Author: jetbrane

I am a Pastor of a small Church in Mid-Michigan who delights in my family, my congregation and my calling. I am postmillennial in my eschatology. Paedo-Calvinist Covenantal in my Christianity Reformed in my Soteriology Presuppositional in my apologetics Familialist in my family theology Agrarian in my regional community social order belief Christianity creates culture and so Christendom in my national social order belief Mythic-Poetic / Grammatical Historical in my Hermeneutic Pre-modern, Medieval, & Feudal before Enlightenment, modernity, & postmodern Reconstructionist / Theonomic in my Worldview One part paleo-conservative / one part micro Libertarian in my politics Systematic and Biblical theology need one another but Systematics has pride of place Some of my favorite authors, Augustine, Turretin, Calvin, Tolkien, Chesterton, Nock, Tozer, Dabney, Bavinck, Wodehouse, Rushdoony, Bahnsen, Schaeffer, C. Van Til, H. Van Til, G. H. Clark, C. Dawson, H. Berman, R. Nash, C. G. Singer, R. Kipling, G. North, J. Edwards, S. Foote, F. Hayek, O. Guiness, J. Witte, M. Rothbard, Clyde Wilson, Mencken, Lasch, Postman, Gatto, T. Boston, Thomas Brooks, Terry Brooks, C. Hodge, J. Calhoun, Llyod-Jones, T. Sowell, A. McClaren, M. Muggeridge, C. F. H. Henry, F. Swarz, M. Henry, G. Marten, P. Schaff, T. S. Elliott, K. Van Hoozer, K. Gentry, etc. My passion is to write in such a way that the Lord Christ might be pleased. It is my hope that people will be challenged to reconsider what are considered the givens of the current culture. Your biggest help to me dear reader will be to often remind me that God is Sovereign and that all that is, is because it pleases him.

Was It Possible For Jesus To Give In To Temptation & Sin?

Recently, in a formal setting among Pastors someone threw out the question of whether or not Jesus could have sinned. Now, I had always been trained that Jesus could not have sinned though the temptation remained very real. However, the answer that was thrown out and affirmed is that Jesus could have sinned. Inwardly, I groaned at this affirmation and since that meeting I have gone back and double checked my training.

In double checking my training I learned that Charles Hodge (he of Princeton fame) believed that Jesus could have sinned. Hodge reasoned that the temptation to sin assumes the possibility to sin. I don’t agree with Hodge but in reading someone as illustrious as Hodge I realized that the idea that Jesus could have sinned was not as obviously muddleheaded as I had thought. I mean … if Hodge can make this kind of mistake then it is understandable that lesser mortals could make it as well.

The refutation of Hodge is really quite simple though the refutation probably opens up more questions. The refutation to Hodge is that since Jesus didn’t sin, Jesus couldn’t have sinned since the not sinning of Jesus demonstrates that Jesus was predestined not to sin. In retrospect no action of any being could have been other than what that action was after the fact for the action, after the fact, belongs to God’s decretal ordering.

I suppose, at this point it is possible for someone to now ask, “Could God have decreed Jesus to sin, thus resulting in Jesus sinning (?) Even here though we run into the reality that as God is both a eternal and necessary being, therefore all of God’s actions, including His decrees, are likewise eternal and necessary. In short, since God is eternal and there never was a time when He wasn’t it is also true that God’s decrees are likewise eternal having the same quality of eternality of God. This explains why we refer to the decrees as “The eternal decrees of God.”

There is a problem though in the presupposition of an affirmative answer to the question,could Jesus have sinned, and that problem is that such an affirmation seems to presuppose the non-Reformed premise that choices that were made, were not made by necessity. This introduces the non-Reformed notion of absolute contingency which suggest that decisions made or actions taken could have been other than they were.

However, the question can also be addressed from another angle. When we talk about the person of Jesus Christ we must take into consideration the question of the properties of His person-hood. Any hypothetical actions of Jesus Christ that we consider, can not be such that those actions violated the properties of his person-hood.

If we were to talk about hypothetical things that I might or might not do we could come up with any number of examples of things I might have done that I didn’t do. However, all of these examples of things I might have done that I didn’t do must remain consistent with the properties of my human person-hood. I might have decided to become a body-builder but I could not have decided to become a insect. (Insert favorite insult here.)

When we consider the person of Jesus Christ and the issue of sin, we have to say again, contrary to Hodge, that Jesus could not have chosen to sin for the same reason I could not choose to be an insect. Both Jesus Christ and I could not make those decision because to make those decisions would be a violation of the property of our person-hood. For myself, humans do not have the ability to become insects and for Jesus Christ — a person with a divine nature — God-Men do not have the ability to sin. Jesus Christ, being very God of very God, had a impeccable and immutable divine nature as a property of His person and as such He could not act in any way that would be contrary to that property.

