Let's also not forget that Engelsma is a student of Herman Hoeksema the main opponent of common grace and Kuyper's definition of it. Although Engelsma presents a good counter-point to the common grace concept, it's still not sufficient to disprove the theory. I think he has some blind spots on the topic honestly, for example: "God has never given to the Church the calling to christianise the world". That's simply not true. Matthew 28:19-20: “Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything that I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.” Engelsma's opinion is a contradiction of the Reformed 2nd use of the law, the "civil use," is to restrain evil. Though the law cannot change the heart, it can to some extent inhibit lawlessness by its threats of judgment, especially when backed by a civil code that administers punishment for proven offenses (Deut. 13:6-11; 19:16-21; Rom. 13:3, 4). Check out also Sproul's opinion on the subject ruclips.net/video/jrRjlWaGHag/видео.html.
Yea, I was hoping Jon was going to ask him about that comment. I would've like to hear his answer to the same question about Matt 28. lol, I think I'll email him the question.
The call to Matt 28 is a common reference when people misunderstand the statement “God has never given to the Church the calling to Christianize the world.” Paul the Apostle helps us to understand how to follow Matt 28 and not Christianize the world. Paul didn’t stand on street corners proclaiming the gospel of Christ. He went to the synagogues of the Jews. He went to the people of God to show them the glorious gospel. Romans 10:14-15 isolates the hearer from the gospel of Christ to a hearing of those men of God who are sent. And that sending is a call made by Christ through his body, the Church. The Apostles were used by God to form the institutional Church. They did this by going first to the Jew and then the Greek. The Greek (Gentile) would make request of a body of Christ to send them a man who would make known to them that glorious gospel that they heard rumored. That rumor of the gospel was observed by the antithetical life of the Believer. I believe that this is the best way to explain how Prof Engelsma meant that statement.
@@DavidKamps01 Could you please clarify how exactly we could apply Matthew 28 without seeking to christianize and disciple the nations teaching them all that God Himself has commanded? I believe that Engelsma’s statement is pretty straight-forward. He is not saying we shouldn’t preach the Gospel, which would have been heretical. He is just saying that we shouldn’t seek to christianize the nations, rather follow a more pietistic approach to evangelization and our ministry in the world. In simple words - we have lost the battle here, let’s focus on our christian affairs, without caring too much about teaching the depraved world about God’s truth in the Law and its application to our contemporary society. Well, unfortunately neither Calvin, or the puritans, or the Westminster divines were pietists. They were quite passionate to christianize the society and their culture. That’s why I think Engelsma’s theory has it’s blind spots and the Common Grace concept shouldn’t be abandoned so easily.
@@petkocholakov7829 I think Engelsma's providence theory aligns perfectly with Calvin and the puritans, even if Engelsma himself doesn't believe in Christianizing nations (for other theological reasons).
Common Grace? Equals a satanic deception. No such thing. Unsaved man is dead and totally depraved and operate against God's Sovereign Grace. Excellent discussion. This man is an awesome teacher on this falsehood of Kuyper's theology. Loved listening to this.
Well I learned something tonight. I just knew that some of the things that churches do to "win the lost" is so far out there. Only the Gospel spoken openly to the unbeliever with the work of the Holy Spirit effectually calling that person does the conversion take place. So glad I heard this tonight. I needed it.
This was one of the most helpful interviews! Heard that Kuyper quote many times in undergrad and about common grace from a reformed professor. Professor David really clarified some important truths. I work in foster care not because I think my faith "requires" it, but simply for God's glory. We can see God's glory in all types of work, because we reflect God's image, but by no means can we confuse that with the ministry of the church. Common grace sounds appealing to Christians who are looking for "purpose" besides the basics of lived obedience to Christ according to His Word in committed fellowship to their local congregation. The most radical thing we can do is obey God in our roles in the home and church and all else is outreach👍
I'm an Anabaptist completely tracking with this conversation on common grace. Very helpful in clarifying the diss-ease I feel yet unable to articulate. 👌 thank you
Common Grace is a theological concept, primarily in Reformed and Calvinistic circles, referring to God’s common patience or forbearance with sinful man ... the non-saving sustaining grace of God that is common to all humankind. It is “common” because its benefits are experienced by, or intended for, the whole human race without distinction between one person and another. It is "grace" because it is undeserved and sovereignly bestowed by God. In this sense, it is distinguished from the Calvinistic understanding of "special" or "saving" grace, which extends only to those whom God has chosen to redeem. An example of the concept can be found in the idea that God allows the sun to shine upon both the righteous and the unrighteous and sends rain on both the just and unjust.
The overall, overlooked,and/or completely ignored fact that everyone seems to avoid speaking on is the common thread with ALL false Christian theology, eschatology and overall understanding of God is men read more books and opinions of men rather than letting Scripture interpret Scripture. All of you trying to overintellectualize the Gospel until it becomes subjective allegorical nonsense. Jesus said " unless you come to me like a child, you will NOT see the Kingdom of God." He did NOT say unless you come to me with your degrees,acronyms and sophistication...
By gollies. You learn somethin' new everyday. I had no idea there was such a difference between "providence" and "common grace". I must admit that at first I thought, "are we just splittin' hairs here? Semantics?" But the more I listened the more I kind of, understood the difference of (at least from the reformed perspective) the former to be biblical and the later to be a heresy.
I would love to see this gentleman have a discussion with Doug Wilson (i.e., the Moscow ID "experiment ") to further clarify the boundaries of Kuyperianism. This postmillineal view of Christ putting all under His feet through the growth of the saving gospel and the Church over time through discipling etc. That would be so helpful. Perhaps someday
This is an excellent and much needed discussion. I've been spiritually aware of this problem for awhile, but I didn't understand how it articulates, so now I'll be better able to progress in helping others come to clarity against this error.
A reading of Psalm 5, 73, and 92 quickly destroys the notion of 'common grace'. God hates the wicked reprobate with a righteous, holy hatred for the simple fact that they were, are, and never will be in Jesus Christ. God only loves His elect in Christ, the Elect one. The good gifts God bestows on the non-elect is the means in which their hearts are hardened to the glorious person and work of Jesus Christ ; they are 'fitted to destruction' by Jehovah, and this in eternity. The only reason this world continues in it's present form is for the ingathering of all God's elect.
I think the immediate response will likely be "what does disciple the nations mean?" also, why is Christ "King of Kings" if this does not translate to Earthly kingdoms, then what precisely is the situation....
Is Engelsma mixing terms? He talks about total depravity as if it is utter depravity. These two words do not mean the same thing. And I know he understands the importance of two closely defined words because he makes the distinction between providence and common grace. I'm not saying Kuyper was right in all that he said, but is this possibly just someone slightly changing the definition of words and using it as an argument? Any time your going to judge someone based on their words, you need to make sure you know what they mean by those words. A perfect example is your recent discussion with Jared Moore and Doug Wilson, where Jared was using quotes of Doug that sounded awful, but once Doug explained the words he was using and definition and the distinction he was making it took the fangs out of Jared's argument. This shows that slight definition changes even over a short period of time can make a difference.
