God's Marvelous Common Grace for Ungodly Nations - Ryan Fullerton

[Baruch]

Description: What many call the "common grace" of God is not just "common", but it is marvelous that "He makes His sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust." It is also amazing that He gave land to such pagan nations as the Moabites and the Ammonites in which He did not allow Israel to take when the Israelite's passed through the land.

Ryan Fullerton is a pastor at Immanuel Baptist Church in Louisville, Kentucky.

53 minutes

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8KJZqBbLRzI

[Baruch]

I watched this sermon just now and it has taken my mind by storm: as if the Spirit wished to proclaim, "you fancy you know something of My common grace?" Clearly, in retrospect, I knew next to nothing. God is so great, so good.

[glen smith]

Baruch, so very glad you provided this link.
This sermon describes the hearts and practice of all who are citizens of the Kingdom of God.

QUESTION:
Does this sermon apply to the correct attitude Christians in America should have today about the people labeled as illegal immigrants or just about the people in the nations they flee from?

John 3:16a NIV
¹⁶ For God so loved the world = common grace

Here are the passages from this sermon.

Luke 5:43-48 NIV
⁴³ “You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor^[i] and hate your enemy.’ ⁴⁴ But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, ⁴⁵ that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. ⁴⁶ If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? ⁴⁷ And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? ⁴⁸ Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

Acts 14:15-17 NIV
¹⁵ “Friends, why are you doing this? We too are only human, like you. We are bringing you good news, telling you to turn from these worthless things to the living God, who made the heavens and the earth and the sea and everything in them. ¹⁶ In the past, he let all nations go their own way. ¹⁷ Yet he has not left himself without testimony: He has shown kindness by giving you rain from heaven and crops in their seasons; he provides you with plenty of food and fills your hearts with joy.”


Acts 17:24-29a NIV
²⁴ “The God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples built by human hands. ²⁵ And he is not served by human hands, as if he needed anything. Rather, he himself gives everyone life and breath and everything else. ²⁶ From one man he made all the nations, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he marked out their appointed times in history and the boundaries of their lands. ²⁷ God did this so that they would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from any one of us. ²⁸ ‘For in him we live and move and have our being.’ As some of your own poets have said, ‘We are his offspring.’
²⁹ “Therefore since we are God’s offspring,

[Baruch]

Baruch, so very glad you provided this link.
This sermon describes the hearts and practice of all who are citizens of the Kingdom of God.

QUESTION:
Does this sermon apply to the correct attitude Christians in America should have today about the people labeled as illegal immigrants or just about the people in the nations they flee from?

John 3:16a NIV
¹⁶ For God so loved the world = common grace

Hi, Glen,

Our God is abundant in grace. But He is not all and only of grace. He has many excellent attributes which He harmonizes and exercises judiciously.

Likewise, if we are all and only of grace, we would not be good stewards of the earthly inheritance He's given us. I think this may be said of any feature taken to extreme.

In the earth a people should be kind and merciful and hospitable towards the stranger and sojourner. But I do not think we are bound to indiscriminately receive masses of them (for example, manufactured floods of career criminal refugees; sending floods of refugees is an ancient tactic of weakening nations, in modernity noted in the Cloward-Piven strategy). We're not bound to give them our land and our substance without measure. Prudence would say not to do so.

Our Father is infinite in resource. His gifts are abundant, but we need to apply wisdom in discerning all things including how to handle disruptive incursions for the sake of peace in the land.

Regarding the question as posed, "does this sermon apply to the correct attitude?" I think that yes, it must in both cases. But not as a lone, overriding principle. We also need to understand that we are not called to implement the kingdom of God in the earth, but to represent its excellence to the children of men. We are ambassadors of that kingdom, and sojourners here ourselves. But we have a natural body and duties among the children of men, as well. So it remains in every case to determine the correct attitude and how to apply it: should we? and if so in what manner, and to what extent? Certainly not as to cater to our own destruction as a people, that would be very foolish.

God divided the peoples according to their kind, and created the nations and set their borders. This was to confound the proud and greedy aspirations of Satan's kingdom who would unite all under his singular power. It was a great act of wisdom and mercy by our Father. Today men once again are racing to unite under one language and mind and authority, in unbelief and complete disregard of the Babel judgement. Whenever the agenda of earthly empire advances we eventually see woe, terrible times, and calamity. The floods of refugees we're seeing in the most recent years is a key part of the strategy to erase national boundaries.

Out of kindness I tried to minimize my political opinions, or this could be a much bigger comment. :) But I think they are still recognizable. I strive to bring them into captivity to the obedience of Christ, to love God and my neighbor. The Scriptures must be my guide in all things.

