The Spirit and the Gifts are Ours (1 Cor 12:1-3)

March 16, 2023 at 2:00 pm (1 Corinthians, Holy Spirit, Jesus)

posted by R. Fowler White

As Luther put it, the Spirit and the gifts are ours through Him who with us sideth. What a stupendous acclamation this is, especially in these days of increasing declension. Luther’s words provoke us to master and be mastered by Paul’s instruction on the Spirit and the gifts in 1 Corinthians 12–14. He starts his lessons for us in 12:1-3.

We must know who does and does not have the Holy Spirit and His gifts, 12:1-2. The Apostle does not want us to be uninformed or misinformed but to be well informed about who has the Holy Spirit and His gifts. How do we recognize someone who is genuinely “of the Spirit”? So often we hear that they take part in supernatural phenomena, speak in tongues, fall into trances, dreams, and visions. But we should not ignore that such things took place in Corinth’s temples to Apollo and in Egyptian palaces. They even take place in certain Muslim mosques today. We should not make the mistake, then, of thinking that supernatural happenings have their source always and only in the Holy Spirit of Christ. The biblical fact is that manifestations often associated with or attributed to the Spirit may actually have their source in sinful human nature (aka the flesh) or even in servants of Satan who disguise themselves as apostles or prophets of Christ (2 Cor 11:13-15; Acts 16:16-18).

Given the range of supernatural sources, Paul underscores that none of us had the Holy Spirit before we became believers in Christ Jesus, 12:2. To the contrary, he reminds us that before our conversion, we were in captivity to idols (cf. Hab 2:18-19). As idol worshipers, we were like Narcissus in Greek mythology: he fell in love with his own image reflected in a pool of water. So it was with us: before our conversion we were just in love with an illusion of our own making, a figment of our imagination. Indeed, the Spirit of Christ was not ours, and we were not His.

Yet the Spirit changed us. The Apostle explains. Our captivity notwithstanding, none other than the Holy Spirit ended our bondage to idols and gave us hearts to believe and mouths to confess that Jesus is Lord, 12:3. Paul traces the change in our confession to the enabling power and presence of the Spirit of Christ. Consider this, he says: no confession that Jesus is accursed (i.e., justly condemned) has the Spirit of Christ as its source (12:3a). Only the confession that Jesus is Lord has the Spirit of Christ as its source (12.3b). Still we must be careful and clear: confessing Jesus as Lord is not about saying certain words (as Jesus Himself made clear in Matt 7:21-23). No, in Scripture, confessing Jesus as Lord is the fruit of the work of His Spirit within us so that we believe in our hearts and confess with our mouths. To confess Jesus is Lord, then, is to acclaim His majesty and to swear absolute allegiance to Him as our Royal Deity, as our Savior and Judge. To confess Jesus is Lord is to confess that He has claimed us as His own and that we have claimed Him and His yoke as our own. To confess Jesus is Lord is to confess that He, the crucified one, has been, by His resurrection and ascension, publicly declared to be Lord of all, from whom, through whom, and to whom are all things. For many, such a confession is mere foolishness, even blasphemy. Paul would remind us, however, that for them there is no Lord but the idol of their own imagination. To confess Jesus is Lord actually sets believers apart from all others as those who are of the Spirit of Christ.

Knowing these things, how does the truth that the Spirit and His gifts are ours fit into the big picture of what God has been doing throughout history? That big picture is the macro-narrative that God has been following throughout the history of His work to save sinners. That pattern is that He first wins a victory for His chosen people and then celebrates that victory by giving His Spirit to enable His people to build a sanctuary where He dwells with them. We can see this story-line in both the OT and the NT. The two major OT examples are found in the histories of Moses and David-Solomon. In the book of Exodus we read that God through Moses delivered Israel from Egypt and then by His Spirit equipped His people to build the tabernacle as His dwelling place among them. Later, in the narratives about David and Solomon (2 Sam 2–8; 1 Kgs 5–8), God through David delivered Israel from their enemies and then by His Spirit endowed Solomon to construct the first temple as His holy house among His people. Turning to the NT, we see the same narrative, only better: Christ, full of the Spirit, rescues sinners from their sins and then by the Spirit and His gifts enables them to build and to be built as His living sanctuary.

