Is the Pope a False Prophet? By Andrew P. Napolitano

[Sola_Fide]

I've always believed in common grace though, and common grace is in the Bible

Where?

 

[Christian Liberty]

It goes back to the Gordon Clark/Van Til controversy. Every reformed believer needs to understand the sides that both these men took.

I don't really understand the debate. I've read the stuff on Trinity but I've been told that that's biased by Van Tillians. So I don't really know for sure. I know I'm a presup but beyond that... not sure.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

RCC is also strong on common grace. Rather than pray for a pope, it is better to pray that Christ's sheep come out of the RCC immediately. Sola, I am reading more and more common grace nonsense on Reformed blogs, websites, etc. There seems to be only a remnant of Reformed believers who don't/won't affirm it.

I'm not a particular fan of the modern RCC, but I would say we should pray for them that they return to their orthodox roots and abandon their heresy and the papacy. Likewise, I pray all heterodox children of God find their spiritual, Orthodox roots.

 

[Christian Liberty]

Despite have a fairly good night discussing a section of the Larger Catechism regarding how all men fell into sin in Adam (yikes, this bible is loaded with collectivist terminology), I got home tonight with a bit of a headache, which may be reflected a bit in the sarcasm in the response I am about to give, but I will write as such anyway as it may prove to help ram the point home here.



The antinomian title was not specifically meant for you, though the harping on monergistic sanctification (a logical contradiction) lends itself to having problems with how the law functions in the context of justifying grace. The Free Grace Baptists disagree pretty strongly with you on your point that no Christian is an antinomian, because they hoot and howl all day about how Christian they are and they'll have none of that Law nonsense, moral or otherwise. That's Old Testament stuff to them, over and done with.



I'm not in disagreement with you on this point, I'm not a Reconstructionist, so I don't favor reinstating the entire Levitical code with all of its peculiar judicial punishments. The problem is that you are talking about Law, not Gospel, and misinterpreting the positive character of the Levitical OT laws is not the same as denying the Gospel. If someone confesses justification by faith alone, and places works of the law into their proper context as sanctification, that person is not misunderstanding the Gospel. There are parts of being a Christian that pertain to The Law that don't necessarily inform one's understanding of The Gospel, though they might reveal a lack of understanding regarding how God's covenant passed from Israel to the church.

Furthermore, there are moral aspects of the OT law that are binding upon the magistrate because of their universal natural applications, and it is in keeping with the Christian religion that these laws be observed and enforced by a lawful magistrate. Many of these natural applications preclude one from holding social views that are fairly common in American libertarianism.



God does not covenant with governments of the world, governments of the world are to covenant themselves to him. The Solemn League and Covenant and the corresponding ones that various Magistrate Reformed nations enacted during the Reformation were not of the same peculiar species of the biblical covenants of works/life and grace, but they were necessary in establishing a Godly governance upon Christian nations. These covenants, once made, were as binding as vows of those committed to the covenant of grace. As Matthew 28:19 states, "Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost", as opposed to "Go ye therefore, and teach all individual, freethinking Baptists, immersing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, provided that they are of the age of reason, oh, but works still won't save us so we'll just say we don't Baptize babies because Rome does it".

Being a Christian is not a license to be an island unto yourself, and complaining about common terminology regarding grace in the context of the church betrays somebody who thinks more like an American than a Christian.

There are two different questions at play here:


1. Are the civil case laws that God gave Moses to punish transgressions of the moral law still binding on all nations?

2. If the answer to #1 is no, is a "yes" answer to #1 a denial of the gospel?

Sola claims over and over that reconstructionism is a denial of the gospel. However, when I push him on it, he argues solely that reconstructionism is not Biblical because "the Mosaic polity isn't binding" (i'm really getting more of an assertion than a real argument but that's neither here nor there). The answers are ignoring the severe gravity of the claim being made. Sola isn't just saying that I'm misinterpreting the applicability of the civil code of Moses, but that I am also somehow denying the gospel because of my view. THAT is something I really want to get to the heart of. Its a different issue if you want to disagree with me WITHOUT questioning my affirmation of the gospel, but if you want to say that theonomy is a denial of sola fide, we really need to talk about that (this is of course more directed at Sola, not you.)