[glen smith]

Your thoughtful reply is appreciated and well reasoned.

You present a common view by evangelical Christians who struggle both with denying oneself and all the commands about love with the need of self survival. Without this compromise, following such instruction would “cater to our own destruction as a people, that would be very foolish.” Christian history provides many examples of renowned men who have followed your view. There are the famous people like Tozer and Spurgeon and the common people like you and me. We each fit into the institutional church very comfortably.

Just some unrelated thoughts:

You state a definitive premillennial statement “We also need to understand that we are not called to implement the kingdom of God in the earth, but to represent its excellence to the children of men.”

After the civil; war and for the first 90 years of the 20^th century premillennial dispensationalism was a major motivating factor for Christians to become missionaries and evangelists. This was because the particular flavor of the time had the Second Coming by 1988. Generally, the dispensational form of the premillennialist view has the Kingdom of God established as a plan B where the Church is substituted as the Kingdom of God after Israel rejects Jesus as the Messiah. Some views by premillennialist have the Kingdom of God being established at the Second Coming.

Today there are a growing number of postmillennialist (Reconstructionist). Postmillennialism had its heyday and motivation for people to become missionaries from about 1800 to 1945. WWI & WWII ended the expectation of establishing the Kingdom of God by the Church. The postmillennialist view has the Lord Jesus establishing the Kingdom of God during ministry of His Incarnation.

Historicism had its greatest influence in motivating people to become missionaries during the 18^th &19^th century when the Second Coming was expected. The Millerites are a prime example. Of course, the Seventh Day Adventist have successfully reinterpreted the events to maintain the historicist view for its members. The historicist view has the Lord Jesus establishing the Kingdom of God during the ministry of His Incarnation.

[Baruch]

Your thoughtful reply is appreciated and well reasoned.

You present a common view by evangelical Christians who struggle both with denying oneself and all the commands about love with the need of self survival. Without this compromise, following such instruction would “cater to our own destruction as a people, that would be very foolish.” Christian history provides many examples of renowned men who have followed your view. There are the famous people like Tozer and Spurgeon and the common people like you and me. We each fit into the institutional church very comfortably.

Yes, only I don't see it as a compromise. To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven. Men have duties to their families, communities, and nation. When we are born from above we receive a new nature, but we still have to walk the earth; we generally don't get to drop out of life, although some are called to devotion and full-time service. So rather than compromise, I consider it a focus on maturing as a new creature in Christ and engaging in the new duties that come with that.

Just some unrelated thoughts:

You state a definitive premillennial statement “We also need to understand that we are not called to implement the kingdom of God in the earth, but to represent its excellence to the children of men.”

After the civil; war and for the first 90 years of the 20^th century premillennial dispensationalism was a major motivating factor for Christians to become missionaries and evangelists. This was because the particular flavor of the time had the Second Coming by 1988. Generally, the dispensational form of the premillennialist view has the Kingdom of God established as a plan B where the Church is substituted as the Kingdom of God after Israel rejects Jesus as the Messiah. Some views by premillennialist have the Kingdom of God being established at the Second Coming.

Today there are a growing number of postmillennialist (Reconstructionist). Postmillennialism had its heyday and motivation for people to become missionaries from about 1800 to 1945. WWI & WWII ended the expectation of establishing the Kingdom of God by the Church. The postmillennialist view has the Lord Jesus establishing the Kingdom of God during ministry of His Incarnation.

Historicism had its greatest influence in motivating people to become missionaries during the 18^th &19^th century when the Second Coming was expected. The Millerites are a prime example. Of course, the Seventh Day Adventist have successfully reinterpreted the events to maintain the historicist view for its members. The historicist view has the Lord Jesus establishing the Kingdom of God during the ministry of His Incarnation.

Well put. The theology I most agree with is Two Kingdoms. The eschatology I most agree with is Amillennialism.

In Two Kingdoms, the present age is this earthly age; the kingdom of God and the kingdom of heaven are also expressed as the age to come; and the millennial kingdom, New Jerusalem; Jesus Christ is true Israel, to whom are the promises of God, and those who are in Him.

Amillennialism puts the millennium as Christ's reign, which is both becoming and eternal. The consummation of Christ's kingdom coincide with the end of the age and the final judgement.

This is why I understand we're not called to implement the kingdom in the earth. It is a habitation being built by God, without human hands.

