What are your thoughts on Abraham Kuyper and neo-Calvinism, specifically regarding his perspective on common grace? Do you believe it aligns with Reformed orthodoxy? what is the official stance of the heritage reformed congregations on this topic? …

@@e.t.h.559 hey brother, I never read on Kuyper, but I have heard a lot about him from Van Til, and basically he said that the Kuyper’s view on common grace was not so sound. I think Van Til was right and the difference is that Van Til was more reserved on the attention God shows unbelievers in common grace. Well Heritage reformed’s pastor is Joel Beeke and even though I don’t know his position on common grace I know that he studied under Van Til at WTS. What do you think about it? I’m curious to know.

@@Amilton5solas I'll give Kuyper credit for trying to grapple with how unbelievers can produce beautiful art, make scientific discoveries, and exercise virtue -etc. His answer of "common grace" suggests that God dispenses blessings and talents to all people, Christian or not. But I have some issues with how Kuyper developed this idea. For starters, it seems to undermine the radical depravity of humanity clearly taught in scripture and summarized in our three forms of unity. If the unregenerate can produce truly good works solely by common grace, doesn't that make us a little too optimistic about fallen man's capabilities? I'm also leery of how Kuyper depicts common grace as preparing the way for special grace, almost like stepping stones leading pagans to Christ. That comes perilously close to the pelagian notion of cooperating with grace for salvation - something we as reformed christians should vehemently reject. I also have a problem with Kuyper's idea that common grace restrains the full manifestation of sin in society and culture. From what I can tell, human history has been a veritable parade of depravity. I hardly see sin being restrained on a grand scale. furthermore, I would also disagree with part of Kuyper’s view of presumptive regeneration. I agree when he says that not all children of believers may be saved. He’s correct here. However, he went further and said that since the seal of baptism serves to strengthen the infant being baptized, then it must be the case that faith is already present in the infant before baptism is administered. Here I disagree, because though Esau was part of the covenant as an infant he was not regenerated - he had no true faith - Rom. 9:6-8, 13 - Jacob have I loved but Esau have I hated. This hatred of Esau was before he was even born! Vs.11 This said, covenant parents should presume that their children will be saved in God’s providence. This presumption is part of their faith and hope. However, ultimately God does not save all covenant children as seen in the case of Esau. Salvation is by God’s ordination alone and only the elect will be saved. …

Awfully convenient statement knowing full well photography wasn't invented then.

@@ZethHazel evidence or it’s as likely as astrology or any other religion

@@leo--4341 irrelevant to my point.

You can't smell a fantasy 😂😂😂😂