Donations for the month of January


We have received a total of "$25" in donations towards our goal of $175.


Don't want to use PayPal? Go HERE


Search

Member Spotlight
Pilgrim
Pilgrim
NH, USA
Posts: 13,897
Joined: April 2001
Show All Member Profiles 
Forum Statistics
Forums30
Topics7,139
Posts52,763
Members953
Most Online523
Jan 14th, 2020
Top Posters(All Time)
Pilgrim 13,897
Tom 3,931
chestnutmare 3,054
J_Edwards 2,615
Wes 1,856
John_C 1,805
RJ_ 1,583
MarieP 1,579
gotribe 1,060
Top Posters(30 Days)
Pilgrim 32
042Dave 23
Tom 16
Susan 7
John_C 2
RJ_ 1
Recent Posts
What are your thoughts on Jonathan Edwards
by Pilgrim. Wed Jan 20, 2021 7:15 PM
Impeccability vs Peccability
by chestnutmare. Sun Jan 17, 2021 10:35 AM
Did Trump Throw Pence under the Bus?
by ATulipNotADaisy. Sun Jan 17, 2021 9:56 AM
25th Anniversary
by ATulipNotADaisy. Sun Jan 17, 2021 9:50 AM
…in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin
by chestnutmare. Sun Jan 17, 2021 6:55 AM
Continuity in Old and NT
by 042Dave. Sat Jan 16, 2021 7:17 AM
Active Threads | Active Posts | Unanswered Today | Since Yesterday | This Week
Open Forum
Thu Jan 21, 2021 12:15 AM
1. Consider the source.
2. The Dutch Reformed Churches, at least the majority of them for there are exceptions, e.g., Joel Beeke (Heritage Reformed Church), have little love for the Puritans due to their emphasis on the "soul", i.e., sanctification of the believer and their assurance.
3. The "New Calvinist Movement" is not to be taken as a source of an expression of Edwardianism. The entire movement is bankrupt in too many areas of both doctrine and especially life. And John Piper is doubly guilty of distorting Edwards when he claims that his "Christian Hedonism" is Edwardian.
4. Admittedly, I am no "scholar" on Jonathan Edwards, but I'm no imbecile either. I've read enough to know that Edwards' doctrine of God and justification is biblically sound and consistent with the Westminster Standards. This type of scandalous rhetoric is not a rare thing, unfortunately. A good example of this type of attack on the orthodoxy of notable people is Dr. R.T. Kendall's Calvin and English Calvinism in which he claims that John Calvin did not believe in a Limited/Definite Atonement. Fortunately, many took Kendall to task and in particular Paul Helm did this most thoroughly in his counter book Calvin and The Calvinists.
5. IMO, what is needed today is MORE Jonathan Edwards to combat the heresy, immorality and worldliness which the majority of evangelical and Reformed churches are guilty of embracing in so many areas. Edwards was spot on in his Religious Affections which is an antidote for today's "Easy Believism" and openly sinfulness of the modern church.
6. To accuse Edwards of "Pietism" is not only unwarranted by inaccurate. Was Edwards a "Pietist"... yep. He took James 2:26 most seriously and thus, one's profession of justification is justified by one's sanctification; faith without works is dead. R. Scott Clark uses the word Pietist in a pejorative way, albeit he does admit that pietism is not uniformly a bad thing. The hyper-Pietists, e.g., J.C. Philpot, Brother Andrew, Harrington, et al killed one's soul by demanding that one have a constant spiritual experience that measured up to their own fabricated example of true piety. The result was and continues to be a morbid introspection which in too many cases leads to spiritual depression (see Martyn Lloyd-Jones' book of the same title) and a total lack of assurance because no one could possibly measure up.

Bottom line for me..... I will continue to read and enjoy the writings of Jonathan Edwards despite what some Acadamiac thinks. Remember what I have written here myriad times over... The vast majority of heresies which have assaulted the Church have come from so-called scholars, professors, teachers and pastors. Yes, heresy most always originates from within the Church, not from without. And please, do not misconstrue this to mean that I am labelling R. Scott Clark as a heretic. But I am saying he is in error concerning Jonathan Edwards' beliefs and theology.
3 72 Read More
Open Forum
Wed Jan 20, 2021 7:51 PM
I came across this article. Before reading it, I thought that Edwards had practically none detractors in the Reformed community.

https://heidelblog.net/2020/12/why-...osicqwCabByiF5mhOJV6jabFuc7zTAHrIFxe9DB8
3 72 Read More
Open Forum
Wed Jan 20, 2021 6:42 PM
Originally Posted by John_C
What are your thoughts on Jonathan Edwards

Hmmmmm, that's quite a wide open question, don't ya think? Generally speaking, I agree with the late Dr. John Gerstner who believed that Jonathan Edwards was the greatest American theologian who ever lived. Now, did he/I mean that Edwards was infallible? nono I do have some disagreements with some of his views, e.g., Postmillennialism and his changing from being a true Congregationalist (Savoy Declaration 1658) to Presbyterianism.

