dr. Lane Tipton and Dr. Jordan Cooper as we have witnessed here concerning primary, central doctrines which uphold the biblical Gospel against notions of God that negate His nature in relation to His revelation towards history and His salvific work. This dialogue is a 10/10. Amazing work here, guys. I had a great time listening and learning from you both.
@@cranmer1959 The point is the graciousness being shown by each other amidst their theological differences-which in large part does not really differ on the primary doctrines by which Christianity stands or falls, e.g. Justification by Grace through Faith alone, Triune Nature of God, Christology, etc. If one is to nitpick on secondary theological matters such as Ecclesiology, High-church practices such as Vestments and the like, we lose the point of charity amongst fellow Christians who follow the Biblical Christian faith. Let us not make things divisive upon matters which the Biblically-grounded churches are united in.
@@JCATG Reformation views on the vestments are acceptable. Papists views on the vestments are one reason for the Protestant Reformation. My view is that the vast majority of Romanists are lost and in need of conversion. I have no problem with the Augsburg Confession as it is written, notwithstanding my disagreement with the modern semi-pelagianism and consubstantian views of Lutherans.
This is something I've been thinking about throughout watching these Trinitarian videos and my own contemplation. I think a helpful analogy for how we are talking of God when describing the economic Trinity and God's actions even in general terms is the rising of the sun; we know that the rising of the sun is really just the Earth rotating but it's perfectly normal from a human perspective to simply say the sun is rising. So too it is perfectly normal for a human theologian, or even one of the Prophets, to describe the idea of God acting in time and creation but we must not mistake this for God changing; rather we are just describing the creation shifting and changing at the hand of God who remains constant.
only about halfway through but I am so happy to see such a thoughtful analysis of something I have seen as a major problem in the major evangelical culture I was brought up in. Thanks guys
How is mutualism related to presuppositionalism? It seems that this conversation was intended to be a follow up (defense?) to the conversation with Greeley, but it *seems* like you are mostly talking about something different. Granted, I'm new to these concepts. Also, it's clear that you and Tipton are being eminently diplomatic, but I was hopping for a more straight forward response to the Greeley convo on presupp. But on that point, it seemed that Tipton denied Van Til as an idealist, which contradicts Greeley's claim. My hope us that a more direct discussion can be had to get some clarity on the issues, even if it gets "controversial".
Dolezal's view of the divine simplicity comes very close to confusing all the attributes as being one and the same definition. That would result in modalism.
@@cranmer1959 There are one and the same in God because they are descriptions of the divine essence, they are not the same definition. The attributes are different effects in creation according to which we decribe the one divine essence. The definitions are distinct but that to which they refer to is one. This has been addressed by Aquinas already in his chapter on Divine Names. Modalism confuses person and nature, historic Divine simplicity doesn't.
@Acek-ok9dp The divine attributes are all divine. But they are propositions deduced from Scripture and therefore define different definitions of God's nature and will and persons. They cannot be confused without making the theology of the Trinity irrational.
@@ThomasCranmer1959 And nobody confuses them. Attributes are descriptions and definitions of the one divine essence. They are not discrete pieces in God. God is not a transcendental salad.
I would really like to see both of them dialogue with Ryan Mullins [Chrisitan advocate of Neo-Classical theism AKA Modified Classical theism] and brilliant agnostic Joe Schmid.
Gordon H. Clark was not a mutualist. He is often falsely accused of hyper-Calvinism because he consistently affirmed absolute predestination. Clark insisted that the Van Til view on analogy ends up in neo-orthodoxy. Scripture is the univocal written word of God in propositional revelation. If Scripture is analogical revelation, you are a liberal neo-orthodox hypocrite. Clark was a fundamentalist Calvinist with a high view of Scripture. There is a reason that Van Til's views led many of his followers into mutualism. They realized that archetypal knowledge and ectypal knowledge are parallel lines, implying that God is ultimately unknowable. John Frame contends for two existences of God. Even Richard Muller says that ectypal knowledge is derived from God's ectypal knowledge. Is Muller a mutalist????
So exactly how does the ectypal/archetypal distinction avoid the tertium quid? Van Til's Creator/creature distinction is essentially in agreement with Barthianism because the Creator is totally unknowable. Now if you say that we can know God ectypally you have posited another god from the God who is unknowable.
