Uncategorized – Page 89

No Christ … No Liberty

The non-Christian can not know liberty. He will say he knows liberty but what he is calling liberty is just some form of licentiousness. The non-Christian can not know liberty because he is a man in bondage to his sin and as being in bondage to his sin all he will create in the name of liberty are social order institutions that reflect his bondage to sin.

Only the Christian who has been set free from the bondage of sin by the finished work of Jesus Christ on the cross can talk sanely about freedom, liberty, and independence. That is because they understand that their freedom, liberty, and independence means a freedom to obey Christ which they could never do before, a liberty to walk in righteousness which they could never do before, and an independence from the bondage which was characteristic of their life outside of Christ.

There is no social order Liberty that can long be maintained by a people who have abjured Christ and foresworn Christianity. No social order freedom to be had by a Church which disconnects the lifeline between freedom from sin and freedom from wicked governments and magistrates.

Social order liberty is the God-given inheritance bequeathed to a people set free from sin and gathered in resolve to incarnate that liberty in all their social order institutions.

A post-Christian world that blathers on about “liberty,” “freedom,” and “independence,” don’t know what they are talking about.

Taking Up Dr. Greg Johnson’s Offer to View His Post PCA GA Sermon — An Open Letter

Dr. Greg Johnson – he of same-sex attracted sodomite but celibate fame – invited on his Twitter feed to view his first sermon following the gathering of his denomination to discuss his curiosities. He insisted that it was going to be pure on Gospel, and as I am the guy who is forever bending over to give people the benefit of the doubt I did watch his sermon… twice. This is my commentary on that sermon.

1.) “While the ex-gay movement is dead, its cadaver walks about undead among us. Its presence was palpable (at PCA GA).”

Greg Johnson

Sodomite & Celibate but still experiencing same-sex attraction and taking the attitude that is perfectly fine and even something to broadcast as a normative thing.

I believe in this quote from his sermon we hear Johnson’s main problem. He is absolutely convinced that he cannot be delivered from same-sex attraction. Being delivered from same-sex attraction is what the “ex-gay movement” taught. Johnson basically says deliverance from the experience of the sin of same-sex attraction is IMPOSSIBLE and as such people who experience same-sex attraction should be free to live with that experience as normative. Some of Johnson’s cohorts (though not Johnson himself) have even spoken about “gay culture” being brought into the kingdom of heaven…. that “gay culture” can be redeemed as “gay culture” and be part of the new creation.

Johnson has all kinds of “evidence” for his position and much of that evidence will be seen in his new book coming out soon. The problem is that I am slow to believe the evidence he will be providing (I have heard some of it in an interview that was done with the good Dr. Johnson) just as I am slow to believe the evidence that those who are shrieking about climate change want to provide. Dr. Johnson has an axe to grind and I do not believe any evidence that suggests that God cannot take what is twisted (homo attractions) and straighten it out so that hetero attractions arise.

2.) Johnson, in his sermon, subtly went after Greenville Presbyterian Theological Seminary by referencing repeatedly the problem with “Sothern pietistic moralism.”

This is important to note. Those who are occupying the Pink Mafia in the PCA view their enemies as being the conservatives and they will do anything they can to castigate this enemy. I suspect that the only reason that Johnson believes he has a problem with Southern Pietistic moralism is that he is, 1.) Not Southern, 2.) Not Pietistic, and 3.) Not moral.

3.) Johnson clearly has the “Christ for us” down. His sermon was wonderful on this score. It is the kind of sermon that the sinner who has been smitten by God’s law needs to hear. It is the kind of sermon that the Christian needs to hear who is becoming ever more conversant with his own sin. I tip my cap to Dr. Johnson for his clear articulation of Christ for sinners, Christ in the place of sinners, and Christ as the sinner’s righteousness.

However, St. Paul in Romans also says in the starkest fashion possible that Christians should not go on sinning that grace may abound. St. Paul teaches that sin shall no longer be the Christian’s master.

So, while we praise God that the Gospel is a good news declaration of what God has accomplished in Christ in the stead of the elect we note that the good news of Jesus Christ includes deliverance not only from the presence of sin but also from the power of sin. The Gospel includes the word about the ongoing renewing work of Christ in us by the living power of the Holy Ghost who works in us the renewing of our minds so that one does not return like a dog to his vomit to one’s old sins of experiencing same-sex attraction. That Greg didn’t articulate so well in this sermon.

