The Highway Forums Active Threads

Affliction is one of God's medicines! By it He often teaches lessons which would be learned in no other way. By it He often draws souls away from sin and the world, which would otherwise have perished everlastingly. Health is a great blessing but sanctified disease is a greater. Prosperity and worldly comfort, are what all naturally desire, but losses and crosses are far better for us if they lead us to Christ. Let us beware of murmuring in the time of trouble. Let us settle it firmly in our minds, that there is a meaning, a “needs be”, and a message from God in every sorrow that falls upon us. There are no lessons so useful as those learned in the school of affliction. There is no commentary that opens up the Bible so much as sickness and sorrow. The resurrection morning will prove, that many of the losses of God’s people were in reality, eternal gains. Thousands at the last day will testify with David, “It is good for me that I have been afflicted” (Psalm. 119:71)!
~ J.C. Ryle

Methinks you have mistaken the QUOTE for Anthony's views? Perhaps if he had given a clear accreditation to the quote that might not misled you. Anyway, I seriously doubt that he thinks that the phony vaccines was a "good thing".

I do not know Doug Wilson personally. I have not followed all his writings over many years. What I do know is that he is infamous for obfuscations of various doctrines making sometimes nearly impossible to know what he is teaching or believes. He likes to think of himself as an erodite and thus looks down upon others. Sometimes it takes the wisdom of Solomon to discern what he is saying/writing... ya know what I mean?

But, to the point, here are a couple links to articles which critique Wilson's stand on Federal Vision; one from 2017 and another has comments from others on this matter dated 2023. I am sure there are many other individuals who have dealt with Wilson on this subject and other troubling views he holds.

- Has Doug Wilson Really Changed His Mind About Federal Vision?

- Doug Wilson argues that the imputed...quot;infused grace" in Regeneration

Lately, I have been hearing 'commercials' on the radio with Franklin Graham. I had to chuckle right off the start because he looks and sounds like his father, William (Billy Graham). But another and most important similarity which sparked me to post this month's Article of the Month is the 'message' he presented which is likewise one of the hallmarks of the Billy Graham Ministries. It is the one that probably influenced the majority of evangelical churches from the beginning. It begins typically with, "I want you to know that God loves you..." and ends with the 'invitation' to pray "this prayer". One of the ways I have described these typical messages and the persons delivering them is "feckless". The message is vacuous and the speakers are mindless and irresponsible, and worse it is seriously deceptive. Simply echoing a prayer cannot save anyone. And those who believe that by parroting the prayer are made right with God, aka: justified, adopted as sons of God, filled with the Spirit and destined to heaven have a totally false sense of security and assurance. The question that demands to be asked is, "What IS saving faith?"

Dr. Michael Haykin in a very short article shows the history and fallacy of "Sandemanianism", aka: Easy Believism and then points to the right direction. There are many other articles on The Highway that deal in depth with true saving faith, that faith which is given by God and worked in the heart of a sinner which unites with Christ thus saving/justifying the soul and truly redeems from sin.

You can read this article now by clicking here: Sandemanianism.

Or, for later reading of the article and/or find all past articles of the month, go to The Highway website and scroll down to the "Article of the Month" logo.

In His service and grace,

In much of present-day evangelism it is assumed that the one thing man can do in the exercise of his own liberty is to believe in Christ for salvation. It is supposed that this is the one contribution that man himself must make to set the forces of salvation in operation and that even God himself can do nothing towards this end until there is this crucial decision on man’s own part. In this assessment there is total failure to reckon with human depravity, with the nature of the contradiction that sin involves. Paul tells us that not only is the mind of the flesh not subject to the law of God but also that it cannot be (Rom. 8:7). This impossibility extends to the gospel as well. It is the implication of Paul’s other word that “the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot know them, because they are spiritually discerned” (I Cor. 2:14). But to this truth we have the most pointed and express witness of our Lord himself. “No man can come unto me, except the Father who hath sent me draw him” (John 6:44); “no man can come unto me, except it were given to him of the Father” (John 6:65). Here is the witness of him who knows what is in man and who knows the Father as the Father knows him. And it is to the effect that it is a moral and spiritual impossibility for a man to come unto him except by the free gift from the Father in his secret and efficacious drawing.

The foregoing words of our Lord must be coordinated with another in the same context. “All that the Father giveth me shall come unto me, and him that cometh unto me I will in no wise cast out” (John 6:37). The giving on the part of the Father in this text has been understood as the election in Christ before the foundation of the world (cf. Eph. 1:4, 5) or, at least, in terms of giving to the Son correlative with or flowing from the election. But this does not by any means appear to be the action of the Father referred to in the text. There are two reasons for this conclusion. First, in this Gospel elsewhere, when Jesus speaks of those given to him by the Father, they are identified as those given to him out of the world, as those who had kept his word, as those who had known that all things given to him were from the Father, as those who had received the words given him and had come to know the truth that he, Jesus, had come out from the Father (John 17:6-8). These characterizations require much more than election before the foundation of the world; they involve a relation of faith. Second, in the more immediate context Jesus is referring to the effectual drawing and giving on the Father’s part (John 6:44, 65). So we must conclude that the giving is the giving that occurs in the actual operations of grace, defined more specifically as drawing and giving in the realm of consciousness. The constraints of the Father’s grace in the hearts of men are concomitant with or, perhaps, may be construed as donation on the part of the Father to the Son. God the Father draws men, places holy constraints upon them, calls them into the fellowship of his Son, and presents them to Christ as trophies of the redemption Christ himself has accomplished.