@@howardhilliard9286 Indeed, in the next few lines Calvin says much the same thing: “It is unreasonable that man should scrutinize with impunity those things that the Lord has determined to be hidden in himself.… The secret of his will which he determined to reveal to us, he discovers [discloses] in his Word.”2 It is not only unreasonable to scrutinize the hidden will of God, as Calvin says; it is impossible. Knowledge of predestination is to be sought in God’s revealed will, in the Word, and in the Word alone. Let us not pry elsewhere with that curiosity that Calvin condemns, but let us not neglect to study carefully what God reveals to us and intends that we should study.
Gordon H. Clark. Predestination (Kindle Locations 97-102). The Trinity Foundation. Kindle Edition.
But if what God makes known in ectypal knowledge does not coincide with God's archetypal knowledge at any single point of coincidence, then it logically follows that we do not know what God knows at any single point. Ectypal knowledge is therefore totally disconnected from the unknown God. Two parallel lines that continue into infinity do not intersect. So how do you derive ectypal knowledge from the archetypal knowledge of God? Van Tilians reject logic as a created thing; therefore, we cannot know anything that God knows. But does God know that 2+2=4? If you can know nothing that God knows, how do you know that God knows 2+2=4? Gordon H. Clark, otoh, said that God's knowledge is intuitive and all encompassing omniscience. The creature's knowledge is discursive and partial. Scripture is univocally the very words of God. @@howardhilliard9286
25:10 how could God have known specifically about opposition (evil/sin)? Jesus "knew no sin". He *commanded* us to be "wise as serpents" (ie: 'know the enemy'). Lucifer was the first angel created, the most intelligent, and was *good.* Then Lucifer *'discovered'* sin which is a unique, uncreated 'thing'. So how is God supposed to know how it is like to rebel against himself when only God Himself has not even the *potential* to sin? . We could say that this specifically is something that the God needed to 'learned'. He even sent His Son so he could understand our plight. God is only Good. God is not in opposition with Himself. Satan is Evil because he is opposed to God. But he opposes God through mimicking Him which is why he's a false-light, false-good, pseudo-god etc. *Most people on earth* believe in a god that is both good and evil (much of the OT is really trying to teach us about this god and his tendencies). Few people believe God is only Good. . Look at the icons of St. Anna and you will see that she taught Mary wisdom. When the angel spoke to Mary, she actually OBJECTED and tested the spirit "how can this he since i have not..". Also take notice of St Joseph pondering about Mary being pregnant, and Mary keeping things within her heart to ponder and discern. Remember when Jesus was lost in the temple at 12 years old. St. Joseph and Mary did *"not comprehend his speech".* . Jesus tried, but was unable to heal some people. Why? Well how is he supposed to *KNOW* who belong to Satan? Jesus attempted to do miracles and the Father did not respond to them specifically (Jn 8:44). Those SAME PEOPLE likely voted to crucify our Lord in exchange for 'Jesus Barabbas'. . Jesus said "I *KNOW* ye are children of Abraham... but IF YOU *REALLY* WERE, you wouldn't.." -(meaning he has knowledge of their false claims, but knows they are not because of their actions - this still holds today in my opinion - some are literally born almost with a *serious enmity* toward Jesus on earth (His Church). . Now that the Son is seated back at the right hand of the Father, we finally have an advocate in His Son because his knowledge of Sin was gained through his *direct experience* of living among, and suffering the consequences of a fallen creation. . So we need to take sides. We need to decide if we are for Christ on earth - His Church, or if we are acting to wage war *against* the Church. It is his body on earth after all. So which side are we *really* on? And WHO are we *really* working for? . (and no this isn't cath vs lutheran vs anglican vs orthodox as these are all of the same Creed professing the same catholic church and 'bound in heaven' as universally recognized brethren. im trying not use the word Protestant anymore as the term has been stolen and redefined into a modernism).
Christ was certainly not sent to know sin, and he never knew it (2 Cor 5:21). The reconciliation within this philosophical framework is that, at least per Augustinianism, sin and evil do not exist in themselves as evil substances, as has always been condemned as Manichaeism and necessitates creation outside of God, but are merely deprivations of the good, and therefore cannot be known in itself and then be knowledge outside of God, Whom we are bound to admit is omniscient (1 John 3:20). Sin is then a hole we can only see by the good surrounding it. God really knows the hearts of all men (1 Kings 8:39), and He, not us (Eph 2:8), has chosen (i.e. elect) those whom He would save in Christ even before the beginning of the world (Eph 1:4).