The implications of this are clear. Jesus could choose to do all things that humans do save those things that humans choose to do that are inconsistent with divinity. Humans who do not have a divine nature choose to sin but a Human who has a divine nature cannot choose to sin.

Now the question that begs being asked is, If Jesus couldn’t sin, then was His temptation really temptation(?) The answer to that question is, “yes.” If our success, as redeemed fallen humans, to occasionally resist temptation, does not negate the reality of the temptation that we occasionally resist then why would Jesus’ always resisting temptation all the time negate the reality of the temptation with which He was presented? Success in resisting temptation does not negate the reality of temptation.

Also, we have to keep in mind at this point, and on this issue, that not only was Jesus divine but also touching His humanity, having no sin nature, He had no inclination to sin.

Hat Tip — Ron DiGiacomo

http://reformedapologist.blogspot.com/2006/09/could-jesus-have-sinned.html

A Law Quote A Day Keeps The R2Kt Virus Away

“For the blasphemous and seditious Heretics, both Lutherans and others of the Reformed Churches do agree that they may be punished capitally, that is for their blasphemy of sedition; but the Socinian stands out here also, and denies it; alleging that the punishment of false Prophets in the Old Testament was speciali jure but by special law granted to the Israelites, and therefore you must not look (saith the Socinian) into the Old Testament for a rule proceeding against false Prophets and blasphemers: Nor (saith Calvin and Catharinus) can you find in the New Testament any precept for punishment of Thieves, Traitors, Adulterers, Witches, Murderers and the like, and yet they may, or at least some of them be capitally punished: for the Gospel destroys not the just laws of civil policy or Commonwealths.”

Richard Vines — English Puritan
The Authors, Nature, and Danger of Heresy
Laid open in a sermon preached before the honorable house of Commons…March – 1646 – pp. 64

I wonder what the difference would be between the R2K lads when they talk about their “intrusion ethic” making the case law of no effect today and the Socinian lads when they talked about their speciali jure making the case law of no effect during their time?

Whatever difference there actually is, Richard Vines dealt with the Socianians who insisted that the Old Testament case law was not applicable to civil policy.

A Law Quote A Day Keeps The R2Kt Virus Away

“There were three laws among the Jews,the Ceremonial, Judicial, and Moral law. I suppose the Judicial Law as to pains of it, was a fence and guard to the Ceremonial and Moral Law. [In the first place] the [Judicial] law doth aim at obedience to it, and in the second place [at] punishment to its disobedience. I conceive the punishment [for infringement] of the Ceremonial law was not [part] of the law itself, but [a fence] of the purity of the Jews and the punishment [for infringement] of the Moral Law was not part of the Moral law, [but a fence to it]. So far as the Judicial [law] was a fence and outwork to the ceremonial law [it] is fallen with the ceremonial law. So far as it was an outwork of the Moral law it stands with the moral law, and that still binds upon men. So [that part] of the Judicial law was a fence to that, is still the duty of the magistrates.”

Thomas Gilbert — 17th Century Puritan
Puritanism And Liberty
Being The Army Debates

Clearly, quite contrary to R2K, the Puritans believed that there were aspects of the Judicial law which were binding upon the magistrates. When the R2K lads scream, concerning the judicial law, “expired … expired … expired,” they are being the novices and are offering up sui generis readings of Reformed Historical theology.

A Law Quote A Day Keeps The R2Kt Virus Away

“Though we have clear and full scriptures in the New Testament of the abolishing the ceremonial law, yet we no where read in all the New Testament of the abolishing of the judicial law, so far as it did concern the punishing of sins against the moral law, of which heresy and seducing of souls is one, and a great one. Once God did reveal his will for punishing those sins by such and such punishments. He who will hold that the Christian Magistrate is not bound to inflict such punishments for such sins, is bound to prove that those former laws of God are abolished, and show some Scripture for it.”

George Gillespie — Westminster Divine
Wholesome Severity Reconciled With Christian Liberty

Westminster Divine, Gillespie, would never have tolerated a hermeneutic that insists that case law can be expunged from the Christian conscience by chanting “expired.”

Reading Between The Lines Of Obama’s Post Election 2010 Press Conference

Doing a brief analysis of Obama’s post midterm election 2010 press conference it becomes painfully obvious that Obama is doing a couple things. First, in that press conference he sought to put on his “humble face.” However, it is almost impossible for narcissist of the caliber of Obama to be humble. His words belied his mien. Second, people need to realize that as Obama is a Marxist that any concession that is offered or that appears to be offered is a dialectical concession. B. Hussein Obama thinks dialectically. Try to imagine a hammer driving in a nail. When the hammer is lifted from the nail after the first blow the nail might possible think …“Ahh … I see my resistance has discouraged the hammer and so the hammer is retreating.” Of course the hammer’s retreat is a tactical move with the intent of delivering another blow to the nail. Obama’s press conference revealed that Obama is the hammer and the American public is the nail that the Marxist hammer intends to drive into submission. Obama was not retreating in the press conference as a close look at his words reveal. Obama is merely preparing himself for another strike.

