Apologetics – Page 68

McAtee Contra Doug Wilson on Sodomy

Below is a question to Doug Wilson along with his answer. I culled this question and answer from a very interesting video below that I highly recommend.

—-

Dear Pastor Wilson,

What are your beliefs on concupiscence, and specifically, as it pertains to homosexuality?

Noah

Doug Replies;

Noah,

I believe that the stirrings of such desire are temptation, to be resisted but not confessed, and that indulgence and expression of such desire is to be confessed to God as sin. Under no circumstances should it be made an aspect of your identity.

Doug

———-

A few observations on my part now follow;

First a definition of concupiscence, since it is not a word we use a great deal today.

Concupiscence

kŏn-kyoo͞′pĭ-səns
Noun

a.) A strong desire, especially sexual desire; lust.
b.) Improper or illicit desire; sensual appetite; especially, lustful desire or feeling; sensuality; lust.
c.) Strong desire in general; appetite.

As we examine Doug’s statement we note;

1.) There is a very thin line between temptation that is not yet sin and so to be resisted and temptation that already is itself sin and so needs to be both resisted and confessed. Indeed, we see that in the book of James;

But each person is tempted when he is lured and enticed by his own desire.

James 1:14

Here we see temptation itself is driven by a desire that is not God glorifying. So, we quite agree that not all temptation is sin and we agree that temptation is immediately to be resisted and that temptation need not to be confessed as sin though humans, being inveterate deniers of sin, probably would not be hurt by confessing more of their temptations as sin since sinful desire is what drives temptation. In terms of concupiscence in relation to homosexuality we should note that in Romans 1:26 Paul says Sodomites are given up to “vile passions,” which is to say that the disposition preceding Sodomitic acts is itself vile, i.e. sinful. As such I would be inclined to say concupiscence in relation to homosexuality should both be resisted and confessed as sin. Because of this I have a qualified disagreement with Rev. Wilson on his answer to Noah.

2.) Elsewhere on this subject Wilson has said;

“I don’t think homosexual orientation is a sin.”

This is an odd thing to say and in my estimation reveals how much peace even the conservative church has made with sodomy. I say this because I am fairly certain that Doug would not also say;

A.) “I don’t think pedophilia orientation is a sin”
B.) “I don’t think necrophilia orientation is a sin”
C.) “I don’t think that bestiality orientation is a sin”

The only reason that the initial sentence sounds reasonable to people is because most people have made peace conceptually speaking with the sin of sodomy.

On this issue of orientation we must understand here that Wilson is using “Revoice logic,” and Revoice in turn follows Roman Catholic theology as it insists that one is only culpable for what they choose. The upshot of this in this theological matrix is that if one has allegedly unbidden homosexual desire/orientation one is not sinning in that desire since that desire was not volitional.

However, here we see the Pelagian (Non-Reformed) anthropology glimmering through. The sinfulness of sin is not found in our volition cooperating with the sin. The sinfulness of sin is found in the reality of sin — chosen or unchosen — present in our lives. It is Pelagian to say that it is our choice that makes sin to be sin.

Keep in mind that in the OT there were sacrifices for unintentional sins. The unintentionality behind the sin did not relieve the sinner from the guilt that came with having committed the unintentional sin.

Just so now. The fact that homosexual desire is allegedly not combined with volition does not mean therefore that the homosexual orientation that is a consequent of the homosexual desire is not sin. It is sin and we are not helping people who have, for whatever reason, a disposition towards this kind of desire/orientation when we seek to let them off the hook of responsibility. Those people are responsible for the sin of homosexual desire even if their volition to that end is absent if only because God says such desire/orientation is sin.

Scripture teaches Christians on this score …

22 You were taught, with regard to your former way of life, to put off your old self, which is being corrupted by its deceitful desires; 23 to be made new in the attitude of your minds; 24 and to put on the new self, created to be like God in true righteousness and holiness.

The choice for all sinners in all the permutations of their sinful desires/orientations is to put to death (starve to death) all corrupt desires/orientations whether those desires/orientations are volitional or not.