Does Greg ever articulate in his sermons that Christians are

²²to put off your old self,^[a] which belongs to your former manner of life and is corrupt through deceitful desires, ²³and to be renewed in the spirit of your minds, ²⁴and to put on the new self, created after the likeness of God in true righteousness and holiness.

In his sermon I listened to Greg insisted that (paraphrasing here) the Gospel is not to make us think we are good people but that we are bad people who have been rescued by a good saviour. There is truth to this. A good deal of truth. So much truth that if this was left out of a Christian’s understanding it would be tragic. However, the Gospel has a sanctifying effect so that we bad people are no longer as bad as we once were. While on one level Greg, it is true that we are not better than a Jeffrey Dahmer (an illustration that Greg used), it is also true on another level that a converted Jeffrey Dahmer himself experienced such renewal that he could say that he was no longer the man he once was. Spirit wrought sanctification makes a difference my dear Brother in Christ and if you can’t find the capacity to admit that in relation to your sinful same-sex experiences then at the very least you have a profound misunderstanding of the Christian faith and at the very worst you yet remain outside of Christ.

So, Johnson has down the idea that we all forever are sinners in need of grace. Who could disagree?

What Johnson doesn’t have down is that the Spirit in sanctification works in us incrementally but unalterably increasing Christlikeness so that we can be described as “God’s workmanship created in Christ Jesus for good works.”

4.) Dr. Greg Johnson complains about Christians who think they are “good people” but the irony here is that Johnson sees himself as superior to those “good people” because he finds his goodness in his lack of being good.

It is a good warning to all of us to avoid self-righteousness and the temptation to look down on others because we are not like other people who are sinners (Luke 18:11). Thank you for that warning Dr. Johnson.

However, if I may, I suggest that you have not avoided this yourself. The conviction of your own superiority vis-a-vis those putative vainglorious Southern pietistic moralists was palpable. It is not hard in the least Greg to envision hearing you pray nightly, “Lord I thank you that I am not like this Southern pietist moralist. I go around admitting my most shameful sin and freely admit that my condition is hopeless.”

5.) “Today the church is feeling the tensions of a new rigorous aggressive legalism on one side of the church and a falling away into unbelief on the other side.” Dr. Greg Johnson – 04 July 2021 Sermon

Let’s keep in mind Greg that legalism is the idea that men are seeking to be saved by the keeping of God’s law in its total demand. Legalism teaches that we are so exacting in our obedience to God’s law that we can reasonably demand of God salvation that we have earned by our law-keeping expertise.

Given that definition, Greg do you really think your Presbyterian opponents are going all legalistic? Do you really believe that your opponents think that they have reached this state of perfection or is it instead the case that you are just reaching for any handy club in order to beat off those who dare disagree with you? I’m pretty confident that this is a case where legalism is being defined as “anyone who dares disagree with Greg Johnson.”

Greg, I can be pretty caustic and sarcastic at times but allow me to put that aside for just a second. Greg, your position puts you in an even more dangerous situation than your average pew sitter. You are considered a leader and clearly, there is a whole train of people who see you as their leader. Greg, if you keep heading in this direction the weight of the damage that you do to yourself and others is incalculable. Won’t you please at the very least reconsider your position?

I do not doubt you could be in Christ. I also have no doubt that what you’re teaching could be absolutely soul damning in your life and the life of those following you. For the love of God, others, and yourself please repent.

Random Observations on the Regnant Follie at PCA GA

I viewed a good deal of the PCA GA last week. Below are my random observations. I shall use “ssa” to shorten same-sex attraction.

1.) I was more than a little amazed at the number of Elders who stood up at the PCA GA or later wrote in tweets or blogs and admitted they experienced ssa. Who knew that the PCA had so many ssa Elders?

2.) I was beyond amazed and entering into the territory of being shocked to witness the display of effeminacy on display at PCA GA microphones. My gaydar nearly burnt out a chip trying to keep up. I found myself wondering if these guys were exchanging estrogen-laced recipes between sessions. I’ve seen this kind of thing a few times before at ecclesiastical meetings so I’m no stranger to this phenomenon but I never thought I’d see it at a PCA GA.

3.) It is my conviction that in the end, the PCA GA offered more trimming than substance in what they accomplished at PCA GA. The problem these men (“men ” ?) have is not going to go away short of running the ssa leadership crowd through the church courts one by one.