This was excellent Jon! Thank you for the clarification. I have attempted to articulate this exact topic in my teaching and haven't been able to quite put my finger on it. I can now confidently say what Kuiper, et al call common grace is God's providence but is not salvific or election. Thank you for your wisdom in choosing to discuss this and having an authority like Prof. Engelsma share his expertise! Thank you for your own wise contribution.
@@ThomasCranmer1959Thank you for the correction. I actually meant Kuyper and not Kuiper. Maybe I typed it correctly but spell checker changed it and I didn't look at it.
I think I would agree with phrase common mercy more than common grace. The lost has no grace bestowed on them before salvation. That can be supported by Scripture as well.
A good follow up to this would be Cornelius Van Til’s book “Conmon Grace and the Gospel”. Mr. Engelsma really is only speaking to one historic reformed point of view on the doctrine of common grace and its developments since Kuyper. In Kuyper’s theology however, there is always also at work the doctrine of Antithesis which works within any common grace good.
A meaningful conversation. The question is why Kuyper chose the word "grace" when he could use "providence". Just because someone supports TULIP, it does not mean he/she is a saint. It appears we can learn nothing from Kuyper. I wonder why people study his theology. Many words of men make things confusing. The words of God, on the other hand, are easy to understand. I used to like Engelsma for his passion and knowledge. In 2021, the RPC came out of the PRC because the RPC claims that the PRC supports men-initiated repentance. I am afraid the PRC is becoming like the RCA and the CRC.
Isn't providence given to the ungodly a form of unmerited favor? A talented artists who produces great music, but who lives an debauched life, is bestowed upon with a great gift, which certainly was not merited by that individual. I call that "grace," because it is a form of favor, and one that is certainly unmerited.
@@ConversationsThatMatterpodcast Right...but the conversation seemed to move into a discussion that went beyond Kuijper's take, and into the difference between "grace" and "providence." I'm just commenting on that part of the discussion...but yes, the notion that unbelievers are privy to some sort of salvific work apart from the blood of Christ, faith in that, i.e. some sort "salvific" social reforms is obviously umbilical.
@@ConversationsThatMatterpodcast is it accurate to say that’s how modern Reformed people who subscribe to it describe it? Because that’s the impression I got. Didn’t know it was defined differently by kuyper
@@cosmictreason2242 Most Reformed people are simply referring to Providence when they use the term I believe, but Engelsma's contention is that the concept is more related to rolling back the curse (i.e. being part of the work of redemption) through cultural actions apart from the special work of Christ.
I vaguely recall this term. Is not grace just "grace"? Why is it labeled "commom"? I have not heard this conversation yet. Just found it. More than enough to listen to these days and short on time. 🌱
I am not in a Reformed church, but I am reading and listening to Reformed scholars. I would appreciate a little clarification. Jon asked Mr. Engelsma if Reformed Christians could work with Catholics on the abortion issue. Mr. Engelsma replied about working with "unbelievers." I once was interested in applying to a Reformed Seminary about a program in church and state studies open to lawyers. Being ever respectful of an institution's foundations, I wrote to the president of the school and asked him could I be considered if I applied. He responded that the school had, in fact, accepted non-Reformed students in the past and that it had not worked out well. He said that the school would accept only orthodox Christians. I infer from Mr. Engelsma that he considers Catholics to be non-believers. What I do not understand is this: Are the terms "non-believer," "ungodly," and "unorthodox,," synoymous with the term "non-Reformed," or are there nuances that I have not understood?
They are not exactly synonymous but there’s overlap so you might see people use different words to describe different people at different times, because they’re emphasizing different things.
Then usage of common grace among Reformed never gave me the impression that it was contradictory to total depravity. TD means that man is unable to believe or to do good works without God working in them to effect that. I understood common grace to simply explain “good behavior” not done out of faith, because without it being grace, it would be intrinsic to the unbeliever and that can’t be accepted
You've been brainwashed by Ligonier. TD properly taught by the WCF: From this original corruption, whereby we are utterly indisposed, disabled, and made opposite to all good, and wholly inclined to all evil, do proceed all actual transgressions. How do the big money Calvinists read this then turn around and say man isn't as bad as they can possibly be? They do so because their coffers would dry up if they taught the truth. They'd sooner prophesy smooth things than right things.
@@ConversationsThatMatterpodcast Hi Jon, you’re right it’s a relatively new term (100 years old approx.) The concept behind it however is not new. I agree that the term has been misused by the progressive theologians and Kuyper in general became a hero for both Reformed and progressives. But that signifies I think the genius of his works. Of course he is not perfect in any way, but still he is a excellent Reformed writer especially on the application of God’s Word in all spheres of life, as opposed to pietism.
@@ConversationsThatMatterpodcast Sure! By the way, your videos are great. I am watching them from Bulgaria and although English is not my first language, they have been truly beneficial for me. Thank you for your efforts!
Some good points here, but if grace is "God's kindness to the undeserving," then it's not a stretch to see God giving grace to the wicked in all things. That is distinguished from saving grace. However, it seems more accurate to call it common grace than providence, since providence includes other things.
For what is the hope of the hypocrite, though he hath gained, when God taketh away his soul? 9 Will God hear his cry when trouble cometh upon him? 10 Will he delight himself in the Almighty? will he always call upon God? 11 I will teach you by the hand of God: that which is with the Almighty will I not conceal. 12 Behold, all ye yourselves have seen it; why then are ye thus altogether vain? 13 This is the portion of a wicked man with God, and the heritage of oppressors, which they shall receive of the Almighty. 14 If his children be multiplied, it is for the sword: and his offspring shall not be satisfied with bread. 15 Those that remain of him shall be buried in death: and his widows shall not weep. 16 Though he heap up silver as the dust, and prepare raiment as the clay; 17 He may prepare it, but the just shall put it on, and the innocent shall divide the silver. 18 He buildeth his house as a moth, and as a booth that the keeper maketh. 19 The rich man shall lie down, but he shall not be gathered: he openeth his eyes, and he is not. 20 Terrors take hold on him as waters, a tempest stealeth him away in the night. 21 The east wind carrieth him away, and he departeth: and as a storm hurleth him out of his place. 22 For God shall cast upon him, and not spare: he would fain flee out of his hand. 23 Men shall clap their hands at him, and shall hiss him out of his place. Some of that common grace right there.