James Harrison Okay then you tell me - how is it possible for us to be fairly judged if we are fit to enter heaven? But because you believe in a god that is both good and evil (aka Allah), you can't imagine a god that is all good and not like a man that he should sin. You think god is you. No - god is not some fallen American man with pride. That is not who god is like AT ALL. You need to realize that God is ONLY GOOD. He is NOT SATAN - NOT EVIL. Listen, if we aren't let in heaven, he will be smiling and content. We will be in the flames GNASHING OUR TEETH because we will feel that we were judged UNFAIRLY. You think you hate the Pope now, wow wait until death and you will hate him with all your soul for an eternity. That is an early sign btw. And actually, the Pope says Satan appears on the FIRST PAGE of the Bible. Remember, GOD IS NOT LIGHT MIXED WITH DARK. He is ONLY LIGHT. No God does NOT MAKE YOU SIN and is NOT TEMPTED TO DO SO. Let cults and pagans follow the OT. You need to follow the NT. *American pride* is an absolute faith destroyer. All you are hearing is wordplay to ensure salvation to a prideful people who are not heading toward heaven. DON'T BE ONE OF THEM.
@@AlphaOmega888 God can only judge fairly *because* he knows all mens' hearts. How in Heaven would it be just to damn or glorify not knowing what in their heart of hearts they truly believe? But you are very confused. You say you stand with the pope, but he has explicitly anathematized your opinions. A few examples from Denzinger (*the* manual for Roman dogmas): 237 7. If anyone says that the devil was not first a good angel made by God, and that his nature was not a work of God, but says that he came forth from darkness, and does not have any author of himself, but is himself the origin and substance of evil, as Manichaeus and Priscillian have said, let him be anathema. 1782 [The one, living, and true God and His distinction from all things.] * The holy, Catholic, Apostolic, Roman Church believes and confesses that there is one, true, living God, Creator and Lord of heaven and earth, omnipotent, eternal, immense, incomprehensible, infinite in intellect and will, and in every perfection; who, although He is one, singular, altogether simple and unchangeable spiritual substance, must be proclaimed distinct in reality and essence from the world; most blessed in Himself and of Himself, and ineffably most high above all things which are or can be conceived outside Himself [can. 1-4]. 706 Most strongly it believes, professes, and declares that the one true God, Father and Son and Holy Spirit, is the creator of all things visible and invisible, who, when He wished, out of His goodness created all creatures, spiritual as well as corporal; good indeed, since they were made by the highest good, but changeable, since they were made from nothing, and it asserts that nature is not evil, since all nature, in so far as it is nature, is good. It professes one and the same God as the author of the Old and New Testament, that is, of the Law and the Prophets and the Gospel, since the saints of both Testaments have spoken with the inspiration of the same Holy Spirit, whose books, which are contained under the following titles it accepts and venerates. [The books of the canon follow, cf.n. 784; EB n. 32]. I could look further, but suffice it to say that for every error that may have taken hold in the church the Manichaean one finds no defense anywhere, no doubt due to the excellent Augustine. Nevertheless, the pope has no authority over Christ, who is the Redeemer (Job 19:25, Psalm 78:35), our one Mediator before God (1 Tim 2:5), our only Savior (Hosea 13:4, Acts 5:31), and is our Advocate before God who covers our sins in Judgement (1 Tim 2:1). Yet we can hold safely by Holy Writ that "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God; all things were made through him, and without him was not anything made that was made." (John 1:1-2)
![Digital Circus Episode 4 [TRAILER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/abZtsmMUbJo/mqdefault.jpg)
Profound discussion! Despite being Roman Catholic, I follow both you and Lane (through Reformed Forum) and it was great to see you interact. Excellent Christian minds at work here, we need more of this!
Agree . I am also a Catholic and this is terrific.
Thank you, Jordan and Lane, for this lovely conversation on classic theism. Well done, brethren. Now I have to read Weidner.
If you do get a chance to read Weidner, I also highly recommend his volume on Genesis.
This is probably one of the most beautiful dialogues ever held between two Evangelical theologians who hold an orthodox view of the Christian faith. Irrespective of denominational differences, people should learn to agree like Dr. Lane Tipton and Dr. Jordan Cooper as we have witnessed here concerning primary, central doctrines which uphold the biblical Gospel against notions of God that negate His nature in relation to His revelation towards history and His salvific work.