I suspect you have a reason for asking the question, perhaps pertaining to something specific? grin
3 72 Read More
Open Forum
Wed Jan 20, 2021 6:14 PM
I'll just leave it at the question.
3 72 Read More
Theology Discussion Forum
Sun Jan 17, 2021 3:35 PM
Welcome to The Highway, Dave. Glad that you have made your way here. I have been a member on The Highway for many years and was slow at first to enter into the discussions. Since that time, I have made up for that with posts. However, I have learned that online posting has its limits as we cannot see each other or listen to the tone of voice. Patience and humility go a long way to peaceably carrying on a discussion here. Where there are touchy subjects, we do not avoid them but urge great caution in approaching those so that we do not set fire to dry tinder and destroy all hopes of constructive discussion. I do not wish to lecture you. I merely am passing on my observations from having been a member here for many years.

James 1:19-20 (ASV) 19 Ye know [this], my beloved brethren. But let every man be swift to hear, slow to speak, slow to wrath: 20 for the wrath of man worketh not the righteousness of God.
14 326 Read More
Theology Discussion Forum
Sun Jan 17, 2021 3:12 PM
Sorry if not intentional. But it came off that way.
14 326 Read More
Theology Discussion Forum
Sun Jan 17, 2021 3:05 PM
Originally Posted by 042Dave
It is sin to insult people and judge their motives.

No one has insulted you nor even hinted at judging your motives. Such replies not only have no merit, they do not contribute to the topic under discussion. [Linked Image]
14 326 Read More
Open Forum
Sun Jan 17, 2021 2:56 PM
Amen. Pilgrim. As the old preacher, Rev. R. G. Lee said in his sermon of the same title, there’s a “Payday Someday.”
9 871 Read More
Open Forum
Sun Jan 17, 2021 2:50 PM
I am so thankful for The Highway and your commitment to stand for Truth in these dark times. May God continue to richly bless this ministry.
1 197 Read More
Theology Discussion Forum
Sun Jan 17, 2021 1:26 PM
It is sin to insult people and judge their motives.
14 326 Read More
Theology Discussion Forum
Sun Jan 17, 2021 1:11 PM
THIS QUESTION—“Is it right to judge?”—is one that puzzles many sincere Christians. A careful and open minded study of the Bible makes it clear that concerning certain vital matters, it is not only right but a positive duty to judge. Many do not know that the Scripture commands us to judge.

The Lord Jesus Christ commanded, “Judge righteous judgment” (John 7:24). He told a man, “Thou hast rightly judged” (Luke 7:43). To others, our Lord asked, “Why even of yourselves judge ye not what is right?” (Luke 12:57).

The Apostle Paul wrote, “I speak as to wise men; judge ye what I say” (1 Corinthians 10:15). Again, Paul declared, “He that is spiritual judgeth all things” (1 Corinthians 2:15). It is our positive duty to judge.

Read here
14 326 Read More
Theology Discussion Forum
Sun Jan 17, 2021 12:51 PM
You are judging me and that is a sin.
14 326 Read More
Theology Discussion Forum
Sun Jan 17, 2021 12:31 PM
Originally Posted by 042Dave
How could Jesus sin being God? Your reply is about Jesus sinning, which is impossible since he is God.

I have to conclude, based upon your immediate response, that you are either incapable of comprehending the actual question/issue, or you have chosen to simply ignore the complexity of the matter? shrug Jesus was truly God in the flesh, but the human nature was not morphed into something divine, but remained truly human, and of necessity and fortunately for us humans, that was the case. So the issue still remains, could the human nature of Christ have sinned IF He had chosen to do so? We know He did not sin, but there is a disagreement as to WHY He did not sin. Simply stating that He was God does not address the issue. nope
14 326 Read More
Theology Discussion Forum
Sun Jan 17, 2021 12:12 PM
How could Jesus sin being God? Your reply is about Jesus sinning, which is impossible since he is God.
14 326 Read More
Theology Discussion Forum
Sun Jan 17, 2021 12:02 PM
I just posted a portion from Calvin's Commentary on Hebrews 4:15 which may be of interest to you on this subject. Click here to read
14 326 Read More
Devotional
Sun Jan 17, 2021 11:55 AM
Calvin's Commentary
Hebrews 4:15 For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.