This is Biblical common grace: Psalm 145: 8 The LORD is gracious and merciful, slow to anger and abounding in steadfast love. 9 The LORD is good to all, and his mercy is over all that he has made. Liberalism has hit every brand of Christianity whether they hold to any idea of common grace or not. The view of some is that his PRC moved too far the other way and have moved towards hyper-Calvinism. The CRC went one way to the extreme and PRC went to the other extreme.
The free AND well-meant (together) offer of the gospel is something inherent in Reformed and Calvinistic confession. This is something that we see in Dort, in Calvin’s letters to Melanchthon, and in Chapter 7 of the 2nd London, Savoy, and Westminster. “In this covenant he freely offers to sinners life and salvation through Jesus Christ.” -LBCF chapter 7.2 To say there is a well-meant and free offer of the gospel is not against the body of Reformed thought, only certain schools and figures therein. A man can claim the Free and well-meant offer of the gospel, and God’s benevolent love for all, and still be firmly in the Reformed camp (see: Sproul, R.C.).
This explains alot about Doug Wilson. On the surface, he presents himself as a political conservative, so on the surface it looks alot better than Wokeness. However, Doug overcredits secular conservatism and even looks to GK Chesterton (a brilliant philosopher who left Christianity for Romanism) as if Chesterton is a good Christian example; how is proving to have always been an unbeliever a good Christian example? Wilson conflates the providence of God in Chesterton's life with saving grace, even though Chesterton specifically chose to turn to the rejection of the Gospel which is Romanism. I'm more concerned about Wilson injecting spiritually rotten doctrine into those who would otherwise be sound, and I'm less concerned about the obvious apostates being obvious apostates.
Can we think about the warning that was made by the Lord about the salt looses its essence and power with the desire of the church to be smoother with thw world, softing the antitetical calling of both natures? Why is always Jacob desire to ease Esau?
Would be interesting to get Prof. Engelsma and Stephen Wolfe in a room to hash out political theory. I sense they would be significantly at odds and yet both claim continuity of bog-standard reformed tradition.
@@ConversationsThatMatterpodcast Interesting. I guess I'm thinking mostly of the idea of "Christianizing" which seems to be a key component of Wolfe's CN formulation. I'm literally just today getting a chance to crack the book open though; I could be misunderstanding.
As much as I enjoyed this brother taking the time to come on the show, he has 💯 misunderstood. For all watching, I encourage you to read “the mission of God” by Joseph Booth
It is woeful mistake to associate common grace with watered down theology or with evangelical figures to the left of the political spectrum like Tim Keller, as if "common grace" were some new-fangled modern idea out of touch with historic Christianity. The terminology Kuyper used may have been new, but the ideas he expressed were as old as apostolic Christianity. The fact is, there is such a thing as resistible grace, just as there is irresistible grace. The elect of God alone receive the latter, but even the non-elect receive the former. Stephen, the first Christian martyr, accuses his persecutors of "resisting" the work of the Spirit in their hearts. "You do always resist the Spirit," he tells them. The Spirit was doing a work in them which fell short of the work of regeneration, but which surely involved convicting them of their sin and their need of the Savior, but instead of yielding to that gracious work of conviction-- gracious because they did not deserve it-- they hatefully hardened their hearts against that kind work of God in them. You find lots of quotes in Spurgeon and Puritans like John Bunyan highlighting God´s desire for sinners to repent and find life in Christ, rather than going on their sin and perishing. Those great gospel preachers call sinners to respond to the gracious blessings they have already received by God´s common grace which, if they did not actively and hatefully harden their hearts against those blessings, would lead them to the foot of the cross and to Jesus, so that they might have life in Him. Consider the amazing way in which John Bunyan pleads with sinners not to harden their hearts against a Christ who (at some level) desires their salvation, and not their eternal perdition: "Thy stubbornness affects, afflicts the heart of thy Saviour. Carest thou not for this? Of old, ‘he beheld the city, and wept over it.’ Canst thou hear this, and not be concerned? (Luk. 19:41, 42). Shall Christ weep to see thy soul going on to destruction, and will though sport thyself in that way? Yea, shall Christ, that can be eternally happy without thee, be more afflicted at the thoughts of the loss of thy soul, than thyself, who art certainly eternally miserable if thou neglectest to come to him. Those things that keep thee and thy Saviour, on thy part, asunder, are but bubbles; the least prick of an affliction will let out, as to thee, what now thou thinkest is worth the venture of heaven to enjoy. Hast thou not reason? Canst thou not so much as once soberly think of thy dying hour, or of whither thy sinful life will drive thee then? Hast thou no conscience? or having one, is it rocked so fast asleep by sin, or made so weary with an unsuccessful calling upon thee, that it is laid down, and cares for thee no more? Poor man! thy state is to be lamented. Hast no judgment? Art not able to conclude, that to be saved is better than to burn in hell? and that eternal life with God’s favour, is better than a temporal life in God’s displeasure? Hast no affection but what is brutish? what, none at all? No affection for the God that made thee? What! none for his loving Son that has showed his love, and died for thee? Is not heaven worth thy affection? O poor man! which is strongest, thinkest thou, God or thee? If thou art not able to overcome him, thou art a fool for standing out against him (Mat. 5:25, 26). ‘It is a fearful thing to fall into the hand of the living God’ (Heb. 10:29-31). He will gripe hard; his fist is stronger than a lion’s paw; take heed of him, he will be angry if you despise his Son; and will you stand guilty in your trespasses, when he offereth you his grace and favour? (Exo. 34: 6, 7).” John Bunyan, “The Jerusalem Sinner Saved, or, Good News for the Vilest of Men” in The Works of John Bunyan, (Banner of Truth), 1:90. Any theology which hinders us from pleading with sinners as Bunyan pleads, is deficient in its biblical character.
15:30 well the trespass or not the Bible is trespassing to use his words, on itself for the scripture says that God desires all people to be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth. While this is a very worthy discussion you seemingly have an ivory-tower type view that one doctrine is now at war with another doctrine. I love see ology as much as the next guy and went to seminary myself, but at the end of the day often times we have our favorite Bible passages because they're written down in a confession centuries later, and yet they ignore many other plane Bible passages that teach also sound biblical doctrine. The Seether there's contradictions in the Bible, or God is so fast and so big we cannot systematize him. We must profess that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the father, that Jesus is the only way of salvation, that God does Jews are all people to be saved yet not all people are safe because men loved darkness rather than light because their deeds are evil. Certainly use the term common grace before but usually meaning Providence, as God's kindness that leads to repentance as the scripture says. Anyway I've only listen to up to this point, thanks for posting this
Seems to explain why Total Depravity challenge people do what is considered secularly good they contrive a concept called common good.This is why context,continuity in the handling Scriptures is central.Believers have the perspective of ISAI- AH Sixty - Four,and JEREMIAH Seventeen 📖 🙏♨️ ✝️ 🕊 🛐 🔥 🤲🏽 🧭David Engelsma is astute,is keen in his ken 🧶 🧠 🧵
Even if he's accurate regarding Kuyper's ecumenical concept of grace, I'd still argue his Sphereology is the central focus of his work in modern reformed applications, and thereby perhaps might be better referred to as Neo-Kyperianism in this regard, not resisted or rejected... Further, we don't treat our children as Engelsma advocates we treat the unsaved world - that Christians ought *not* advocate nor levy Biblical rules upon a pagan's conduct under their jurisdiction until they are saved.... Imagine Christian Leaders in society with Engelsma theology! Pagans get an earthly pass on misconduct since Christians ought never set rules that conform a pagan to Biblical Ethics so that other pagans might not get confused that they can be saved by obedience to Biblically consistent civil law... Neo-Kuyperian Christian Nationalists - as I consider myself - desire to have one system of justice over both the pagan and the people of God, Biblical Ordered Liberty, as we are BOTH accountable to God's laws, and we do not believe this saves their soul, but merely reflects true justice (as only can be defined in reference to God's Law).