The big thing Sola doesn't understand is that I actually do understand the difference between law and gospel. What I disagree on is the idea of the gospel rendering the civil law void (and even more bizarrely, the gospel replacing "law" with the non-aggression principle and the moral law only, for some inexplicable reason.)

 

[hells_unicorn]

Where?

I'm probably going to get some grief for sourcing Wikipedia, but I think part of their article on common grace gives some good examples on this point.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_grace

Aspects of common grace

In the words of Reformed scholar Louis Berkhof, “[Common grace] curbs the destructive power of sin, maintains in a measure the moral order of the universe, thus making an orderly life possible, distributes in varying degrees gifts and talents among men, promotes the development of science and art, and showers untold blessings upon the children of men,” (Berkhof, p. 434, summarizing Calvin’s position on common grace). The various aspects of God's common grace to all mankind may be generally gathered under four heads:

Providential care in creation - God’s sustaining care for his creation, called divine providence, is grace common to all. The Bible says, for instance, that God through the Son "upholds the universe by the word of his power" (Heb. 1:2-3; John 1:1-4). God's gracious provision for his creatures is seen in the giving of the seasons, of seedtime and harvest. It is of this providential common grace that Jesus reminds his hearers when he said God "makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust" (Matt. 5:45). We also see evidence of God’s common grace in the establishment of various structures within human society. At a foundational level, God has ordained the family unit. Even pagan parents typically know that they should nurture their children (Matt. 7:9-10) and raise them to become responsible adults.

Providential restraint of sin - In the Bible, Paul teaches that civil authorities have been "instituted by God" (Rom. 13:1) to maintain order and punish wrongdoing. Although fallible instruments of his common grace, civil governments are called "ministers of God" (Rom. 13:6) that should not be feared by those who do good. God also sovereignly works through circumstances to limit a persons sinful behavior (Gen. 20:6, 1 Sam. 25:26).

In man's conscience - The apostle Paul says that when unbelieving Gentiles "who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, ...They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them" (Rom. 2:14-15, ESV). By God's common grace fallen mankind retains a conscience indicating the differences between right and wrong. This may be based on the fact that human beings, though fallen in sin, retain a semblance of the "image of God" with which they were originally created (Gen. 9:6: 1 Cor. 11:7).

Providential blessings to mankind - Human advancements that come through the unredeemed are seen as outcomes of God's common grace. For example, medical and other technological advancements that improve the lives of both the redeemed and unredeemed are seen as initiated by common grace.

In summary, common grace is seen in God's continuing care for his creation, his restraining human society from becoming altogether intolerable and ungovernable, his making it possible for mankind to live together in a generally orderly and cooperative manner, and maintaining man's conscious sense of basic right and wrong behavior.

I should also add that common grace has applications within the congregation of a faithful church as a whole, particularly when taking Communion. This grace is not the same as the special grace that applies to justification, but there are species of common grace that are present within the entire world as noted above as well as those that are conferred to believers in sanctifying works. Believing in common grace does not preclude the existence or the necessity of special grace in salvation, and thinking so betrays an extremely erroneous and short-sighted fundamentalism.

 

[Christian Liberty]

RCC is also strong on common grace. Rather than pray for a pope, it is better to pray that Christ's sheep come out of the RCC immediately. Sola, I am reading more and more common grace nonsense on Reformed blogs, websites, etc. There seems to be only a remnant of Reformed believers who don't/won't affirm it.

Common grace is in the Bible. Matthew 5:43-47

 

[Sola_Fide]

Common grace is in the Bible. Matthew 5:43-47

That verse has nothing to do with saving grace.

 

[Christian Liberty]

That verse has nothing to do with saving grace.

Duh. Since when is common grace "saving"?

C'mon Sola. I know that 90% of people here are pushovers, but you're going to need to do better than this against me...

 

[hells_unicorn]

That verse has nothing to do with saving grace.

Read my post above Sola (#105), it's clear that you have no idea what common grace is if you are mistaking it with saving grace. Saving grace applies to Justification. Common Grace has applications in Sanctification, but also in Providence both within and outside the church.

Ignorance is only a virtue in Roman Catholicism Sola , it's time to start thinking more like a Protestant.

 

[Ronin Truth]

I'll just stick with Jesus.

 

[Sola_Fide]

Duh. Since when is common grace "saving"?