15. For we have not, etc. There is in the name which he mentions, the Son of God, such majesty as ought to constrain us to fear and obey him. But were we to contemplate nothing but this in Christ, our consciences would not be pacified; for who of us does not dread the sight of the Son of God, especially when we consider what our condition is, and when our sins come to mind? The Jews might have had also another hindrance, for they had been accustomed to the Levitical priesthood; they saw in that one mortal man, chosen from the rest, who entered into the sanctuary, that by his prayer he might reconcile his brethren to God. It is a great thing, when the Mediator, who can pacify God towards us, is one of ourselves. By this sort of allurement the Jews might have been ensnared, so as to become ever attached to the Levitical priesthood, had not the Apostle anticipated this, and showed that the Son of God not only excelled in glory, but that he was also endued with equal kindness and compassion towards us.

It is, then, on this subject that he speaks, when he says that he was tried by our infirmities, that he might condole with us. As to the word sympathy, () I am not disposed to indulge in refinements; for frivolous, no less than curious, is this question, “Is Christ now subject to our sorrows?” It was not, indeed, the Apostle’s object to weary us with such subtleties and vain speculations, but only to teach us that we have not to go far to seek a Mediator, since Christ of his own accord extends his hand to us, that we have no reason to dread the majesty of Christ since he is our brother, and that there is no cause to fear, lest he, as one unacquainted with evils, should not be touched by any feelings of humanity, so as to bring us help, since he took upon him our infirmities, in order that he might be more inclined to succor us. 78

Then the whole discourse of the Apostle refers to what is apprehended by faith, for he does not speak of what Christ is in himself, but shows what he is to us. By the likeness, he understands that of nature, by which he intimates that Christ has put on our flesh, and also its feelings or affections, so that he not only paroled himself to be real man, but had also been taught by his own experience to help the miserable; not because the Son of God had need of such a training, but because we could not otherwise comprehend the care he feels for our salvation. Whenever, then, we labor under the infirmities of our flesh, let us remember that the Son of God experienced the same, in order that he might by his power raise us up, so that we may not be overwhelmed by them.

But it may be asked, What does he mean by infirmities? The word is indeed taken in various senses. Some understand by it cold and heat; hunger and other wants of the body; and also contempt, poverty, and other things of this mind, as in many places in the writings of Paul, especially in 2 Corinthians 12:10. But their opinion is more correct who include, together with external evils, the feelings of the souls such as fear, sorrow, the dread of death, and similar things. 79

And doubtless the restriction, without sin, would not have been added, except he had been speaking of the inward feelings, which in us are always sinful on account of the depravity of our nature; but in Christ, who possessed the highest rectitude and perfect purity, they were free from everything vicious. Poverty, indeed, and diseases, and those things which are without us, are not to be counted as sinful. Since, therefore, he speaks of infirmities akin to sin, there is no doubt but that he refers to the feelings or affections of the mind, to which our nature is liable, and that on account of its infirmity. For the condition of the angels is in this respect better than ours; for they sorrow not, nor fear, nor are they harassed by variety of cares, nor by the dread of death. These infirmities Christ of his own accord undertook, and he willingly contended with them, not only that he might attain a victory over them for us, but also that we may feel assured that he is present with us whenever we are tried by them.

Thus he not only really became a man, but he also assumed all the qualities of human nature. There is, however, a limitation added, without sin; for we must ever remember this difference between Christ’s feelings or affections and ours, that his feelings were always regulated according to the strict rule of justice, while ours flow from a turbid fountain, and always partake of the nature of their source, for they are turbulent and unbridled. 80
0 66 Read More
Theology Discussion Forum
Sun Jan 17, 2021 11:50 AM
Quote
When I did my search, I did not notice the aspect (though I might have missed it.), so I thought I would start a new discussion.