The American people have to learn that Marxists do not retreat. Never. They maneuver dialectically … which is to say that any appearance of retreat is only for the purpose of being better able to strike to their advantage in the future.

With that in mind we turn to the B. Hussein Obama press conference.

B. Hussein Obama,

“What yesterday also told us is that no one party will be able to dictate where we go from here, that we must find common ground in order to set — in order to make progress on some uncommonly difficult challenges.”

Obama is being duplicitous here. What election day told us is that the electorate did not desire the Marxist-Democratic party to be the party that arrogantly dictates where the nation goes. It is only on the day after election that we have to live with the fact that no one election can completely turn out the pukes that we want silenced. Because of that reality no one party will be able to dictate where we go from here.

Second, this theme of “finding common ground” is one that Obama kept returning to and banging away at during his press conference. However, this is a lie. The voters yesterday were not saying that they desire common ground to be found. The voters were screaming …

STOP THE MARXIST DEMOCRATIC PARTY.

Really, there is very little common ground to be found with these people. For example, even if both parties desire to balance the budge the Marxists want to balance it by tax increases while the Constitutionalists want to balance it by cutting the budget. Each side will be opposed to the other sides idea, and as such there is no place for common ground.

B. Hussein Obama

“And with so much at stake, what the American people don’t want from us, especially here in Washington, is to spend the next two years refighting the political battles of the last two.”

This is clever. Obama cloaks his defiance in a call for unity. By saying that we ought not to re-fight the political battles of the last two years Obama is seeking to undermine the very reason why the voters voted the way they did. As the mid-term election was nationalized over the policy of the Obama administration of the last two years it is clearly the case that what the voters exactly desire is a re-fighting of the political battles of the last two years. This statement is proof that Obama remains defiant and intent on pushing his agenda.

Through the press conference Obama made it clear that health care legislation was not a mistake in policy and that he had no intent to reverse course on his signature legislation.

B. Hussein Obama,

“I think that there are some areas where it’s going to be very difficult for us to agree on, but I think there are going to be a whole bunch of areas where we can agree on. I don’t think there’s anybody in America who thinks that we’ve got an energy policy that works the way it needs to; that thinks that we shouldn’t be working on energy independence. And that gives opportunities for Democrats and Republicans to come together and think about, whether it’s natural gas or energy efficiency or how we can build electric cars in this country, how do we move forward on that agenda.

I think everybody in this country thinks that we’ve got to make sure our kids are equipped in terms of their education, their science background, their math backgrounds, to compete in this new global economy. And that’s going to be an area where I think there’s potential common ground.”

The common ground that Republicans are being called to here is common ground staked out by the Marxists. Both of these (energy and education) are Democratic Trojan horses in order to advance a Marxist control agenda.

B. Hussein Obama,

“I think that over the last two years, we have made a series of very tough decisions, but decisions that were right in terms of moving the country forward in an emergency situation where we had the risk of slipping into a second Great Depression.

But what is absolutely true is that with all that stuff coming at folks fast and furious — a recovery package, what we had to do with respect to the banks, what we had to do with respect to the auto companies — I think people started looking at all this and it felt as if government was getting much more intrusive into people’s lives than they were accustomed to.”

Note, Obama insists that his policy decisions were right. This assertion comes in the face that the voters told him Tuesday that his policy decisions were wrong.

Second, the whole crap about us “falling into a second Great Depression” is merely an assertion. There is no one who knows for a fact that this is true. This is just more hyperbole in order to justify his reckless Marxist policy.

Third, Obama is pinning the problem of the election results on the stupidity of the American people. The government was doing the right thing but the public felt as if government was getting much more intrusive into people’s lives than they were accustomed to.” The implication here is that the government, according to Obama, wasn’t really getting much more intrusive but it merely felt that way to the stupid American public.

“Q Would you still resist the notion that voters rejected the policy choices you made?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, Savannah, I think that what I think is absolutely true is voters are not satisfied with the outcomes. If right now we had 5 percent unemployment instead of 9.6 percent unemployment, then people would have more confidence in those policy choices.”

Here Obama suggests that nobody would have objected to his socialist policies if unemployment hadn’t been so high. This bodes for a future Obama who continues to pursue his Marxist policy.

Elsewhere in the press conference what we saw is that Obama won’t move on the principle behind cap and tax (trade), and does not rule out the possibility of implementing cap and tax through the EPA bureaucracy. Further Obama, hasn’t moved on “don’t ask, don’t tell.”

Clearly, what we got from this press conference is a belligerent Obama wrapped in a humble facade.

The next two years ought to be interesting.