Remarkable, isn’t it? Moses, David, Solomon, and Israel might well have sung Luther’s lyric with us. How so? They would have done so knowing that God was going to do something better through the One who is greater than they were. After all, Jesus is delivering His people from sin and death, the world, the flesh, and the devil. And by the Spirit and His gifts He is preparing not just a place, but His people, to be His sanctuary, pure and holy, tried and true. That work goes forward as we learn the lesson that Scripture has for us: the Spirit and the gifts are ours through Him who with us sideth.

3 Comments

On the Contrast between the Promise and the Law

January 23, 2023 at 11:00 am (Hebrew Roots Movement, Justification, Mosaic Law, NT-Galatians)

posted by R. Fowler White

As a complement to the three recent posts on the Hebrew Roots Movement (here, here, and here), consider the following synopsis of Paul’s argument in Gal 3:1–5:1, where he expounds the contrast between the Promise and the Law, between the Abrahamic covenant and the Sinai covenant. Put differently, in those chapters, the Apostle makes an inter-covenantal argument in which he contrasts Christ and the Law.

We might begin by asking, Why would Paul stress the Promise/Law contrast to the Galatian churches? I maintain that he does so because Paul’s opponents at Galatia (2:4) were teaching a heretical view of how to obtain justification and all the other eschatological blessings of Abraham. Specifically, contrary to the false brothers’ position, the Apostle insists that the Law is not the way to obtain those blessings, whether as an alternative to Christ (i.e., law-keeping without Christ) or as a supplement to Christ (i.e., law-keeping plus Christ). Christ is the only way, Christ alone is enough, to secure those blessings. To see how Paul’s argument unfolds, we will break it down section by section.

The “follies” at Galatia (Gal 3:1-9). The issue that Paul’s opponents had created in the Galatian churches can be reconstructed from several places in the letter. We’ll take as an example 3:1-9. There, Paul expresses his astonishment at the foolish Galatians. He lays bare their foolishness by highlighting the contrast between the way they had begun their Christian lives (3:3b) and the way they were now finishing their Christian lives (3:3c). They were at least seriously considering a way other than the one with which they had started (cf. you who want [or desire] to be under the Law, 4:21). The Galatians had begun their new lives under God’s promised blessing: it was by hearing with faith that He had provided them the Spirit and had worked miracles among them (3:2, 3, 5)! Misled by Paul’s opponents, however, the Galatians were, apparently, submitting to doing the works of the Law (3:3) and, as he will add later, to circumcision (5:2-3). The result of these choices was that they are now finishing under God’s threatened curse (3:10; 5:4; cf. Rom 2:25)! Evidently, the false brothers were luring the Galatians, if they had not already duped them, with a false gospel, a gospel different from that of the Apostle (1:6). So, Paul is required to refute that false gospel, and he does so by arguing both for and from the true gospel of Christ. To rebut the “follies” at Galatia, he takes the Galatians through the history of the Promise and the Law. From that history, he reminds them of several pertinent facts.

Redemptive history lesson #1: Before the Law came in (Gal 3:6-9). First, as summarized in 3:6-9, Paul shows the Galatians that, even before the Law came in, the way to obtain the eschatological blessings of Abraham—including justification (3:6, 8)—had not been by doing the works of the Law, but by hearing with faith. In fact, the way the Galatians were now seeking those blessings was contrary to the way in which God had credited righteousness to Abraham himself (3:6). Clearly, before the Law had been enacted, it had been by faith that God had justified Abraham. In addition, the way the Galatians were now seeking those blessings was also contrary to the way in which God had previously determined to credit those blessings to all among the nations who would be Abraham’s true heirs (3:7-9). Therefore, even before the Law came in, doing the works of the Law had not been the way to get the eschatological blessings that Abraham received.