3.) Doug says that under no circumstances should it (homosexual orientation) made an aspect of your identity.

This is to be applauded. Now if only Doug himself would not under any circumstances make homosexual orientation a part of Christian’s identity. Doug has admitted his church has “Homosexual members.”

Go to 44:15 mark.

How is saying that not working to the end of making the orientation part of their identity?

Let’s be clear here. Doug is saying that same sex attraction (Homosexual orientation) is not sin. It is not sin because allegedly there is no volition in the orientation. Yet sin is sin not because human volition makes sin sin. Sin is sin because God says sin is sin. Keep in mind also that there is no way to prove the presence or absence of volition in any given person.

Now, a Pastor might say, “I have people in my congregation who struggle with the temptation of homosexual orientation but as they do not identify with their struggle except so as to admit and confess their sin, they never refer to themselves as ‘homosexual Christians.'”

As an aside let’s try to keep in mind that when we refer to the “Homosexual” community or just to “Homosexuals” by using that language we are giving ontological status to those who are what they are not because they are ontologically a particular way. Rather they are who they are because of their patterns of sinful desire. Indeed, it would not be too much to say that homosexuals don’t even exist — at least as in the sense that we use that word today. It is the work of Magnus Hirschfield and later Alfred Kinsey that created a whole new category of “homosexual,” as someone having some kind of unique ontological status.

Finally, let us admit that we destroy our language when we talk about things like “Homosexual sex,” or “Gay Marriage,” or “Homosexual intimacy,” as if we should think it even possible that homosexuals could have sex whatever they are doing or that it is even possible for two women to get married, or that it is even possible for sexual intimacy to occur outside it occurring as between a man and a woman in marriage. When we make our language bend to the zeitgeist by slamming these kinds of phrases together we are destroying our language and destroying our platform to defend the reality behind our language.

Announcing the Availability to Order, “Saved to be Warriors”

I am humbled to be able to announce the arrival of “Saved To Be Warriors,” my first, of what I hope to be many more to come, book. There is a link embedded in the link below that informs where the book can be ordered.

In a endorsing statement of the book, that is sure to bring Rev. Sacha Walicord grief from some quarters, Rev. Walicord writes,

“Woe unto the preacher who does not sound the alarm when the Good News is attacked from within the church, when the Law is pitted against the Gospel, and when Christ’s Crown Rights over all of life is disputed. Especially in this day and age when unity is elevated far above purity and when virtue signaling seems to be the order of the day, I am most grateful for this excellent contribution by Rev. Bret McAtee. This work robs the serious reader of every excuse not to stand up against a false and dangerous doctrine – one that is by no means a minor issue, but an assault on the Gospel of Jesus Christ itself. I am most thankful that McAtee has answered the call and dealt with the assailants, not with cheap rhetoric, but by biblically interacting with their own words”

Rev. Sacha Walicord

Saved to be Warriors

The Noble Savage?

Behold the peaceful culture of the American Indian;

___________________________

“Given that human sacrificing and scalping were part of American Indian culture, but not mentioned in Government school textbooks, it is not surprising that the cannibalism that was also present in many tribes likewise is not mentioned. A little known fact is that the Mohawk tribe derived its name from its habit of eating human flesh. Alpheus Hyatt Verill writes: ‘ The Mohawks were notorious eaters of human flesh, and were called Mohowauock or man-eaters by the Narragansets. William Warren, a native of the Chippewas, noted in his History of the Ojibways (1852) that his people occasionally ate human flesh. In 1853 John Palliser wrote that the Sioux and Minitares had their women cut pieces of human flesh from slain enemy warriors. These pieces were then broiled and eaten. Eskimos, especially during times of stress, also consumed human flesh. The Pawnees would roast their prisoners for food. The French explorer, La Sale, reported that the encountered an instance in which the slaves of Indians were forced to eat their own.