I Timothy 4:10 says that the living God is the savior of all men and especially of those who believe. Jesus says that we are to be salt, which works to prevent putrefaction. As Christians we are used to restrain evil. This is the grace of God, even if it is not saving. Romans also says that eventually as people reject God he gives them over to pursue their own desires. What is the opposite of giving them over?To me this is His restraining grace. We better be praying that God would use us to restrain evil and that He would not give people over to how bad they can get. This to me is God's grace to mankind, however you want to say it. I am grateful for God's grace in giving us good leaders. This is God's grace. What else can it be? Denying God's grace in the life of the ungodly is a denial of total depravity. Is Satan giving these people the ability to do good or is it just that they are able to do good in themselves apart from God's grace?
If you want to know the root of Kuyper problems see, J. Glenn Friesen's, Neo-Calvinism and Christian Theosophy: Franz von Baader, Abraham Kuyper, Herman Dooyeweerd
This misunderstanding of the nature of common grace is behind the errors of those who lean towards social gospel (like Tim Keller), but it is also behind the errors of those who lean toward reconstructionism (like Doug Wilson, Francis Schaeffer, etc.). The tragic thing is that each side points out the error of the other side to prop up its own view, but each fails to see how its own side is making the same underlying error.
Would this be the debate referred to near the end of your interview? Here is a link to the debate playlist. ruclips.net/p/PLpCI0OAFTF6anJrSeyQuslGTggsRTP2C-
So I do not understand predestination. Why go out and make disciples of humanity as Jesus said? If they're predestined they are already saved. Also, many reformed believers seem to show that noone can walk away nor do they become unsaved even if they renounce God/Jesus'salvation or live unChristian lives. Is the host of this podcast a reformed?
Good predestines the means as well as the ends. God saves people but he uses ordinary means of grace to do so - including the preaching of the word. People are not saved apart from the gospel. He takes into account what he will do through his people, through your actions of evangelism, in saving those he has chosen. By asking what’s the point, you are acting as if the world exists apart from God’s sovereignty and to save people, he must intervene and change things, and this is a mistaken view of reality
What utter nonsense. So an unbeliever that saves his child from drowning is doing so for the world? But the Christian father saving his drowning child is doing so for God? Try to prove it.
@@ConversationsThatMatterpodcast That's not was said. It was an either or proposition. Non christians can believe in God, just not in the way Christians do. That does not mean their choices are all worldly. If one wants to make a non Christian argument, find a sound argument. That wasn't it.
@@ConversationsThatMatterpodcast Good is good. GOD established moral good, from God's moral good. There is no evidence in scripture that human moral good is different than God's moral good.
@@sheilasmith7779 not true. The Bible explicitly says no one does good and in another place says you who are evil know how to give good gifts to your children. Clearly there are different uses of goodness. If you don’t realize that when the Bible says even righteous deeds are filthy rags, is saying that even outwardly good deeds are wicked when not done for God, you a a re missing something central
The problem with Prof. Engelsma and the Protestant Reformed Church is they have adapted the Common Grace Ministries of Richard Mouw in the form of Psychology, Christian Psychology and Biblical Counseling. They have adapted the wisdom of the world in opposition to the Wisdom of God found in the Word of God and the Pure Preaching of the Gospel.
![Run Away - Tzuyu(TWICE) ツウィ 쯔위 [Music Bank] | KBS WORLD TV 240906](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/KnHNNyAYiu0/mqdefault.jpg)
I found this short article to be clarifying: confessinganglicans.com/is-grace-really-that-common/
@@StevenSmith-1863 How much of Kuyper have you read on the topic of common grace out of curiosity?
@@StevenSmith-1863 Do you believe common grace is a work of redemption as Kuyper said it was?
Let's also not forget that Engelsma is a student of Herman Hoeksema the main opponent of common grace and Kuyper's definition of it. Although Engelsma presents a good counter-point to the common grace concept, it's still not sufficient to disprove the theory. I think he has some blind spots on the topic honestly, for example:
"God has never given to the Church the calling to christianise the world". That's simply not true. Matthew 28:19-20: “Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything that I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.”
Engelsma's opinion is a contradiction of the Reformed 2nd use of the law, the "civil use," is to restrain evil. Though the law cannot change the heart, it can to some extent inhibit lawlessness by its threats of judgment, especially when backed by a civil code that administers punishment for proven offenses (Deut. 13:6-11; 19:16-21; Rom. 13:3, 4).
Check out also Sproul's opinion on the subject ruclips.net/video/jrRjlWaGHag/видео.html.
Yea, I was hoping Jon was going to ask him about that comment. I would've like to hear his answer to the same question about Matt 28. lol, I think I'll email him the question.
The call to Matt 28 is a common reference when people misunderstand the statement “God has never given to the Church the calling to Christianize the world.” Paul the Apostle helps us to understand how to follow Matt 28 and not Christianize the world. Paul didn’t stand on street corners proclaiming the gospel of Christ. He went to the synagogues of the Jews. He went to the people of God to show them the glorious gospel.
Romans 10:14-15 isolates the hearer from the gospel of Christ to a hearing of those men of God who are sent. And that sending is a call made by Christ through his body, the Church.
The Apostles were used by God to form the institutional Church. They did this by going first to the Jew and then the Greek. The Greek (Gentile) would make request of a body of Christ to send them a man who would make known to them that glorious gospel that they heard rumored. That rumor of the gospel was observed by the antithetical life of the Believer. I believe that this is the best way to explain how Prof Engelsma meant that statement.
Excellent point. This is a deviation/failure to recognize the proper uses of the law. Ross’s “From the Finger of God” is excellent on this.
@@DavidKamps01 Could you please clarify how exactly we could apply Matthew 28 without seeking to christianize and disciple the nations teaching them all that God Himself has commanded?