This constraint has been called “efficacious.” No other inference could reasonably be drawn from John 6:44, 45 Jesus is speaking of coming unto him, that is, of the commitment of faith and of the impossibility apart from the Father’s drawing. In making the exception it is surely implied that when the Father draws the exception occurs— the person drawn does come. Furthermore, it would offend against all that may be conceived as to the nature and intent of the Father’s drawing and giving in terms of verses 44, 65 to think of these actions as ineffectual. But John 6:37 puts this beyond all question: “All that the Father giveth me will come to me.” Jesus does not say: all that the Father giveth me are brought to me. He uses the term that denotes motion on the part of the person—”will come to me.” Coming to Christ is the movement of commitment to Christ, coming that engages the whole-souled activity of the person coming. It is not that he may come, not that he has the opportunity to come, not that he will in all probability come, and not simply that he is empowered to come, but that he will come. There is absolute certainty. There is a divine necessity; the order of heaven insures the sequence.

https://www.the-highway.com/Irresistible_Murray.html

This modern gospel is presented with no hint that God is sovereign and active in drawing to Himself those whom He has chosen. In Scripture these truths are not hidden lest they should cause offence; they are declared and even emphasized, since God is glorified when man can boast of nothing in himself as the cause of salvation. ‘I contribute nothing to my salvation except the sin from which I need to be saved’ (Acts 13:48, Matt. 11:25–30, John 6:63–65; 15:16, Rom. 9:14–24).

https://www.the-highway.com/angospel_Cheeseman.html

Is Calvinism the good news about God’s salvation of men?

It should be obvious that “Calvinism” in this second sense is squarely focused on the issues of salvation. In a very real sense, the Five Points of Calvinism are the Gospel of our salvation, for they carefully define man’s need of God’s grace, and summarize the great acts performed by the Triune God to save men from their sins.
The Arminian “gospel” redefines the gospel doctrines of depravity, election, redemption, regeneration, and grace.

Under the Arminian system, man is not so depraved that he cannot savingly believe in Christ. Thus, man’s need of salvation is greatly compromised by Arminianism.

Under the Arminian system, God chose certain men only because He foresaw that they would believe. Thus, God’s plan of salvation is greatly compromised by Arminianism. Indeed, this is a great denial of God’s freedom to help needy sinners, for those who most need His help are those who would never have believed apart from God’s Irresistible Grace.

Redemption under the Arminian system cannot save anyone unless man contributes his own faith. Thus, the price of our salvation and the worth of Christ’s blood to save guilty sinners is greatly compromised by Arminianism.

Under the Arminian system God cannot regenerate a man until he responds in faith to the Gospel (whereas Calvinism teaches that faith is a fruit and evidence of regeneration). Thus, God’s power and freedom to bring about our salvation is greatly compromised by Arminianism.

And Arminianism views “grace” merely as a universal provision of salvation for all men, who may then receive it or reject it as they choose. On the other hand, the Calvinistic concept of grace is that God does everything necessary for our salvation: choosing us (when we would not choose Him), redeeming us (effectually, with no restraining conditions) and powerfully regenerating us (thereby giving us a new heart which erupts forth in genuine, loving faith), when we were still dead in our sins and unbelief.

To suppose that the Gospel could have any sensible meaning in a theological vacuum is ludicrous. The “gospel” of Arminianism is but a man-centered, man-glorifying counterfeit of the Biblical gospel. The doctrines represented by the TULIP are not mere window dressing. They are nothing less than a precise, Biblical definition of what salvation is all about. In this sense, the TULIP is very much the Gospel.

https://www.the-highway.com/calvinism-gospel_Cervinka.html

Yeah, especially when Agenda2030 advocate & promoter George Soros is funding it…

https://nypost.com/2023/10/28/news/soros-funneled-15-m-plus-to-groups-rallying-for-hamas/

Since the finishing of the canon of the Scripture, the church is not under that conduct as to stand in need of such new extraordinary revelations. It doth, indeed, live upon the internal gracious operations of the Spirit, enabling us to understand, believe, and obey the perfect, complete revelation of the will of God already made; but new revelations it hath neither need nor use of;—and to suppose them, or a necessity of them, not only overthrows the perfection of the Scripture, but also leaveth us uncertain whether we know all that is to be believed in order unto salvation, or our whole duty, or when we may do so; for it would be our duty to live all our days in expectation of new revelations, wherewith neither peace, assurance, nor consolation is consistent.

~ John Owen