In the 1670’s Father Chrestien Le Clercq described some Iroquois cruelties that often including forcing prisoners to eat their own flesh. The Roman Emperors, Diocletian and Nero, the two savage persecutors of the early Christians, ‘would hold in horror the vengeance, the tortures, and the cruelty of the Indians of New France [Quebec], and above all the Iroquois, towards their prisoners. Le Clercq noted that the Iroquois cut off the prisoners’ fingers, burned them with firebrands, tore away their nails, and made ‘them eat their own flesh.’

The Menace of Multiculturalism

Alvin J. Schmidt — pg. 48

_______________

The point of the quote and the book from which it is taken is to bring some perspective to the whole “the evil White Christian European” and all the damage that Western Culture has done. Doubtless we, like all cultures have our sin, but to suggest that other peoples have been more noble is just ridiculous. Western Culture is the greatest Culture that mankind has ever produced and that is so because Western Culture was shaped by Christianity.

When you talk about Western Culture you’re talking about the culture produced by a people who were intoxicated with the Lord Christ.

Next time someone wants to tell you about the evil culture of the white man you might want to recite the above. Our Forbears called them “savages” for a reason.

I Had A Dream The Same Night Chris Gordon Had A Dream

As I sailed on the waters of the Great Lakes, I came to a certain place that seemed like an island, and I laid down in that place to sleep; and as I slept I dreamed a dream…

I was driving through Tekonsha on Mi 60, and I came to a fruit stand that filled me with the urge to listen to some androgynous music. Finally I stumbled across Ziggy Stardust singing,

“Here comes Dick, he’s wearing a skirt
Here comes Jane, y’know she’s sporting a chain
Same hair, revolution
Same build, evolution
Tomorrow who’s gonna fuss?

[Chorus]
And they love each other so
Androgynous
Closer than you know, love each other so
Androgynous

The next song I heard in my dream was some kind of rift off of the Eagle’s “Hotel California;

Last thing I remember, I was
Countering their lore
I had to turn their worldview back
To the Calvin it was before
‘Relax,’ said the ordained man,
‘We are programmed to deceive.
You can argue anything you like
But we will never believe!’

And my dream turned even more surreal with men in skirts in pulpits lisping as they read something about being pilgrims and strangers in this land, yet feeling quite at home with their six figure income and book sales. As they deposited their checks they chanted “in this world we have no continuing city.” Koreans pressed for their autographs while they boasted about how they had people in their congregations on both sides of the “gay” marriage issue. In my dream the babies that had been aborted, as the men in skirts had remained silent in their pulpits on the issue of abortion, were now speaking at the men in skirts ordination services mentioning something about how as little ones they had been offended by the silence of Escondido. Chris Gordon was there giving the Benediction while obviously dreaming himself.

And then a great dream arose within the first dream and ate the first dream from the inside out, like Jonah eating his way through the great fish, and in that dream I dreamed I saw all men praising God in the public square. I saw D. G. Hart, Mike Horton, and R. Scott Clark urging their students to become men like John Knox, Samuel Davies, and R. L. Dabney. (I told you it was a strange dream.)

In my dream David Van Drunen and Matt Tuininga sat at a table as tweedle-dumb and tweedle-stupid playing ping pong. The ball they were hitting back and forth had stamped on it “surrender.” In the corner of the room stood Jacques Rousseau and John Locke arguing with Roger Williams and Anne Hutchinson over who was the most responsible for R2K theology. Periodically they would suddenly become doubles partners playing against Van Drunen and Tuininga in a round robin ping pong tournament.

Van Drunen, Tuininga, Williams, Hutchinson, Rosseau, Locke, D. G. Hart, Gordon, Horton, and Scott then suddenly were violin virtuosos who played with great dissonance while in the background the cultural Marxists were going all arsonist on the building in which they were playing. But it was all alright because people were getting saved while everything burned down around their violin concert. Van Drunen, Tuininga, Williams, Hutchinson, Rosseau, Locke, D. G. Hart, Gordon, Horton, and Scott suddenly began to laugh maniacally as they played faster and faster and the walls burned hotter and hotter because they had always predicted that this is how it would all end anyhow. The hotter it burned, the more they laughed and the more they laughed the hotter it burned.