I believe that Engelsma’s statement is pretty straight-forward. He is not saying we shouldn’t preach the Gospel,
which would have been heretical. He is just saying that we shouldn’t seek to christianize the nations, rather follow a more pietistic approach to evangelization and our ministry in the world. In simple words - we have lost the battle here, let’s focus on our christian affairs, without caring too much about teaching the depraved world about God’s truth in the Law and its application to our contemporary society.
Well, unfortunately neither Calvin, or the puritans, or the Westminster divines were pietists. They were quite passionate to christianize the society and their culture. That’s why I think Engelsma’s theory has it’s blind spots and the Common Grace concept shouldn’t be abandoned so easily.
@@petkocholakov7829 I think Engelsma's providence theory aligns perfectly with Calvin and the puritans, even if Engelsma himself doesn't believe in Christianizing nations (for other theological reasons).
Common Grace? Equals a satanic deception. No such thing. Unsaved man is dead and totally depraved and operate against God's Sovereign Grace. Excellent discussion. This man is an awesome teacher on this falsehood of Kuyper's theology. Loved listening to this.
Thank you. I was using common grace in conversation but no more. Thank you for the linked article too.
Well I learned something tonight. I just knew that some of the things that churches do to "win the lost" is so far out there. Only the Gospel spoken openly to the unbeliever with the work of the Holy Spirit effectually calling that person does the conversion take place. So glad I heard this tonight. I needed it.
Exactly. Accommodation to culture is called theological liberalism.
This was one of the most helpful interviews! Heard that Kuyper quote many times in undergrad and about common grace from a reformed professor. Professor David really clarified some important truths. I work in foster care not because I think my faith "requires" it, but simply for God's glory. We can see God's glory in all types of work, because we reflect God's image, but by no means can we confuse that with the ministry of the church. Common grace sounds appealing to Christians who are looking for "purpose" besides the basics of lived obedience to Christ according to His Word in committed fellowship to their local congregation. The most radical thing we can do is obey God in our roles in the home and church and all else is outreach👍
I'm an Anabaptist completely tracking with this conversation on common grace. Very helpful in clarifying the diss-ease I feel yet unable to articulate. 👌 thank you
Common Grace is a theological concept, primarily in Reformed and Calvinistic circles, referring to God’s common patience or forbearance with sinful man ... the non-saving sustaining grace of God that is common to all humankind. It is “common” because its benefits are experienced by, or intended for, the whole human race without distinction between one person and another. It is "grace" because it is undeserved and sovereignly bestowed by God. In this sense, it is distinguished from the Calvinistic understanding of "special" or "saving" grace, which extends only to those whom God has chosen to redeem. An example of the concept can be found in the idea that God allows the sun to shine upon both the righteous and the unrighteous and sends rain on both the just and unjust.
All His ways are judgement. Is it judgement to reward the reprobate with good?
The overall, overlooked,and/or completely ignored fact that everyone seems to avoid speaking on is the common thread with ALL false Christian theology, eschatology and overall understanding of God is men read more books and opinions of men rather than letting Scripture interpret Scripture. All of you trying to overintellectualize the Gospel until it becomes subjective allegorical nonsense.
Jesus said " unless you come to me like a child, you will NOT see the Kingdom of God." He did NOT say unless you come to me with your degrees,acronyms and sophistication...
Amen 🙏 ♨️ ✝️ 🕊 🛐 🔥 🤲🏽
God praises those who dig deep in scripture to understand hidden things
Excellent discussion, Jon!
Very enlightening, thanks John.
This is by far my favorite episode
By gollies. You learn somethin' new everyday. I had no idea there was such a difference between "providence" and "common grace". I must admit that at first I thought, "are we just splittin' hairs here? Semantics?" But the more I listened the more I kind of, understood the difference of (at least from the reformed perspective) the former to be biblical and the later to be a heresy.
Nice one Jon. I felt the earth move.have always been Kuyperian. Could you do the same with Doug Wilson? Would like to hear his take.
Thank you for this conversation Jon. Very helpful!
I would love to see this gentleman have a discussion with Doug Wilson (i.e., the Moscow ID "experiment ") to further clarify the boundaries of Kuyperianism. This postmillineal view of Christ putting all under His feet through the growth of the saving gospel and the Church over time through discipling etc. That would be so helpful. Perhaps someday
He actually had one with Richard Mouw (link in the info section) who is probably the most able defender of Kuyper's common grace alive.
He's already written a book about Doug Wilson
This is an excellent and much needed discussion. I've been spiritually aware of this problem for awhile, but I didn't understand how it articulates, so now I'll be better able to progress in helping others come to clarity against this error.
A reading of Psalm 5, 73, and 92 quickly destroys the notion of 'common grace'.
God hates the wicked reprobate with a righteous, holy hatred for the simple fact that they were, are, and never will be in Jesus Christ. God only loves His elect in Christ, the Elect one. The good gifts God bestows on the non-elect is the means in which their hearts are hardened to the glorious person and work of Jesus Christ ; they are 'fitted to destruction' by Jehovah, and this in eternity.
The only reason this world continues in it's present form is for the ingathering of all God's elect.
Amazing interview, explains so much of what we see in the reformed camp.
The debate referenced in this conversation is available on RUclips and greatly expands this subject material.
Engelsma v Mouw debate playlist ruclips.net/p/PLpCI0OAFTF6anJrSeyQuslGTggsRTP2C-
@@StevenSmith-1863 yw :)
I think the immediate response will likely be "what does disciple the nations mean?" also, why is Christ "King of Kings" if this does not translate to Earthly kingdoms, then what precisely is the situation....
There is nothing common about Grace!
Is Engelsma mixing terms? He talks about total depravity as if it is utter depravity. These two words do not mean the same thing. And I know he understands the importance of two closely defined words because he makes the distinction between providence and common grace. I'm not saying Kuyper was right in all that he said, but is this possibly just someone slightly changing the definition of words and using it as an argument? Any time your going to judge someone based on their words, you need to make sure you know what they mean by those words. A perfect example is your recent discussion with Jared Moore and Doug Wilson, where Jared was using quotes of Doug that sounded awful, but once Doug explained the words he was using and definition and the distinction he was making it took the fangs out of Jared's argument. This shows that slight definition changes even over a short period of time can make a difference.
This was excellent Jon! Thank you for the clarification. I have attempted to articulate this exact topic in my teaching and haven't been able to quite put my finger on it. I can now confidently say what Kuiper, et al call common grace is God's providence but is not salvific or election. Thank you for your wisdom in choosing to discuss this and having an authority like Prof. Engelsma share his expertise! Thank you for your own wise contribution.
Common grace is not providence. It is an innovative doctrine meant to water down irresistible grace.
His name is spelled Kuyper. The other spelling is a different theologian. Kuiper.