This dialogue is a 10/10. Amazing work here, guys. I had a great time listening and learning from you both.
Ignoring the massive differences between modern Lutherans and classical Reformed Calvinists is about it. I don't see anything to shout about here.
@@cranmer1959 The point is the graciousness being shown by each other amidst their theological differences-which in large part does not really differ on the primary doctrines by which Christianity stands or falls, e.g. Justification by Grace through Faith alone, Triune Nature of God, Christology, etc.
If one is to nitpick on secondary theological matters such as Ecclesiology, High-church practices such as Vestments and the like, we lose the point of charity amongst fellow Christians who follow the Biblical Christian faith.
Let us not make things divisive upon matters which the Biblically-grounded churches are united in.
@@JCATG Reformation views on the vestments are acceptable. Papists views on the vestments are one reason for the Protestant Reformation. My view is that the vast majority of Romanists are lost and in need of conversion. I have no problem with the Augsburg Confession as it is written, notwithstanding my disagreement with the modern semi-pelagianism and consubstantian views of Lutherans.
@@JCATG Wonder why Lane did all the talking?
This is something I've been thinking about throughout watching these Trinitarian videos and my own contemplation. I think a helpful analogy for how we are talking of God when describing the economic Trinity and God's actions even in general terms is the rising of the sun; we know that the rising of the sun is really just the Earth rotating but it's perfectly normal from a human perspective to simply say the sun is rising. So too it is perfectly normal for a human theologian, or even one of the Prophets, to describe the idea of God acting in time and creation but we must not mistake this for God changing; rather we are just describing the creation shifting and changing at the hand of God who remains constant.
only about halfway through but I am so happy to see such a thoughtful analysis of something I have seen as a major problem in the major evangelical culture I was brought up in. Thanks guys
Everything I hoped for! Glad this worked out.
Reformed Forum and Just and Sinner! Subscribe to both!
Excellent Discussion,God Is the Same from age to age!!
Gotta love it when a Reformed Baptist brother is referenced #Dolezal
I owe a lot to Dolezal on these issues.
@@DrJordanBCooper we all do
This is good stuff.
How is mutualism related to presuppositionalism? It seems that this conversation was intended to be a follow up (defense?) to the conversation with Greeley, but it *seems* like you are mostly talking about something different. Granted, I'm new to these concepts.
Also, it's clear that you and Tipton are being eminently diplomatic, but I was hopping for a more straight forward response to the Greeley convo on presupp. But on that point, it seemed that Tipton denied Van Til as an idealist, which contradicts Greeley's claim. My hope us that a more direct discussion can be had to get some clarity on the issues, even if it gets "controversial".
Awesome!
This is great.
Well this was unexpected. Very cool
So Lane actually agrees with Scott Oliphant that there is a tertium quid, covenantal properties whereby God condescends to the creature? Really?
1:01:03 bookmark
Is Theistic Mutualism just “Divine Mutation”?
Very good discussion! Dolezal could have gone more in depth on Classical Theism.
Dolezal's view of the divine simplicity comes very close to confusing all the attributes as being one and the same definition. That would result in modalism.
@@cranmer1959
There are one and the same in God because they are descriptions of the divine essence, they are not the same definition. The attributes are different effects in creation according to which we decribe the one divine essence. The definitions are distinct but that to which they refer to is one. This has been addressed by Aquinas already in his chapter on Divine Names.
Modalism confuses person and nature, historic Divine simplicity doesn't.
@Acek-ok9dp The divine attributes are all divine. But they are propositions deduced from Scripture and therefore define different definitions of God's nature and will and persons. They cannot be confused without making the theology of the Trinity irrational.
@@Acek-ok9dp God is uncreated.
@@ThomasCranmer1959
And nobody confuses them. Attributes are descriptions and definitions of the one divine essence. They are not discrete pieces in God. God is not a transcendental salad.
I would really like to see both of them dialogue with Ryan Mullins [Chrisitan advocate of Neo-Classical theism AKA Modified Classical theism] and brilliant agnostic Joe Schmid.
Gordon H. Clark was not a mutualist. He is often falsely accused of hyper-Calvinism because he consistently affirmed absolute predestination. Clark insisted that the Van Til view on analogy ends up in neo-orthodoxy. Scripture is the univocal written word of God in propositional revelation. If Scripture is analogical revelation, you are a liberal neo-orthodox hypocrite. Clark was a fundamentalist Calvinist with a high view of Scripture. There is a reason that Van Til's views led many of his followers into mutualism. They realized that archetypal knowledge and ectypal knowledge are parallel lines, implying that God is ultimately unknowable. John Frame contends for two existences of God. Even Richard Muller says that ectypal knowledge is derived from God's ectypal knowledge. Is Muller a mutalist????