Suddenly, in my dream Scrooge was there but as converted to the Escondido Jesus. He was lecturing to me about the desire to reduce the surplus population of theonomists in the Church. He said, and I quote;

“Every theonomist idiot who goes about with ‘God’s Law’ on his lips, should be burned alive with his own copy of Bahnsen’s “Theonomy in Christian Ethics,” and buried with a stake of general equity through his heart.”

Then in my dream I saw, as it were, two air tight compartments which in no wise could be pierced by the other except as by hallucination. As I had one hallucination I was regulated by the Escondido magisterium. As I had another hallucination I was regulated by a unnatural natural law.

Then I awoke from my dream and opened my Bible and the place where I landed was this:

“Be ye not conformed to this world but be yet transformed by the renewing of your mind.”

I realized that the impulse of the Anabaptists to retreat from the world was exactly the spirit that had overcome me.

In my dream of trying to leave this world I found that there was no way to do that. Every action or lack of action on my part was impacting everything. How was I to be effective if I were to re-build the monastery? Cowardice was driving me and I suddenly remembered that no coward was ever saved. I realized that I must die to my desired retreatism and must once again seek to be a warrior for Christ. I realized that it was I myself, by my retreatist theology, who had created divisions and disunity in the church and that I couldn’t blame everyone else. I must die to my desire to be conquered by this present evil age. I realized that I too must die to myself, along with my own vision of how I want to see Christ’s kingdom come by not coming and by not contending for it.

It was Jesus who said that upon the confession that Jesus is Lord, Jesus would build His Church, and I realized that I was not confessing Jesus in the public square. I had forgotten that the early church had always been arrested for sedition and not because they were worshiping secretly in the catacombs. I realized that, truth be told, I care more about not being persecuted for righteousness sake than I cared for aborted babies.

Back to Tekonsha, Mi, confident in my calling to be a witness to wicked potentates so as to be as a shining star in a dark universe, I decided to go.

Kevin DeYoung … Also Clueless When it Comes to Nationalism

“Is this (the conclusions in Stephen Wolfe’s book) really the direction we’re to be pushed by the gospel? Are we really to pursue a social ordering on earth so different from that which is present in heaven? Are we really so sure that our love for people like us and our ostracism of people unlike us are God-given inclinations and not fallen ones?”

Rev. Dr. Kevin DeYoung
PCA “Clergy”

1.) If Jesus is the Gospel than I’d say that, “yes” Wolfe’s book is really the direction we’re to be pushed to the Gospel;²²And, behold, a woman of Canaan came out of the same coasts, and cried unto him, saying, Have mercy on me, O Lord, thou son of David; my daughter is grievously vexed with a devil. ²³But he answered her not a word. And his disciples came and besought him, saying, Send her away; for she crieth after us. ²⁴But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel. ²⁵Then came she and worshipped him, saying, Lord, help me. ²⁶But he answered and said, It is not meet to take the children’s bread, and to cast it to dogs.²⁷And she said, Truth, Lord: yet the dogs eat of the crumbs which fall from their masters’ table. ²⁸Then Jesus answered and said unto her, O woman, great is thy faith: be it unto thee even as thou wilt. And her daughter was made whole from that very hour.

This passage teaches the great grace of the Lord Christ to all men. It teaches the necessity to be importunate in prayer. It teaches the centrality of faith. And by today’s standard among the “clergy” and the Church in the West it demonstrates that Jesus was a racist and that He understood the idea of properly ordered affections. Keep in mind that “dogs” is a pejorative term that is not loaded with any expression of kindness.

2.) DeYoung misreads the book of Revelation thinking that Revelation teaches that Heaven is an amalgamationist paradise, when in point of fact the book of Revelation teaches that the Saints are present in the New Jerusalem as belonging to their Nations (See Rev. 21).