@@ThomasCranmer1959Thank you for the correction. I actually meant Kuyper and not Kuiper. Maybe I typed it correctly but spell checker changed it and I didn't look at it.
@@denniscrumbley8274 You are welcome, sir.
I really appreciate this discussion , but I would rather hear the many scriptural proofs against common grace rather than the denominational adherence
I prefer “common mercy” like in AW Pink’s Attributes of God
I think I would agree with phrase common mercy more than common grace. The lost has no grace bestowed on them before salvation. That can be supported by Scripture as well.
Herman Hoeksema’s Reformed Dogmatics (Volume 1) has a rare section on the antithesis (near the front).
A good follow up to this would be Cornelius Van Til’s book “Conmon Grace and the Gospel”. Mr. Engelsma really is only speaking to one historic reformed point of view on the doctrine of common grace and its developments since Kuyper. In Kuyper’s theology however, there is always also at work the doctrine of Antithesis which works within any common grace good.
A meaningful conversation. The question is why Kuyper chose the word "grace" when he could use "providence". Just because someone supports TULIP, it does not mean he/she is a saint. It appears we can learn nothing from Kuyper. I wonder why people study his theology. Many words of men make things confusing. The words of God, on the other hand, are easy to understand.
I used to like Engelsma for his passion and knowledge. In 2021, the RPC came out of the PRC because the RPC claims that the PRC supports men-initiated repentance. I am afraid the PRC is becoming like the RCA and the CRC.
Isn't providence given to the ungodly a form of unmerited favor? A talented artists who produces great music, but who lives an debauched life, is bestowed upon with a great gift, which certainly was not merited by that individual. I call that "grace," because it is a form of favor, and one that is certainly unmerited.
If that’s all Kuyper meant I doubt there would be a debate over it.
@@ConversationsThatMatterpodcast Right...but the conversation seemed to move into a discussion that went beyond Kuijper's take, and into the difference between "grace" and "providence." I'm just commenting on that part of the discussion...but yes, the notion that unbelievers are privy to some sort of salvific work apart from the blood of Christ, faith in that, i.e. some sort "salvific" social reforms is obviously umbilical.
Lol...unbiblical...thanks phone.
@@ConversationsThatMatterpodcast is it accurate to say that’s how modern Reformed people who subscribe to it describe it? Because that’s the impression I got. Didn’t know it was defined differently by kuyper
@@cosmictreason2242 Most Reformed people are simply referring to Providence when they use the term I believe, but Engelsma's contention is that the concept is more related to rolling back the curse (i.e. being part of the work of redemption) through cultural actions apart from the special work of Christ.
I vaguely recall this term. Is not grace just "grace"? Why is it labeled "commom"? I have not heard this conversation yet. Just found it. More than enough to listen to these days and short on time. 🌱
What's the difference between Kuyperian common grace and Van Til's view of common grace?
Not much practical difference other than CvT trying to make it more Christian than it actually is lol
I am not in a Reformed church, but I am reading and listening to Reformed scholars. I would appreciate a little clarification. Jon asked Mr. Engelsma if Reformed Christians could work with Catholics on the abortion issue. Mr. Engelsma replied about working with "unbelievers." I once was interested in applying to a Reformed Seminary about a program in church and state studies open to lawyers. Being ever respectful of an institution's foundations, I wrote to the president of the school and asked him could I be considered if I applied. He responded that the school had, in fact, accepted non-Reformed students in the past and that it had not worked out well. He said that the school would accept only orthodox Christians. I infer from Mr. Engelsma that he considers Catholics to be non-believers. What I do not understand is this: Are the terms "non-believer," "ungodly," and "unorthodox,," synoymous with the term "non-Reformed," or are there nuances that I have not understood?
They are not exactly synonymous but there’s overlap so you might see people use different words to describe different people at different times, because they’re emphasizing different things.
@@cosmictreason2242 For outsiders lookiing in, this is somewhat confusiing. Thank you for your reply.
Then usage of common grace among Reformed never gave me the impression that it was contradictory to total depravity. TD means that man is unable to believe or to do good works without God working in them to effect that. I understood common grace to simply explain “good behavior” not done out of faith, because without it being grace, it would be intrinsic to the unbeliever and that can’t be accepted
You've been brainwashed by Ligonier. TD properly taught by the WCF: From this original corruption, whereby we are utterly indisposed, disabled, and made opposite to all good, and wholly inclined to all evil, do proceed all actual transgressions.
How do the big money Calvinists read this then turn around and say man isn't as bad as they can possibly be? They do so because their coffers would dry up if they taught the truth. They'd sooner prophesy smooth things than right things.
This is so important and deep. Thank you.
Common Grace is a standard Reformed concept, so looking forward to the video.
It’s definitely a standard term today. This wasn’t always so though.
@@ConversationsThatMatterpodcast Hi Jon, you’re right it’s a relatively new
term (100 years old approx.) The concept behind it however is not new. I agree that the term has been misused by the progressive theologians and Kuyper in general became a hero for both Reformed and progressives. But that signifies I think the genius of his works. Of course he is not perfect in any way, but still he is a excellent Reformed writer especially on the application of God’s Word in all spheres of life, as opposed to pietism.
@@petkocholakov7829 His development of sphere sovereignty is definitely appreciated.
@@ConversationsThatMatterpodcast Sure! By the way, your videos are great. I am watching them from Bulgaria and although English is not my first language, they have been truly beneficial for me. Thank you for your
efforts!
Some good points here, but if grace is "God's kindness to the undeserving," then it's not a stretch to see God giving grace to the wicked in all things. That is distinguished from saving grace. However, it seems more accurate to call it common grace than providence, since providence includes other things.
For what is the hope of the hypocrite, though he hath gained, when God taketh away his soul?
9 Will God hear his cry when trouble cometh upon him?
10 Will he delight himself in the Almighty? will he always call upon God?
11 I will teach you by the hand of God: that which is with the Almighty will I not conceal.
12 Behold, all ye yourselves have seen it; why then are ye thus altogether vain?
13 This is the portion of a wicked man with God, and the heritage of oppressors, which they shall receive of the Almighty.
14 If his children be multiplied, it is for the sword: and his offspring shall not be satisfied with bread.
15 Those that remain of him shall be buried in death: and his widows shall not weep.
16 Though he heap up silver as the dust, and prepare raiment as the clay;
17 He may prepare it, but the just shall put it on, and the innocent shall divide the silver.
18 He buildeth his house as a moth, and as a booth that the keeper maketh.
19 The rich man shall lie down, but he shall not be gathered: he openeth his eyes, and he is not.
20 Terrors take hold on him as waters, a tempest stealeth him away in the night.
21 The east wind carrieth him away, and he departeth: and as a storm hurleth him out of his place.
22 For God shall cast upon him, and not spare: he would fain flee out of his hand.
23 Men shall clap their hands at him, and shall hiss him out of his place.
Some of that common grace right there.