And what is "the aspect" you didn't notice? As stated before, I have lost interest in getting into discussions of this nature especially with those make such issues a 'hobby horse', going around trolling forums and social media causing angst with their combative demeanors. What should be agreed upon is that Jesus the Christ DID NOT SIN and thus infallibly secured the perfect righteousness demanded by God for all those whom the Father gave Him. BigThumbUp
14 326 Read More
Theology Discussion Forum
Sun Jan 17, 2021 11:39 AM
Hello???????? The discussion is NOT whether GOD can sin. With very few oddball exceptions, the true Christian Church has for centuries confessed that GOD cannot sin nor is He the author of sin. Impeccability vs Peccability (not capable to sin vs capable to sin) in this discussion is focused upon the incarnate Son of God; Jesus the Christ Who was one person with two distinct natures; divine and human. Thus the disagreement has always been whether the human nature of the Lord Christ was capable of sinning. The underlying issue, which I believe is beyond the ability of any human being to fully comprehend or appreciate is the glorious mystery of the exact relationship between the two natures. The Creed of Chalcedon expresses what GOD has revealed to man quite adequately:

Quote
Creed of Chalcedon

This creed was adopted at the Fourth Ecumenical Council, held at Chalcedon, located in what is now Turkey, in 451, as a response to certain heretical views concerning the nature of Christ. It established the orthodox view that Christ has two natures (human and divine) that are unified in one person.

Therefore, following the holy fathers, we all with one accord teach men to acknowledge one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, at once complete in Godhead and complete in manhood, truly God and truly man, consisting also of a reasonable soul and body; of one substance with the Father as regards his Godhead, and at the same time of one substance with us as regards his manhood; like us in all respects, apart from sin; as regards his Godhead, begotten of the Father before the ages, but yet as regards his manhood begotten, for us men and for our salvation, of Mary the Virgin, the God-bearer; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten, recognized in two natures, without confusion, without change, without division, without separation; the distinction of natures being in no way annulled by the union, but rather the characteristics of each nature being preserved and coming together to form one person and subsistence, not as parted or separated into two persons, but one and the same Son and Only-begotten God the Word, Lord Jesus Christ; even as the prophets from earliest times spoke of him, and our Lord Jesus Christ himself taught us, and the creed of the fathers has handed down to us.
14 326 Read More
Theology Discussion Forum
Sun Jan 17, 2021 11:07 AM
God cannot sin because as Gordon Clark says, sin is a violation of a law, and there is no other God he must obey. Jesus is God.
14 326 Read More
Theology Discussion Forum
Sun Jan 17, 2021 5:37 AM
Pilgrim

Just to be clear, I know the Highway has had some lively discussions on this subject before. In fact, I check them out before I posted mine.
When I did my search, I did not notice the aspect (though I might have missed it.), so I thought I would start a new discussion.

What I noticed quite a bit in studying this matter, when you visit Reformed sites (such as Ligonier) and other sites on this subject, you do not find all that much agreement. In fact, most Reformed sites including Monergism.com take the opposite side as Sproul. Others like Pink, Joel Beeke, Jones, and I believe guys like Warefield also help to Impeccability.

Tom
14 326 Read More
Theology Discussion Forum
Sat Jan 16, 2021 11:38 PM
Let me go backward on this one...

Quote
Jesus had one nature, human, but Jesus had two, human and divine. Two natures, one person inseparable. Jesus Human nature did not die.

If Jesus human nature did not die and we know that the divine nature cannot die, then who died on the cross, was buried and was raised from the dead? scratch1 I'm going to assume that the above quote was a typo?

Now, this subject has been thoroughly discussed many times over going back, I'm guessing over 15 years ago. The very early discussions probably are not included in a search due to a problem in transferring the database over to a new server. But the remainder did transfer over. My position is the same and would therefore agree with R.C. Sproul, John Gerstner, and others. Simply put Scripture teaches and the Chalcedon Creed echoes that teaching that the Son of God took upon Himself human flesh; Jesus of Nazareth who was conceived of the Holy Spirit and born of the virgin Mary. That one person consisted and continues to consist of two natures; divine and human. These two natures cannot be separated but neither can they be confused (intermixed). For example, the Son of God (divine nature) is Omnipotent, Omniscient and Omnipresent, He being God of very God. The human nature did/does not have any of the divine attributes so as a man he had to learn and experience all of that which is common to man, e.g., he 'learned obedience' (Heb 5:8), he submitted himself to those over him, he experienced sorrow, pain, suffering, mourning, etc. He did not know when the Son of Man was going to return to gather the Church, he hungered, thirsted, grew tired, etc., etc. He was sorely tempted [b]in all ways such as we are[b], yet without sin. Thus his temptations were real and not as if he was a machine. His perfect life was merited because he chose not to sin by depending upon God for all things.

Secondly, Jesus the Christ was the "second Adam" (1Cor 15:45) whose entire life was set upon one goal, to redeem the elect of God by accomplishing that which Adam failed to do. That accomplishment consisted of a perfect righteousness (active obedience) and a forensic vicarious substitutionary atonement to satisfy justice (passive obedience). God the Father thus imputes that righteousness to those who believe and account of the sacrificial atonement, are declared justified.