²³And the city had no need of the sun, neither of the moon, to shine in it: for the glory of God did lighten it, and the Lamb is the light thereof. ²⁴And the nations of them which are saved shall walk in the light of it: and the kings of the earth do bring their glory and honour into it. ²⁵And the gates of it shall not be shut at all by day: for there shall be no night there. ²⁶And they shall bring the glory and honour of the nations into it.

The New Jerusalem is not inhabited by atomistic individuals but by people as still belonging to their respective nations. Heaven is inhabited by the Church as that Church belonged to their respective nations. Thus, the New Jerusalem finds nations remaining yet distinct, yet together united in their worship of the great and magnificent Lord Jesus Christ. This is the concept of the One and the Many incarnated into the Church in the New Jerusalem.

DeYoung’s ham-fisted reading of Scripture, interpreting it to be a place where “all colors bleed into one” is irresponsible, and in this climate, criminal exegesis.

3.) I’d love to see a quote from Wolfe’s book where he is insisting that we need to ostracize people unlike us. Am I ostracizing people when I spend my paycheck providing for my wife and family? Am I ostracizing other women when I don’t bed them while only bedding my wife?

The “Conservative” Guru of the PCA writes,

Likewise, Wolfe’s argument doesn’t reckon with the way the Bible relativizes our sense of family (Mark 3:31–35), tears down dividing walls between people groups (Eph. 2:11–22), and presents a multitribal and multilingual reality (and hoped-for future) as a heavenly good (Rev. 5:9–10).

1.) I dealt with DeYoung’s eisegesis in #2 above.

2.) Next, the Ephesians passage. I am working here to expose why DeYoung shouldn’t be allowed anywhere near a pulpit;

The dividing wall in Ephesians is a reference to the Mosaic Law. Christ tears down the “dividing wall of hostility by abolishing the law of commandments expressed in ordinances” (Eph 2:14b-15a).

When Christ died, God no longer imposed on Jews the rules that once separated them from Gentiles. The purpose of those aspects of the law has now been fulfilled. The laws that specifically divided Jew and Gentile are now done away with. It is not just the ceremonial laws that are now gone, but the old covenant to which they were intricately attached has been replaced by the new covenant. Under the new covenant God no longer imposes these expectations on his children. This arrangement grants Gentiles wide open access to enter the kingdom of God as Gentiles. Gentiles don’t have to become religio-cultural Jews in order to become Christian.

Further, in Ephesians Paul is not talking about generic ethnic divides but specifically the aspects of the law-covenant that divided Jew from Gentiles. Therefore, someone cannot impose ethnic distinctions onto Paul’s words. The apostle has something uniquely covenantal in mind.

Second, the dividing wall was originally the will of God. To take the word “hostility” in and apply it to racism is dangerous. The dividing wall to which Paul is referring is the Mosaic Law, and the Mosaic Law was God’s idea. He made the wall; then he removed it in Christ. The division that stood between Jew and Gentile in the Old Covenant was God’s will, not the by-product of human sin. “Racism,” (where it can genuinely be found) on the other hand, is the result of human sin and never is the result of what God commands. By applying Ephesians 2:14 to ethnic strife today you effectively turn God into a “racist.”

Third, did Christ remove, by his death, the various differences between cultures today? Not at all. Before Christ’s death, one culture may prefer beer. Another culture may prefer wine. After the death of Christ the first culture still likes beer and the second culture still likes wine. The death of Christ was not intended to move the needle on these types of cultural differences (except for the aspects of man’s culture that are sinful). Nor did it overturn other aspects of human relations grounded in creation, biology, and nature.

(Note: — The above 5 paragraphs were largely crafted by a chap who is now in hiding from the Stalinists cancel culture maniacs.)