4.) Overture 23 was a motion to amend the Book of Church Order (BCO) 16 by adding the following clause:

16-4 Officers in the Presbyterian Church in America must be above reproach in their walk and Christlike in their character. Those who profess an identity (such as, but not limited to, “gay Christian,” “same sex attracted Christian,” “homosexual Christian,” or like terms) that undermines or contradicts their identity as new creations in Christ, either by denying the sinfulness of fallen desires (such as, but not limited to, same sex attraction), or by denying the reality and hope of progressive sanctification, or by failing to pursue Spirit-empowered victory over their sinful temptations, inclinations, and actions are not qualified for ordained office.

This sounds good on the surface but already during the debate some of the ssa crowd were practicing their future evasion technique by saying that they have never claimed as same sex attraction identity insisting instead that they have experienced same sex attraction. The line of reasoning on their part goes this way; “My identity is in Christ but that doesn’t change the fact that I experience same-sex attraction. As such I completely concur that my identity is in Christ but my identity can be in Christ while at the same time experiencing same-sex attraction.” In such a way the ssa crowd can evade the strictures of this new amendment to the BCO. (Also consider that it still has to be affirmed by 2/3 of the PCA Presbyteries in order to be made law.)

I agree that a fair reading of the new amendment to the PCA Book of Church order would shut the door against ssa folks but we have to keep in mind that these people are not going to give the proposed amendment a fair reading. They are going to twist the language going forward just as they have already twisted the language to get to this point. If they have not given a fair reading to Scripture and its clear forbidding of what they have been advocating why would anyone think they are going to give a fair reading of this proposed amendment? A fair reading would require them to leave the denomination en mass right now. They are not going to do that.

5.) Overture 37 was a motion to amend BCO 21-4 and 24-1 by “clarifying the moral requirements for church office.”

Therefore be it resolved that, for the examination of Teaching Elders, BCO 21-4 be amended to add a new sub-paragraph 21-4.e, as follows, with the subsequent sub paragraphs [21-4.e-h] re-lettered [to be 21-4.f-i] (addition underlined):

BCO 21-4.

e. In the examination of the candidate’s personal character, the presbytery shall give specific attention to potentially notorious concerns, such as but not limited to relational sins, sexual immorality (including homosexuality, child sexual abuse, fornication, and pornography), addictions, abusive behavior, racism, and financial mismanagement. Careful attention must be given to his practical struggle against sinful actions, as well as to persistent sinful desires. The candidate must give clear testimony of reliance upon his union with Christ and the benefits thereof by the Holy Spirit, depending on this work of grace to make progress over sin (Psalm 103:2-5, Romans 8:29) and to bear fruit (Psalm 1:3; Gal. 5:22-23). While imperfection will remain, he must not be known by reputation or self-profession according to his remaining sinfulness, but rather by the work of the Holy Spirit in Christ Jesus (1 Cor. 6:9-11). In order to maintain discretion and protect the honor of the pastoral office, Presbyteries are encouraged to appoint a committee to conduct detailed examinations of these matters and to give prayerful support to candidates.

My first instinct on this one is to say that if a denomination has a problem with these kinds of candidates seeking to get into the ministry one has a problem that Presbytery examination is not going to cure. I’m over 60 and I must admit that all of this blows my mind. So many guys want to get into the ministry who are pedophiles, sodomites, porn fiends, and routine fornicators that we have to form special committees to keep all these chaps out?

I would think if one went to all the time and cost to get through Seminary so as to be ordained in the PCA that no committee is going to ferret out this stuff and I’m not sure we want to turn PCA committees into a modern version of the House committee on un-American activities.

Note the section that admits that “imperfection will remain.” I bring this to your attention because some Twit on the floor of GA tried to make the case that these requirements were examples of Wesleyan perfectionism and Keswick higher living leaking into the denomination. Only a Twit could think such a thing.

Elsewhere viewing the PCA GA made me aware of some things that I only feared were true prior to watching the PCA GA in action.

6.) There is no realistic hope of help coming from the “Reformed” denominations. I knew denominations like the CRC or the RCA or the PCUSA etc. were liberal and dead but I had no idea how sick institutionally the “conservative denominations” were.

7.) The PCA and the broader church needs to be viewed as being reflective of the culture and not a leading-edge reforming institution in the culture. I was left slack-jawed by all the testosterone-deprived pajama boy clergy that I saw speak at the PCA GA microphones. The problems in the culture are being not only reflected but nurtured in the Church.