This is Biblical common grace: Psalm 145: 8 The LORD is gracious and merciful, slow to anger and abounding in steadfast love. 9 The LORD is good to all, and his mercy is over all that he has made.
Liberalism has hit every brand of Christianity whether they hold to any idea of common grace or not.
The view of some is that his PRC moved too far the other way and have moved towards hyper-Calvinism. The CRC went one way to the extreme and PRC went to the other extreme.
The free AND well-meant (together) offer of the gospel is something inherent in Reformed and Calvinistic confession. This is something that we see in Dort, in Calvin’s letters to Melanchthon, and in Chapter 7 of the 2nd London, Savoy, and Westminster.
“In this covenant he freely offers to sinners life and salvation through Jesus Christ.” -LBCF chapter 7.2
To say there is a well-meant and free offer of the gospel is not against the body of Reformed thought, only certain schools and figures therein. A man can claim the Free and well-meant offer of the gospel, and God’s benevolent love for all, and still be firmly in the Reformed camp (see: Sproul, R.C.).
Have you read his book "Common Grace Revisited"? I found the arguments a little hard to follow. Still sympathetic to the idea though.
OH yeah, looking forward to this!
Your guest is a national treasure!!!
Excellent discussion, thank you. I knew little of Kuyper and appreciate your teaching, thank you.
I have never thought of common Grace as that which has been described here.
What about sphere sovereignty? Wasn’t that from Kuyper? I find this concept extremely valid and helpful.
This explains alot about Doug Wilson. On the surface, he presents himself as a political conservative, so on the surface it looks alot better than Wokeness. However, Doug overcredits secular conservatism and even looks to GK Chesterton (a brilliant philosopher who left Christianity for Romanism) as if Chesterton is a good Christian example; how is proving to have always been an unbeliever a good Christian example? Wilson conflates the providence of God in Chesterton's life with saving grace, even though Chesterton specifically chose to turn to the rejection of the Gospel which is Romanism. I'm more concerned about Wilson injecting spiritually rotten doctrine into those who would otherwise be sound, and I'm less concerned about the obvious apostates being obvious apostates.
Can we think about the warning that was made by the Lord about the salt looses its essence and power with the desire of the church to be smoother with thw world, softing the antitetical calling of both natures? Why is always Jacob desire to ease Esau?
Would be interesting to get Prof. Engelsma and Stephen Wolfe in a room to hash out political theory. I sense they would be significantly at odds and yet both claim continuity of bog-standard reformed tradition.
Pretty sure they’d be pretty similar to be honest.
@@ConversationsThatMatterpodcast Interesting. I guess I'm thinking mostly of the idea of "Christianizing" which seems to be a key component of Wolfe's CN formulation. I'm literally just today getting a chance to crack the book open though; I could be misunderstanding.
@@Truttle They would both make the distinction between earthly and heavenly good. Engelsma's contention is that Kuyperians conflate the two.
Does Common Grace really deprive the unelect of their total depravity?
Not the way I’ve heard it used by Reformed people in this century, but apparently in the original formulation by kuyper?
Historically, has common grace played a role in forming Two Kingdoms Theology from Westminster West Coast?
I don’t believe so.
It has, big big big time.
As much as I enjoyed this brother taking the time to come on the show, he has 💯 misunderstood. For all watching, I encourage you to read “the mission of God” by Joseph Booth
can you explain how Dr. Boot would disagree?
It is sad that Dr. Engelsma, his denomination and the issues they raise are ignored and not discussed more often.
Maybe Christians should stop reading books with the views of the authors, and read more scripture.
It is woeful mistake to associate common grace with watered down theology or with evangelical figures to the left of the political spectrum like Tim Keller, as if "common grace" were some new-fangled modern idea out of touch with historic Christianity. The terminology Kuyper used may have been new, but the ideas he expressed were as old as apostolic Christianity. The fact is, there is such a thing as resistible grace, just as there is irresistible grace. The elect of God alone receive the latter, but even the non-elect receive the former. Stephen, the first Christian martyr, accuses his persecutors of "resisting" the work of the Spirit in their hearts. "You do always resist the Spirit," he tells them. The Spirit was doing a work in them which fell short of the work of regeneration, but which surely involved convicting them of their sin and their need of the Savior, but instead of yielding to that gracious work of conviction-- gracious because they did not deserve it-- they hatefully hardened their hearts against that kind work of God in them. You find lots of quotes in Spurgeon and Puritans like John Bunyan highlighting God´s desire for sinners to repent and find life in Christ, rather than going on their sin and perishing. Those great gospel preachers call sinners to respond to the gracious blessings they have already received by God´s common grace which, if they did not actively and hatefully harden their hearts against those blessings, would lead them to the foot of the cross and to Jesus, so that they might have life in Him.
Consider the amazing way in which John Bunyan pleads with sinners not to harden their hearts against a Christ who (at some level) desires their salvation, and not their eternal perdition: "Thy stubbornness affects, afflicts the heart of thy Saviour. Carest thou not for this? Of old, ‘he beheld the city, and wept over it.’ Canst thou hear this, and not be concerned? (Luk. 19:41, 42). Shall Christ weep to see thy soul going on to destruction, and will though sport thyself in that way? Yea, shall Christ, that can be eternally happy without thee, be more afflicted at the thoughts of the loss of thy soul, than thyself, who art certainly eternally miserable if thou neglectest to come to him. Those things that keep thee and thy Saviour, on thy part, asunder, are but bubbles; the least prick of an affliction will let out, as to thee, what now thou thinkest is worth the venture of heaven to enjoy. Hast thou not reason? Canst thou not so much as once soberly think of thy dying hour, or of whither thy sinful life will drive thee then? Hast thou no conscience? or having one, is it rocked so fast asleep by sin, or made so weary with an unsuccessful calling upon thee, that it is laid down, and cares for thee no more? Poor man! thy state is to be lamented. Hast no judgment? Art not able to conclude, that to be saved is better than to burn in hell? and that eternal life with God’s favour, is better than a temporal life in God’s displeasure? Hast no affection but what is brutish? what, none at all? No affection for the God that made thee? What! none for his loving Son that has showed his love, and died for thee? Is not heaven worth thy affection? O poor man! which is strongest, thinkest thou, God or thee? If thou art not able to overcome him, thou art a fool for standing out against him (Mat. 5:25, 26). ‘It is a fearful thing to fall into the hand of the living God’ (Heb. 10:29-31). He will gripe hard; his fist is stronger than a lion’s paw; take heed of him, he will be angry if you despise his Son; and will you stand guilty in your trespasses, when he offereth you his grace and favour? (Exo. 34: 6, 7).” John Bunyan, “The Jerusalem Sinner Saved, or, Good News for the Vilest of Men” in The Works of John Bunyan, (Banner of Truth), 1:90.