So exactly how does the ectypal/archetypal distinction avoid the tertium quid? Van Til's Creator/creature distinction is essentially in agreement with Barthianism because the Creator is totally unknowable. Now if you say that we can know God ectypally you have posited another god from the God who is unknowable.
The Creator is unknowable unless He chooses to be known which has done in Creation, creature ontology and revelation.
@@howardhilliard9286 Indeed, in the next few lines Calvin says much the same thing: “It is unreasonable that man should scrutinize with impunity those things that the Lord has determined to be hidden in himself.… The secret of his will which he determined to reveal to us, he discovers [discloses] in his Word.”2 It is not only unreasonable to scrutinize the hidden will of God, as Calvin says; it is impossible. Knowledge of predestination is to be sought in God’s revealed will, in the Word, and in the Word alone. Let us not pry elsewhere with that curiosity that Calvin condemns, but let us not neglect to study carefully what God reveals to us and intends that we should study.
Gordon H. Clark. Predestination (Kindle Locations 97-102). The Trinity Foundation. Kindle Edition.
But if what God makes known in ectypal knowledge does not coincide with God's archetypal knowledge at any single point of coincidence, then it logically follows that we do not know what God knows at any single point. Ectypal knowledge is therefore totally disconnected from the unknown God. Two parallel lines that continue into infinity do not intersect. So how do you derive ectypal knowledge from the archetypal knowledge of God? Van Tilians reject logic as a created thing; therefore, we cannot know anything that God knows. But does God know that 2+2=4? If you can know nothing that God knows, how do you know that God knows 2+2=4? Gordon H. Clark, otoh, said that God's knowledge is intuitive and all encompassing omniscience. The creature's knowledge is discursive and partial. Scripture is univocally the very words of God. @@howardhilliard9286
25:10 how could God have known specifically about opposition (evil/sin)? Jesus "knew no sin". He *commanded* us to be "wise as serpents" (ie: 'know the enemy'). Lucifer was the first angel created, the most intelligent, and was *good.* Then Lucifer *'discovered'* sin which is a unique, uncreated 'thing'. So how is God supposed to know how it is like to rebel against himself when only God Himself has not even the *potential* to sin?
.
We could say that this specifically is something that the God needed to 'learned'. He even sent His Son so he could understand our plight. God is only Good. God is not in opposition with Himself. Satan is Evil because he is opposed to God. But he opposes God through mimicking Him which is why he's a false-light, false-good, pseudo-god etc. *Most people on earth* believe in a god that is both good and evil (much of the OT is really trying to teach us about this god and his tendencies). Few people believe God is only Good.
.
Look at the icons of St. Anna and you will see that she taught Mary wisdom. When the angel spoke to Mary, she actually OBJECTED and tested the spirit "how can this he since i have not..". Also take notice of St Joseph pondering about Mary being pregnant, and Mary keeping things within her heart to ponder and discern. Remember when Jesus was lost in the temple at 12 years old. St. Joseph and Mary did *"not comprehend his speech".*
.
Jesus tried, but was unable to heal some people. Why? Well how is he supposed to *KNOW* who belong to Satan? Jesus attempted to do miracles and the Father did not respond to them specifically (Jn 8:44). Those SAME PEOPLE likely voted to crucify our Lord in exchange for 'Jesus Barabbas'.
.
Jesus said "I *KNOW* ye are children of Abraham... but IF YOU *REALLY* WERE, you wouldn't.." -(meaning he has knowledge of their false claims, but knows they are not because of their actions - this still holds today in my opinion - some are literally born almost with a *serious enmity* toward Jesus on earth (His Church).
.
Now that the Son is seated back at the right hand of the Father, we finally have an advocate in His Son because his knowledge of Sin was gained through his *direct experience* of living among, and suffering the consequences of a fallen creation.
.
So we need to take sides. We need to decide if we are for Christ on earth - His Church, or if we are acting to wage war *against* the Church. It is his body on earth after all. So which side are we *really* on? And WHO are we *really* working for?
.