Okay, enough for me...... errors are mainly separating the two natures or confusing the two. Now in my old age, I don't get involved in such discussions any longer as they are rarely resolved. igiveup
14 326 Read More
Theology Discussion Forum
Sat Jan 16, 2021 7:21 PM
I would like to visit the subject of whether it was possible for Jesus to have sinned.
Reading most Reformed theologians on the subject, they believe it was not possible for Jesus to have sinned. This however is not a subject that all Reformed theologians agree on. RC Sproul for example as well as many others believed that Jesus in His human nature could have sinned.
I favour Sproul’s understanding.
However, it appears most of my Reformed friends completely disagree with it and go as far as to say that the view that says Jesus could have sinned is “gross error.”
The problem they seem to have basically is that you cannot separate God’s divine nature, with His human nature. Jesus is one person not two.
The following is also something that is also fairly common among those who believe Jesus could not have sinned.
Quote
I received this question via email from SC:
Was Jesus capable of sin but it was just easy for him to choose not to? Or was he incapable of sinning altogether because he’s perfect?
And do you know why Angels are capable of sinning and falling? Are they not exactly perfect?
I’m trying to better understand how perfection corresponds to free choice of sin. I was also told there’s a difference between perfection and innocence. That Adam and Eve were innocent (ignorant of evil) but not perfect like God (all knowing) before they ate the fruit. Which honestly makes sense to me.
I hope I made sense.
Thank you in advance.
Though many disagree, it is clear that Jesus was unable to sin. Here are two reasons why. First, God cannot sin (Titus 1:2; Heb 6:18; Jas 1:13). Jesus was and is God in the flesh. Thus He cannot sin. Second, perfect humanity cannot sin. Jesus was and is perfect humanity. Thus He could not sin in His perfect humanity or in His deity.

Also:
Quote
Although Jesus is fully human, He was not born with the sinful nature that we are born with. He certainly was tempted in the same way we are, in that temptations were put before Him by Satan, yet He remained sinless because God is incapable of sinning. It is against His very nature (Matthew 4:1; Hebrews 2:18, 4:15; James 1:13). Sin is by definition a trespass of the Law. God created the Law, and the Law is by nature what God would or would not do; therefore, sin is anything that God would not do by His very nature.

To be tempted is not, in and of itself, sinful. A person could tempt you with something you have no desire to do, such as committing murder or participating in sexual perversions. You probably have no desire whatsoever to take part in these actions, but you were still tempted because someone placed the possibility before you. There are at least two definitions for the word “tempted”:

As well as:
Quote
Jesus had one nature, human, but Jesus had two, human and divine. Two natures, one person inseparable. Jesus Human nature did not die.

Any thoughts on these issues, would be helpful.

I would like to add a few.
Quote
Another problem with the view that Jesus could have hypothetically sinned; is the fact that you cannot separate the divine and human natures of Jesus. Just like both the human and divine nature died on the cross, it is equally true that to say that in Christ’s human nature he could have hypothetically sinned, that this would not have also included Christ’s divine nature. Jesus is God and God cannot sin.

Quote
It does not follow, that just because Jesus could not have sinned that the temptations etc.., that Jesus experienced were not real.




Tom

14 326 Read More
Theology Discussion Forum
Sat Jan 16, 2021 12:17 PM
It is a sin to judge a person's motives. Which you seem to be engaged in.
158 968,437 Read More
Theology Discussion Forum
Sat Jan 16, 2021 12:07 PM
Dave (042),

Please note that when you see "Anonymous", it means that someone has unregistered from the Board so they will never respond to you.

Sorry.
158 968,437 Read More
Theology Discussion Forum
Sat Jan 16, 2021 11:56 AM
The problem is, New Testament scripture does not support your claims for infant baptism. You haven't any other option than to remain silent.
158 968,437 Read More
Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 4
Who's Online Now
0 registered members (), 61 guests, and 77 spiders.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Newest Members
042Dave, Lotero, tomatoetom, tulsaep, PaulOR
953 Registered Users
Shout Box
January
S M T W T F S
1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28 29 30
31
Today's Birthdays
Big B, margien
Popular Topics(Views)
1,197,006 Gospel truth
Page Time: 0.066s Queries: 6 (0.007s) Memory: 2.5552 MB (Peak: 2.8041 MB) Zlib enabled. Server Time: 2021-01-23 04:38:18 UTC