8.) There is no way that most recently freshly minted ministers will ever comprehend how desperate of a situation that the church is currently in. They just don’t have enough life under their belt to understand that the only thing missing on the dead conservative denominations is a grave marker. They are full of hope that the PCA may yet turn around. Those of us who have seen this movie before and who have read about how this has happened repeatedly in history already know how this movie ends. The PCA is NOT going to make a comeback to orthodoxy. Some would say this is pessimism but before you point that finger keep in mind that Sean Michael Lucas teaches future PCA ministers.

9.) The Ministry is still staffed by too many nice guys who will only let their anger show when fighting against racism. There is nothing except racism that finds them experiencing abhorrence. Not even the clearly in-your-face effeminacy which champions mainstreaming the ongoing experience of same-sex attraction by members and clergy is a reality that engenders instinctual repulsion.

10.) I had always dreamed about someday being accepted by the Reformed clergy community. That is clearly never going to happen, and after viewing the PCA GA I no longer want it to happen. My wife reminds me that they want no more part of me than I do of them, so it’s all good. Yes… yes, I know there are exceptions and I’m not the last man standing. I’m talking in general terms and generally speaking I am correct.

11.) Critical thinking skills are as absent in the PCA as they are in the broader culture. Listening to all the non-sequiturs and dumbassery was particularly painful at times. Indeed, there were times I had to quit viewing the PCA GA it was so bad.

Stories From my Wesleyan & Keswick Years — Entire Sanctification

Classic Wesleyan theology teaches that man’s sin nature can be eradicated so that a person no longer sins. Keswick theology teaches that the sin nature can be so suppressed that a person no longer sins. In both Undergrad and Seminary, I had a theology professor (from each tradition) tell the class either, “I have not sinned in 30 years,” or “I cannot remember the last time I sinned.”

The Wesleyans and the Keswicks get away with this by redefining sin down. What most people would call “sin,” they would refer to as a mistake, or an oversight, or an error. For example, if one had a flash of anger that would not be counted as “sin” since it wasn’t premeditated. In such a theology sin is dumbed down to include only premeditated and sustained habitual sins.

Now… the kicker here is when I was in Undergrad with the Wesleyans they were telling their lads who were pursuing their ministry degrees that they would not be allowed to take a Wesleyan pulpit unless they could claim entire sanctification.

What really was curious is that among the Wesleyan profs I had and the Wesleyan ministers I talked to there was no one single definition for Sanctification. I remember once going forward during a service for one of the “Spiritual Emphasis weeks” services asking for entire sanctification from God and having two older ministers talk to me while at the altar giving me two different ways to be entirely sanctified.

Now, keep in mind what you’re going to create if you tell a bunch of 22-year-olds that they have to have “perfect love” in order to get a job.

Yeah… that’s correct. You got the grossest hypocrisy and judgmentalism you can possibly imagine. And that is what I witnessed.

One way this was expressed was the famous Wesleyan “Amen Corner,” which existed during the student-required morning chapels. Nearly all of the Ministry major students would sit in one particular corner of the church for the chapel with their polyester pants (it was also referred to as the polyester corner) and their button-down shirts. We used to count how many “Amens” would resonate from that corner during the chapel service. In such a way we would know how superior or inferior a chapel service we had witnessed. The Wesleyan “Amens” started with the top of the tongue rolling off the roof of the mouth so that a distinct smacking mouth noise would be made followed immediately by a guttural “AMEN.” Of course, something like that just begged to be routinely mocked, and eventually, all of our conversations would be punctuated by frequent tongue smacking and guttural Amens.

Another way this embrace of entire sanctification expressed itself on campus is that we who were not entirely sanctified got all the best girls. The best girls always like best the bad boys and it was easy to be a bad boy with the polyester pants crowd on campus. If one wore ripped jeans and a disco destroyer t-shirt one had a leg up already on the polyester competition. I married the best woman on campus and it was in part because I was a “bad boy,” as compared to the polyester pants brigade.

Another way this entire sanctification among the ministerial students was expressed was the exquisite way that they would look down on you if they thought you were their inferior. The advantage of being entirely sanctified is that one can think they are morally superior to the poor schlubs who are not. Actually, this developed into a contest between the entirely sanctified and the “bad boys” on who could be more condescending towards the other.

For myself and a few friends, all of this definitely became a matter of, “I’d rather laugh with the sinners than cry with the saints. The sinners are much more fun.” Of course, the polyester pants crowd was NOT entirely sanctified, and as such their personality and character were definitely injured. For all I know they continued believing that bilge to this day and so their characters and personalities remain stunted to this day. One cannot believe theological bushwa and not be injured by it. Even when I knew them these guys were injured goods.