C'mon Sola. I know that 90% of people here are pushovers, but you're going to need to do better than this against me...

Read my post above Sola (#105), it's clear that you have no idea what common grace is if you are mistaking it with saving grace. Saving grace applies to Justification. Common Grace has applications in Sanctification, but also in Providence both within and outside the church.

Ignorance is only a virtue in Roman Catholicism Sola , it's time to start thinking more like a Protestant.

Correct. There is no such thing as grace that is not salvific.

What are you two advocating? Previenient grace or something? You think that there is the possibility that grace, once granted, doesn't produce it's desired effect of salvation?

 

[hells_unicorn]

Correct. There is no such thing as grace that is not salvific.

This is patently false and not a scriptural point of view. It states in Heb. 1:2-3 and John 1:1-4 that God through the Son "upholds the universe by the word of his power" (this is right in what I just sourced earlier) and Matt. 5:45 where Jesus reminds his hearers that God "makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust". The entire concept of providence is wrapped up in God's grace towards the whole world. This is not saving grace, this is the love by which the whole world was created good in Genesis 1&2, how sin is restrained by God and man's consciences regulated by his will (see Proverbs 16:4), and it is all 100% undeserved, hence it is a species of grace.

Again, we are not talking about Arminian theology, we are talking about God being sovereign over all of creation, and thus being in control of everything, including the wicked and even Satan himself. Hence, as Martin Luther stated, "The devil is God's devil, and he's on God's chain". God is not the author of sin, but his common grace upon all of creation makes it impossible for sin to thwart his divine will.

What are you two advocating? Previenient grace or something? You think that there is the possibility that grace, once granted, doesn't produce it's desired effect of salvation?

No, No, and NO!!! Have you read a single thing that I've posted here? The Arminian doctrine of grace denies the irresistible special grace that pertains to justification, and they argue that there is only a common grace that is actually different from what CL and myself are discussing in that it somehow restores man to a state of liberty comparable to before the fall (which is nonsensical since we should cease to be mortal if that were the case). Common grace from the Reformed position does not grant a regenerated will, rather it exists within God's providence and restrains the evils of the wicked.

What is being discussed here is not germane to salvation, rather it is germane to God's providence, which pertains to the whole world. The whole world is not saved, nor do the elect lose their salvation. This is the problem that I have with Baptists in general, they simply hack away at scripture until all that is left are a few verses dealing with what plays to their simplistic, anti-doctrinal mindsets, and sadly this mentality infects Reformed Baptists to some extent, hence why I never set foot in any of their churches and will not fellowship with them. You can not defend the Christian religion if you are not considering the whole purview of scripture, end of story.

 

[purplechoe]

The pope said he's not as much of a leftist as people portray him as being, and his speech reflected that. He also called for peace. And got a standing ovation from a room full of hypocrites who could go a long way toward delivering that peace, but won't.

Every time I flip through the channels and happen to stop at MSNBC's Rachel Meadow show, she seems to be praising and just in general be over the moon for this new pope. As a Christian, that kind of praise from a socialist government tit sucking lesbian should by itself make one reassess which side this so called vicar of Christ is on.

Although being a Jesuit and understanding the history and their involvement in South America's socialist politics for the past 100 years should give one a clue as to what this new pope is all about...

 

[Sola_Fide]

This is patently false and not a scriptural point of view. It states in Heb. 1:2-3 and John 1:1-4 that God through the Son "upholds the universe by the word of his power" (this is right in what I just sourced earlier) and Matt. 5:45 where Jesus reminds his hearers that God "makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust".

What does providence have to do with grace? How can grace be non-salvific?

That is the question you are going to have to ask yourself.

 

[RJB]

What does providence have to do with grace? How can grace be non-salvific?

That is the question you are going to have to ask yourself.

This could be a good thread subject on "what is grace?" I've heard of people claiming to be (physically) healed by the grace of God. I've heard people describe Grace as God's power, love, blessings, will, earthly needs such as food, etc. The Beatitudes talk about those blessed by their works. Is this a form of Grace in sanctification that is non-salvific?

Admittedly, I'm somewhat ignorant in this subject.

 

[RJB]

...

