I did read the whole article (along with Dreher's article and all it's comments).
I can't claim to know the history of the theology of Common Grace, but there is an inseparable divide between Christians and non-Christians. We still are called to be in this world and function well in it, but that gulf is always there.
I hadn't read Dreher's comments. I thought this one was perceptive (written by a Protestant):
"Catholic philosophy is usually not explicitly couched in the biblical proof texts so much as the larger stream of western philosophy that has flowed from the union of Christian and Greco-Roman thought. Thus a Catholic argument against homosexuality will often discuss the unitive and procreative functions of the marital act while a Protestant will usually just quote Leviticus and Romans. Neither approach is necessarily wrong, but the Catholic ability to articulate arguments independent of biblical texts will make it more appealing to certain audiences, while the Protestant's Biblical citation will result in knee-jerk reactions one way or another."
Another way to frame this: Protestants often view Catholics as ignoring the Bible, while Catholics view Protestants as being too incurious to read anything *besides* the Bible. I think there's probably some substance to both these criticisms, and as a framework it makes more sense to me than calling out Common Grace specifically.
My understanding is that the Catholic church barely acknowledged the unitive purpose of sex until not that long ago. Catholicism has historically been extremely anti-sex - even within marriage it was seen as a sort of necessary evil for procreation. So I think he gives Catholicism too much credit here.
On the unitive purpose, I'd agree -- don't know the exact timing but at my Catholic HS in the 90s I was taught that unity was a purpose of marital sex, and this was presented as something relatively new that one's Catholic parents might not have been taught.
I'd also second the idea that Catholicism has historically been anti-sex. Besides the obvious example of priestly/monastic celibacy, the teaching of Mary's perpetual virginity stands out. I've never been able to make sense of this idea without sensing an implication that even marital sex is a little bit dirty and evil.
But I still think that commenter's core argument is basically accurate.
I think rejecting Common Grace is rejecting the fall and it's effects. Behind all life is the motive power of God. If he withdrew that power it would cease to exist. Everyone is spiritually dead without regeneration and are servants of sin. If God didn't restrain them, then they would destroy themselves (don't have the time right now to give some verses that state that).
Well, you can read what Carini wrote. From where I sit, I can understand both parties. I think it's Biblical and undeniable to say that there is grace that is common, that God's grace pervades and preserves the world and is not reserved for the elect, or for the visible church. "he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and the good" etc.
But the argument here is that Common Grace in the 21st century is being applied in a way that distances Bible-believing Protestants from secular society to the point that it constrains our mission both collectively and individually. Is this something fundamentally and irreparably wrong with the ideas of the theologians that first conceived of Common Grace? I guess Common Grace is thought of as an idea developed by 19th-20th century theologians that I haven't read, though I thought the idea was still present to some degree in Calvin.
I had never heard of Trueblood -- that book sounds interesting. Could he be the last devout Quaker that was nationally relevant? I don't think Nixon counts.
Maybe this is obvious to others, but I didn't really stop and think about it until I became a father that what we might call the "absentee breadwinner" model of fatherhood, while it always existed to some degree, wasn't really a Western norm until recent history (even more recent in 1953). And while, under this set of norms, mom still typically stayed at home and perhaps grew up unreservedly seeking to make wifehood and motherhood her primary vocations, dad's lack of physical presence almost surely did something to weaken the family.
I did read the whole article (along with Dreher's article and all it's comments).
I can't claim to know the history of the theology of Common Grace, but there is an inseparable divide between Christians and non-Christians. We still are called to be in this world and function well in it, but that gulf is always there.
(not sure why this doesn't show up as a reply)
I hadn't read Dreher's comments. I thought this one was perceptive (written by a Protestant):
"Catholic philosophy is usually not explicitly couched in the biblical proof texts so much as the larger stream of western philosophy that has flowed from the union of Christian and Greco-Roman thought. Thus a Catholic argument against homosexuality will often discuss the unitive and procreative functions of the marital act while a Protestant will usually just quote Leviticus and Romans. Neither approach is necessarily wrong, but the Catholic ability to articulate arguments independent of biblical texts will make it more appealing to certain audiences, while the Protestant's Biblical citation will result in knee-jerk reactions one way or another."
Another way to frame this: Protestants often view Catholics as ignoring the Bible, while Catholics view Protestants as being too incurious to read anything *besides* the Bible. I think there's probably some substance to both these criticisms, and as a framework it makes more sense to me than calling out Common Grace specifically.
My understanding is that the Catholic church barely acknowledged the unitive purpose of sex until not that long ago. Catholicism has historically been extremely anti-sex - even within marriage it was seen as a sort of necessary evil for procreation. So I think he gives Catholicism too much credit here.
On the unitive purpose, I'd agree -- don't know the exact timing but at my Catholic HS in the 90s I was taught that unity was a purpose of marital sex, and this was presented as something relatively new that one's Catholic parents might not have been taught.
I'd also second the idea that Catholicism has historically been anti-sex. Besides the obvious example of priestly/monastic celibacy, the teaching of Mary's perpetual virginity stands out. I've never been able to make sense of this idea without sensing an implication that even marital sex is a little bit dirty and evil.
But I still think that commenter's core argument is basically accurate.
I think rejecting Common Grace is rejecting the fall and it's effects. Behind all life is the motive power of God. If he withdrew that power it would cease to exist. Everyone is spiritually dead without regeneration and are servants of sin. If God didn't restrain them, then they would destroy themselves (don't have the time right now to give some verses that state that).
Well, you can read what Carini wrote. From where I sit, I can understand both parties. I think it's Biblical and undeniable to say that there is grace that is common, that God's grace pervades and preserves the world and is not reserved for the elect, or for the visible church. "he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and the good" etc.
But the argument here is that Common Grace in the 21st century is being applied in a way that distances Bible-believing Protestants from secular society to the point that it constrains our mission both collectively and individually. Is this something fundamentally and irreparably wrong with the ideas of the theologians that first conceived of Common Grace? I guess Common Grace is thought of as an idea developed by 19th-20th century theologians that I haven't read, though I thought the idea was still present to some degree in Calvin.
I had never heard of Trueblood -- that book sounds interesting. Could he be the last devout Quaker that was nationally relevant? I don't think Nixon counts.
Maybe this is obvious to others, but I didn't really stop and think about it until I became a father that what we might call the "absentee breadwinner" model of fatherhood, while it always existed to some degree, wasn't really a Western norm until recent history (even more recent in 1953). And while, under this set of norms, mom still typically stayed at home and perhaps grew up unreservedly seeking to make wifehood and motherhood her primary vocations, dad's lack of physical presence almost surely did something to weaken the family.
Good question. Perhaps he was the last prominent Quaker thinker.