Any theology which hinders us from pleading with sinners as Bunyan pleads, is deficient in its biblical character.
I'm not seeing a link to the debate. Maybe you couldn't find it online, but maybe you just forgot you were going to post it? Great interview, Jon.
When the Bible says, "God sends the rain to the righteous and the wicked" is not common grace? Then what should we call that?
I brought up that very point. Did you watch?
@@ConversationsThatMatterpodcast sorry, listening at work with office noise in the background. So did not catch that. Can you please answer?
15:30 well the trespass or not the Bible is trespassing to use his words, on itself for the scripture says that God desires all people to be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth.
While this is a very worthy discussion you seemingly have an ivory-tower type view that one doctrine is now at war with another doctrine.
I love see ology as much as the next guy and went to seminary myself, but at the end of the day often times we have our favorite Bible passages because they're written down in a confession centuries later, and yet they ignore many other plane Bible passages that teach also sound biblical doctrine.
The Seether there's contradictions in the Bible, or God is so fast and so big we cannot systematize him.
We must profess that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the father, that Jesus is the only way of salvation, that God does Jews are all people to be saved yet not all people are safe because men loved darkness rather than light because their deeds are evil.
Certainly use the term common grace before but usually meaning Providence, as God's kindness that leads to repentance as the scripture says.
Anyway I've only listen to up to this point, thanks for posting this
What type of Greater Grace James 4:6 is referring to? Doesn’t that imply some sort of gradation of graces…
Seems to explain why Total Depravity challenge people do what is considered secularly good they
contrive a concept called common good.This is why context,continuity in the handling Scriptures is central.Believers have the perspective of ISAI-
AH Sixty - Four,and JEREMIAH Seventeen 📖 🙏♨️ ✝️ 🕊 🛐 🔥 🤲🏽 🧭David Engelsma is astute,is
keen in his ken 🧶 🧠 🧵
Christ has nothing to do with common grace? News to me.
Even if he's accurate regarding Kuyper's ecumenical concept of grace, I'd still argue his Sphereology is the central focus of his work in modern reformed applications, and thereby perhaps might be better referred to as Neo-Kyperianism in this regard, not resisted or rejected...
Further, we don't treat our children as Engelsma advocates we treat the unsaved world - that Christians ought *not* advocate nor levy Biblical rules upon a pagan's conduct under their jurisdiction until they are saved....
Imagine Christian Leaders in society with Engelsma theology! Pagans get an earthly pass on misconduct since Christians ought never set rules that conform a pagan to Biblical Ethics so that other pagans might not get confused that they can be saved by obedience to Biblically consistent civil law...
Neo-Kuyperian Christian Nationalists - as I consider myself - desire to have one system of justice over both the pagan and the people of God, Biblical Ordered Liberty, as we are BOTH accountable to God's laws, and we do not believe this saves their soul, but merely reflects true justice (as only can be defined in reference to God's Law).
I Timothy 4:10 says that the living God is the savior of all men and especially of those who believe. Jesus says that we are to be salt, which works to prevent putrefaction. As Christians we are used to restrain evil. This is the grace of God, even if it is not saving. Romans also says that eventually as people reject God he gives them over to pursue their own desires. What is the opposite of giving them over?To me this is His restraining grace. We better be praying that God would use us to restrain evil and that He would not give people over to how bad they can get. This to me is God's grace to mankind, however you want to say it. I am grateful for God's grace in giving us good leaders. This is God's grace. What else can it be? Denying God's grace in the life of the ungodly is a denial of total depravity. Is Satan giving these people the ability to do good or is it just that they are able to do good in themselves apart from God's grace?
If you want to know the root of Kuyper problems see, J. Glenn Friesen's, Neo-Calvinism and Christian Theosophy: Franz von Baader, Abraham Kuyper, Herman Dooyeweerd
Here was your chance to talk about Federal Vision Harris...
This misunderstanding of the nature of common grace is behind the errors of those who lean towards social gospel (like Tim Keller), but it is also behind the errors of those who lean toward reconstructionism (like Doug Wilson, Francis Schaeffer, etc.). The tragic thing is that each side points out the error of the other side to prop up its own view, but each fails to see how its own side is making the same underlying error.
Mouw, Engelsma debate part one. This is posted in multiple parts.
ruclips.net/video/pVtUFkb8r2E/видео.htmlsi=INVurJeVDoqo4c00
Straw man argument by Engelsma of common grace holders.
Do you understand Dutch to read Kuyper on common grace? Engelsma does.
Would this be the debate referred to near the end of your interview? Here is a link to the debate playlist.
ruclips.net/p/PLpCI0OAFTF6anJrSeyQuslGTggsRTP2C-
So I do not understand predestination. Why go out and make disciples of humanity as Jesus said? If they're predestined they are already saved. Also, many reformed believers seem to show that noone can walk away nor do they become unsaved even if they renounce God/Jesus'salvation or live unChristian lives. Is the host of this podcast a reformed?
Good predestines the means as well as the ends. God saves people but he uses ordinary means of grace to do so - including the preaching of the word. People are not saved apart from the gospel. He takes into account what he will do through his people, through your actions of evangelism, in saving those he has chosen. By asking what’s the point, you are acting as if the world exists apart from God’s sovereignty and to save people, he must intervene and change things, and this is a mistaken view of reality
What utter nonsense.
So an unbeliever that saves his child from drowning is doing so for the world?
But the Christian father saving his drowning child is doing so for God?
Try to prove it.
That’s not either of our positions. The father loves the child in both cases, but in the case of a Christian Father there’s also a love for God.
@@ConversationsThatMatterpodcast That's not was said. It was an either or proposition. Non christians can believe in God, just not in the way Christians do. That does not mean their choices are all worldly.
If one wants to make a non Christian argument, find a sound argument. That wasn't it.
@@sheilasmith7779 The distinction is between earthly and heavenly good. Same distinction Wolfe makes in his book.
@@ConversationsThatMatterpodcast
Good is good. GOD established moral good, from God's moral good. There is no evidence in scripture that human moral good is different than God's moral good.
@@sheilasmith7779 not true. The Bible explicitly says no one does good and in another place says you who are evil know how to give good gifts to your children. Clearly there are different uses of goodness. If you don’t realize that when the Bible says even righteous deeds are filthy rags, is saying that even outwardly good deeds are wicked when not done for God, you a a re missing something central
The problem with Prof. Engelsma and the Protestant Reformed Church is they have adapted the Common Grace Ministries of Richard Mouw in the form of Psychology, Christian Psychology and Biblical Counseling. They have adapted the wisdom of the world in opposition to the Wisdom of God found in the Word of God and the Pure Preaching of the Gospel.