(and no this isn't cath vs lutheran vs anglican vs orthodox as these are all of the same Creed professing the same catholic church and 'bound in heaven' as universally recognized brethren. im trying not use the word Protestant anymore as the term has been stolen and redefined into a modernism).
see if Cooper will come on your podcast
Christ was certainly not sent to know sin, and he never knew it (2 Cor 5:21). The reconciliation within this philosophical framework is that, at least per Augustinianism, sin and evil do not exist in themselves as evil substances, as has always been condemned as Manichaeism and necessitates creation outside of God, but are merely deprivations of the good, and therefore cannot be known in itself and then be knowledge outside of God, Whom we are bound to admit is omniscient (1 John 3:20). Sin is then a hole we can only see by the good surrounding it. God really knows the hearts of all men (1 Kings 8:39), and He, not us (Eph 2:8), has chosen (i.e. elect) those whom He would save in Christ even before the beginning of the world (Eph 1:4).
James Harrison Okay then you tell me - how is it possible for us to be fairly judged if we are fit to enter heaven? But because you believe in a god that is both good and evil (aka Allah), you can't imagine a god that is all good and not like a man that he should sin. You think god is you. No - god is not some fallen American man with pride. That is not who god is like AT ALL. You need to realize that God is ONLY GOOD. He is NOT SATAN - NOT EVIL. Listen, if we aren't let in heaven, he will be smiling and content. We will be in the flames GNASHING OUR TEETH because we will feel that we were judged UNFAIRLY. You think you hate the Pope now, wow wait until death and you will hate him with all your soul for an eternity. That is an early sign btw. And actually, the Pope says Satan appears on the FIRST PAGE of the Bible. Remember, GOD IS NOT LIGHT MIXED WITH DARK. He is ONLY LIGHT. No God does NOT MAKE YOU SIN and is NOT TEMPTED TO DO SO. Let cults and pagans follow the OT. You need to follow the NT.
*American pride* is an absolute faith destroyer. All you are hearing is wordplay to ensure salvation to a prideful people who are not heading toward heaven. DON'T BE ONE OF THEM.
@@AlphaOmega888 God can only judge fairly *because* he knows all mens' hearts. How in Heaven would it be just to damn or glorify not knowing what in their heart of hearts they truly believe? But you are very confused. You say you stand with the pope, but he has explicitly anathematized your opinions. A few examples from Denzinger (*the* manual for Roman dogmas):
237 7. If anyone says that the devil was not first a good angel made by God, and that his nature was not a work of God, but says that he came forth from darkness, and does not have any author of himself, but is himself the origin and substance of evil, as Manichaeus and Priscillian have said, let him be anathema.
1782 [The one, living, and true God and His distinction from all things.] * The holy, Catholic, Apostolic, Roman Church believes and confesses that there is one, true, living God, Creator and Lord of heaven and earth, omnipotent, eternal, immense, incomprehensible, infinite in intellect and will, and in every perfection; who, although He is one, singular, altogether simple and unchangeable spiritual substance, must be proclaimed distinct in reality and essence from the world; most blessed in Himself and of Himself, and ineffably most high above all things which are or can be conceived outside Himself [can. 1-4].
706 Most strongly it believes, professes, and declares that the one true God, Father and Son and Holy Spirit, is the creator of all things visible and invisible, who, when He wished, out of His goodness created all creatures, spiritual as well as corporal; good indeed, since they were made by the highest good, but changeable, since they were made from nothing, and it asserts that nature is not evil, since all nature, in so far as it is nature, is good. It professes one and the same God as the author of the Old and New Testament, that is, of the Law and the Prophets and the Gospel, since the saints of both Testaments have spoken with the inspiration of the same Holy Spirit, whose books, which are contained under the following titles it accepts and venerates. [The books of the canon follow, cf.n. 784; EB n. 32].
I could look further, but suffice it to say that for every error that may have taken hold in the church the Manichaean one finds no defense anywhere, no doubt due to the excellent Augustine.
Nevertheless, the pope has no authority over Christ, who is the Redeemer (Job 19:25, Psalm 78:35), our one Mediator before God (1 Tim 2:5), our only Savior (Hosea 13:4, Acts 5:31), and is our Advocate before God who covers our sins in Judgement (1 Tim 2:1). Yet we can hold safely by Holy Writ that "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God; all things were made through him, and without him was not anything made that was made." (John 1:1-2)
God foreordained the fall of Satan.
Common grace leads naturally to mutualism.