Similarly Christ’s death did not remove the tendencies that belong to different ethnic peoples. Before Christ’s death Cretans were liars and gluttons. After Christ’s death Christian Cretans doubtless had to battle the besetting sin of lying and gluttony. The death of Christ does not destroy nature. For centuries McAtees have been hopelessly stubborn. I have been converted for decades now and a sinful stubbornness/defiance remains a besetting sin (ask my wife). The same is true for my children. It was true of my Father and it was true of his parents. This trait is in our genes. It is a characteristic long associated with the Scots. Peoples remain different, even after conversion. There is no sin in acknowledging that. Did Christ remove, by his death, the various differences between ethnicities today? Not at all.

(Note: In the previous paragraph we see why contra Doug Wilson that race/ethnicity is not merely about skin.)

We have the words of an OT scholar Martin Wyngaarden that bears on this issue. Please Rev. Dr. DeYoung listen to Calvin Seminary Dr. Professor Martin Wyngaarden from the 1960’s on Isaiah 19;

Now the predicates of the covenant are applied in Isa. 19 to the Gentiles of the future, — “Egypt my people, and Assyria, the work of my hands, and Israel, mine inheritance,” Egypt, the people of “Jehovah of hosts,” (Isa. 19:25) is therefore also expected to live up to the covenant obligations, implied for Jehovah’s people. And Assyria comes under similar obligations and privileges. These nations are representative of the great Gentile world, to which the covenant privileges will therefore be extended.”

Martin J. Wyngaarden, The Future of the Kingdom in Prophecy and Fulfillment: A Study of the Scope of “Spiritualization” in Scripture (Eugene: Wipf & Stock, 2011), p. 94.

And again;

“More than a dozen excellent commentaries could be mentioned that all interpret Israel as thus inclusive of Jew and Gentile, in this verse, — the Gentile adherents thus being merged with the covenant people of Israel, THOUGH EACH REMAINS NATIONALLY DISTINCT.”

“For, though Israel is frequently called Jehovah’s People, the work of his hands, his inheritance, yet these three epithets severally are applied not only to Israel, but also to Assyria and to Egypt: “Blessed be Egypt, my people, and Assyria, the work of my hands, and Israel, mine inheritance.” 19:25.

Thus the highest description of Jehovah’s covenant people is applied to Egypt, — “my people,” — showing that the Gentiles will share the covenant blessings, not less than Israel. YET the several nationalities are here kept distinct, even when Gentiles share, in the covenant blessing, on a level of equality with Israel. Egypt, Assyria and Israel are not nationally merged. And the same principles, that nationalities are not obliterated, by membership in the covenant, applies, of course, also in the New Testament dispensation.”

Wyngaarden, pp. 101-102.

3.) Now the Mark 3 passage

³²And the multitude sat about him, and they said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren without seek for thee.³³And he answered them, saying, Who is my mother, or my brethren? ³⁴And he looked round about on them which sat about him, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren! ³⁵For whosoever shall do the will of God, the same is my brother, and my sister, and mother.

DeYoung insists that the passage above relativizes our sense of family. I’d dearly like to hear DeYoung explain what he means by “relativizes.” If he simply means that the family can’t be raised above our union with Christ or that loyalty to family/people can’t rise above our loyalty to Christ who could ever argue? However, if “relativizes” means that family does not remain a priority, in its proper place, DeYoung has to deal with;

⁴For God commanded, saying, Honour thy father and mother: and, He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death. ⁵But ye say, Whosoever shall say to his father or his mother, It is a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; ⁶And honour not his father or his mother, he shall be free. Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition. ⁷Ye hypocrites, well did Esaias prophesy of you, saying,

Clearly, our Great Master and Lord, Jesus Christ, does not relativize family/people to the point that somehow they become eclipsed in our responsibilities to them.

Then there are the words of God that teach that family most certainly is not over relativized;

⁸But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel.

DeYoung and many like him are creating false dichotomies in order to avoid a Nationalism that is ethno by definition.

DeYoung is not a wise man on several matters. This is but one.

But why should he be the only clergy who is not wise in this regard?

I may have more in a future entry to say about DeYoungs misfiring in his analysis of Wolfe’s book.