And remember… these injured goods would be piloting Wesleyan pulpits. I can still see their faces and their polyester pants. I can even remember a few first names forty years later. There was a Danny and a Mark and a Wes and a Mike ( I remember Mike [who later got divorced I learned] because during a critique time in the homiletics class he couldn’t resist saying that my crooked mustache was a distraction while I was preaching — just the kind of comment one would expect from the polyester crowd) and a Gerald and a Tim and a Scott and on and on. I hope that they were able to get past their polyester pants beginning and learned that the whole doctrine of entire sanctification is utter horse hockey and that bad theology hurts people

That was my experience with the young Wesleyan clergy and Wesleyan clergy wannabees early on in my life. The Keswick fared little better though I wasn’t around them as long and so didn’t know them as well. I do know that the hypocrisy was just as thick among that stripe of perfectionism.

Apologetics from the Time Capsule… McAtee returns Volley; Leaves Darryl Hart Looking Foolish… Again

“So, to respond to Rabbi Bret, my beef with the CRC and its worldview is not only that it is progressive. I also object to worldviews like Rabbi Bret’s that are politically or culturally conservative because opposing abortion, if done for the wrong reasons, is as much a form of works righteousness as is adopting a mandate on global warming. If Rabbi Bret wants evidence of the way that a right-wing worldviewitis leads to churches fudging the gospel, he only needs to say, “Federal Vision.” Can he do that? Sure he can.”

Dr. Darryl G. Hart
2010

Dr. Darryl seems to be reasoning here that all because there exist progressive worldviews that have no business being in the Church or right-wing worldviews that have no business being in the Church therefore the worldview that insists that worldviews in the church are bad should be the worldview that is in the church. Dr. Darryl is advocating that the Church take up a ‘public square antinomianism worldview’ that if done for the wrong reasons, is as much a form of works righteousness as is adopting either global warming or pro-life positions.

Dr. Darryl (and presumably his other brother Darryl) seems to think that it is possible for the Church to be worldview-free. Yet, as I have been saying relentlessly, it is only Dr. Darryl’s law-oriented worldview that is pushing him to advocate what he advocates. Dr. Darryl’s worldview (public square antinomianism) is law-oriented because he seems to suggest that anybody that does not share his anti-worldview worldview is a someone who can not be saved. So, for Dr. Darryl, a person who does not keep the law of having an anti-worldview worldview is a person who must be born again. At the very least, for Darryl, all sanctified Christians, keep the law with him, which teaches that mature Christians don’t allow the Church to have any worldview in the Church.

Dr. Darryl accuses progressivism to be a worldview that is law and not Gospel and so should not be embraced by the Church. Dr. Darryl accuses right wing worldviews to be worldviews that are law and not Gospel and so should not be in the Church. Dr. Darryl insists that the worldview that advocates no worldview and which says that any law is an acceptable law in his “common realm” is to be preferred over progressivism law or right-wing law.

Dr. Darryl’s problem is that he honestly believes that Christianity, as promulgated in the Church, neither asks nor answers the question, “How shall then we live.” Dr. Darryl’s worldview believes that all attempts by the Church to speak God’s mind on this question for the public square are sinful. The consequence of Dr. Darryl’s worldview is that the Gospel’s impact in saving individual lives reaches no further than those individual personal lives. For Dr. Darryl, a medical doctor is saved by the Gospel but after being saved by the Gospel, Christianity, as promulgated by the church, has no word for the medical doctor on how he should speak about medical ethics. For Dr. Darryl, a public square Economist is saved by the Gospel but after being saved by the Gospel, Christianity, as promulgated by the church, has no word for the Economist on whether Keynesianism is consistent with the 8th commandment. For Dr. Darryl, a civil magistrate is saved by the Gospel but after being saved by the Gospel, Christianity, as promulgated by the church, has no answer for the civil magistrate on whether political or cultural Marxism is consistent with the 1st commandment. For Dr. Darryl the third use of the law, as it pertains to the public square, completely disappears. For Dr. Darryl God speaks clearly on how individuals get saved but God speaks only an incredibly contested word (i.e. – Darryl’s appeal to Natural Law) on how Christians as Christians should live.

Dr. Darrly has not escaped the fact that his worldview for the public square antinomianism that he would have the Church embrace if pursued for the wrong reasons, is as much a form of works righteousness as is adopting a mandate on global warming or as adopting legislation that is pro-life.