But before I formally embraced Amillennialism I understood it also because Jesus told Pilate His kingdom is not of this world, and many other places that led me to think spiritually, eternally, and in the present about the kingdom. It was exceedingly difficult for me to make sense of the other more popular theologies and views. I tried them on in succession. I think the only ones I didn't try on were Post-Mill (seemed too optimistic to agree with Scripture) and Dominionist (I can see the havoc this is working in the world). After all that, Amill just clicked in place, like it was made for all that had been revealed to me, like I had arrived at home.

[glen smith]

surviving is the most commonly held view for nineteen hundreds years by those writing on the millennium.

Baruch posted: In Two Kingdoms, the present age is this earthly age; the kingdom of God and the kingdom of heaven are also expressed as the age to come; and the millennial kingdom, New Jerusalem; Jesus Christ is true Israel, to whom are the promises of God, and those who are in Him.

Amillennialism puts the millennium as Christ's reign, which is both becoming and eternal. The consummation of Christ's kingdom coincide with the end of the age and the final judgement.

Reply: I plead ignorance of having previously encountered this construction of amillennialism.
Can you site some scholars who hold this view or an article that presents and defends it?

The common view of amillennialist has the Kingdom of God inaugurated with the ministry of Christ with its extension throughout eternity.

[Baruch]

Ok, you asked for it. :) Keep in might both of these, Riddlebarger and Conway, are Calvinist. I haven't assessed if there is content that would puzzle a non-Calvinist (monergism and sovereignty in election are what generally give non-Calvinist's trouble).

Here is a primer by Riddlebarger. I haven't read this, but it is a primer and probably offers a good 5000 ft view.
http://kimriddlebarger.squarespace.c...ms-primer.html
And two charts, which I haven't looked at (I'm going to) and they might help: the model and the eschaton:
http://kimriddlebarger.squarespace.c...e-model-chart/

Audio Series 1. Here is Riddlebarger's lecture series, it is in many parts, and quite long. This was my introduction and it is excellently explained.

http://kimriddlebarger.squarespace.com/two-kingdoms/

Video Series 2. Here is Conway's sermon series which is really outstanding, about 8 hours total. It is not just a retread of Riddlebarger's content.
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?lis...9BlKGX_rrEllpq
And a follow-on sermon, Understanding the Book of Revelation:

https://youtu.be/fl3ykP-Wm7M

Here is a Two Kingdoms collection on Monergism.com if you want to bounce around some.
https://www.monergism.com/topics/kin...d/two-kingdoms

[Baruch]

I originally had linked a video series for Riddlebarger, but then I saw it was missing parts 4 & 5. Replaced with the audio series. Thankfully I was able to find it. My hard drive died last month and I lost a lot of material.

[glen smith]

I originally had linked a video series for Riddlebarger, but then I saw it was missing parts 4 & 5. Replaced with the audio series. Thankfully I was able to find it. My hard drive died last month and I lost a lot of material.

Get a back up
You think too well to loose your thoughts.
I appreciate the bundle.
Is it alright if I find cause to challenge you on some points?
By this give and take we build our knowledge and wiggle closer to the truth.

[Baruch]

Get a back up
You think too well to loose your thoughts.
I appreciate the bundle.
Is it alright if I find cause to challenge you on some points?
By this give and take we build our knowledge and wiggle closer to the truth.

I had a backup! It was 1.5 years old. :) I got lazy and paid the price. Chastisement accepted. And thank you for the kind word, it encourages humility.

Iron vs. Iron. Yes, feel free to challenge. Although I may not have answers, it will make me think, study, pray.

I've started a topic for discussion here: https://forum.lounewton.com/forum/in...0-two-kingdoms

[glen smith]

Oh, you are referring to the Reformed theology on the two kingdoms known as monergism.
When thinking two kingdoms my head was thinking periods of time.
Monergism conforms in all of its tenets to Reformed theology which means divine sovereignty is absolute in that the definition of sovereignty requires complete control. It is the hyper view of omnipotent which means not only God can but that God does.

My foggy recall provides:
One kingdom relates to the spiritual conduct the other to the temporal conduct.”
One relates to the conscience and eternal life the other to instruction as to our duties in the present concerning religious, social or political matters.

God rules the world in two related but distinct ways.
One is the way Christ rules over his church
The other is the more general way he rules over all things.
It is by natural law God rules are administered in the secular world.
The function of the state is to operate under natural law.

I see monergism as a theological tool to provide an explanation of the Christian life in a less than perfect environment which in such an environment the power and nature of the Reformed theology sovereign God would otherwise be required to do something about. Theologically, it is the Reformed theology's tool to explain away the problem of evil.

Unless debaters are both of the reformed theology the discussion stalls from the beginning because of different presuppositions about divine sovereignty.