 

[Christian Liberty]

This is patently false and not a scriptural point of view. It states in Heb. 1:2-3 and John 1:1-4 that God through the Son "upholds the universe by the word of his power" (this is right in what I just sourced earlier) and Matt. 5:45 where Jesus reminds his hearers that God "makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust". The entire concept of providence is wrapped up in God's grace towards the whole world. This is not saving grace, this is the love by which the whole world was created good in Genesis 1&2, how sin is restrained by God and man's consciences regulated by his will (see Proverbs 16:4), and it is all 100% undeserved, hence it is a species of grace.

Again, we are not talking about Arminian theology, we are talking about God being sovereign over all of creation, and thus being in control of everything, including the wicked and even Satan himself. Hence, as Martin Luther stated, "The devil is God's devil, and he's on God's chain". God is not the author of sin, but his common grace upon all of creation makes it impossible for sin to thwart his divine will.



No, No, and NO!!! Have you read a single thing that I've posted here? The Arminian doctrine of grace denies the irresistible special grace that pertains to justification, and they argue that there is only a common grace that is actually different from what CL and myself are discussing in that it somehow restores man to a state of liberty comparable to before the fall (which is nonsensical since we should cease to be mortal if that were the case). Common grace from the Reformed position does not grant a regenerated will, rather it exists within God's providence and restrains the evils of the wicked.

What is being discussed here is not germane to salvation, rather it is germane to God's providence, which pertains to the whole world. The whole world is not saved, nor do the elect lose their salvation. This is the problem that I have with Baptists in general, they simply hack away at scripture until all that is left are a few verses dealing with what plays to their simplistic, anti-doctrinal mindsets, and sadly this mentality infects Reformed Baptists to some extent, hence why I never set foot in any of their churches and will not fellowship with them. You can not defend the Christian religion if you are not considering the whole purview of scripture, end of story.

Just curious, and I agree with you on the issue, but what error do Reformed Baptists believe that make them unworthy of fellowship?

I agree that the denial of infant baptism and the denial of common grace (the latter of which isn't actually that common in RB circles... Sola's a bit unusual) are errors, but I don't see how either makes one not a Christian, and if they are Christians shouldn't we fellowship with them?

Admittedly, its a bit weird for me in that my dad's a baptist minister and we have similar disagreements regarding law and whatnot (although he does believe in common grace) and I am in his church half the time since I still live at home when not in school.

 

[Christian Liberty]

What does providence have to do with grace? How can grace be non-salvific?

That is the question you are going to have to ask yourself.

Pervenient grace is an Arminian concept. It means God gives everyone enough grace to enable them to have saving faith, and then the person can either, with God's gracious help, accept Christ, or the person can reject God, in which case God won't force himself on them.

I disagree with you regarding the issue of whether this is damnable, but we agree that its a serious error. Neither HU nor I am advocating this.

Common grace, on the other hand, is not salvific and was never expected to be salvific. It was from the very beginning only expected to be temporal in nature, pertaining to things of this life, not to salvation.

now, in Hebrews 6 and 10 you have someone very obviously receiving grace, and being covenentally sanctified (which is why Baptist Covenant Theology doesn't work well with Calvinism) yet falls away. Now, I do believe other scriptures show us this person was not a believer. But he was covenentally set apart.

 

[Sola_Fide]

Common grace, on the other hand, is not salvific and was never expected to be salvific. It was from the very beginning only expected to be temporal in nature, pertaining to things of this life, not to salvation.

How can grace not be salvific?

now, in Hebrews 6 and 10 you have someone very obviously receiving grace, and being covenentally sanctified (which is why Baptist Covenant Theology doesn't work well with Calvinism) yet falls away. Now, I do believe other scriptures show us this person was not a believer. But he was covenentally set apart.

No, it doesn't show that at all.

 

[Sola_Fide]

This could be a good thread subject on "what is grace?" I've heard of people claiming to be (physically) healed by the grace of God. I've heard people describe Grace as God's power, love, blessings, will, earthly needs such as food, etc. The Beatitudes talk about those blessed by their works. Is this a form of Grace in sanctification that is non-salvific?

Admittedly, I'm somewhat ignorant in this subject.

No. I mean, there are all kinds of religions out there that teach God gives grace to people He doesn't intend to save, but I don't see it in the Bible anywhere.