Redemptive history lesson #2: What the Law itself testified (Gal 3:10-14). Second, Paul goes on to explain in 3:10-14 that the Law itself makes it abundantly clear that it is not those of the Law, but those of faith, who obtain eschatological blessings. The Law spells out this truth in its declarations about those who break it (3:10b): it curses each lawbreaker (3:10; cf. 3:13) and justifies no lawbreaker (3:11a; 2:16). In fact, the Law testifies that the curse of death falls on all who fail to keep it, while the blessing of life belongs only to him who does keep it (3:12b; cf. Rom 10:5). Consequently, the Law itself shows that its violators have no hope of justification, life, or any other eschatological blessings by their own doing of the works of the Law. Their only hope is by hearing with faith (3:11b), faith in the one Seed of Abraham, namely Christ, who would be justified by the Law and would become a curse to redeem all under the Law who believe (3:13). By so much, the Law establishes that it is not those of the Law, but those of faith, who obtain the eschatological blessings of Abraham.

Redemptive history lesson #3: After the Law was enacted (Gal 3:15-18). Third, going back in 3:15-18 to the Law’s enactment after the Promise, Paul insists that the Law neither annulled nor amended the Promise. Specifically, the Law’s introduction did nothing to change the means of securing Abraham’s eschatological blessings from faith to law-keeping. In addition, the parties to the Promise remained the same: Abraham and his seed, Christ—that is, Christ and those of faith blessed in Him (3:16, 29). Thus, even after the Law was enacted, the means of obtaining eschatological blessings was, as it always had been, by faith, not by law-keeping.

Redemptive history lesson #4: Why the Law then? (Gal 3:19-22). Fourth, if history shows that those of the Law have never been heirs of Abraham’s eschatological blessings, then the question arises, Why did God enact the Law (3:19-22)? According to Paul, God put it in place for a purpose different from that of the Promise (3:19b, 22), for a duration different from that of the Promise (3:19c), and by a procedure different from that of the Promise (3:19d-21).

The Law’s purpose (Gal 3:19b, 22). As for its purpose, the Law was added to deal with transgressions as breaches that, if not handled properly, would jeopardize the fulfillment of the Promise, whether the transgressors were Gentiles from outside or Jews from inside (3:19b; cf. 2:18). Moreover, the Law was added to keep transgressors under its yoke and in its custody so that the Promise by faith in Christ might be given to those transgressors who believe (3:22). The Law, then, was not introduced as the way to obtain Abraham’s eschatological blessings, but as the way to handle transgressors, subjecting them to its temporary probationary custody and pedagogy.

The Law’s duration (Gal 3:19c). Regarding its duration, unlike the Promise, the Law was revocable and thus temporary in that it was in effect only until the Seed for whom the Promise was reserved should come (3:19c; 4:4). That Seed having arrived, the Law’s probationary tenure came to its proper end; by contrast, the Promise, being irrevocable, is alone in operation to convey eschatological blessings.

The Law’s ratification (Gal 3:19d-21). With respect to its ratification procedure, the Law was enacted through angels by a mediator, whereas the Promise was enacted by God alone (3:20). That is, the Promise was guaranteed with an oath by God who therein revealed Himself to be the Divine Surety of the Promise for Abraham and his heirs (Gen 15:7-17). That oath was, moreover, progressively revealed to be that of God the Father to God the Son, the Surety proper (Ps 110:4; Heb 7:20-22). Therefore, it is God alone, the Father, the Son, and the Spirit (4:4-6), who is able to dispense the eschatological blessings of the Promise. The Law’s mediator, not being a party to the intratrinitarian pact, was not then and is not now able to dispense those blessings.

Redemptive history lesson #5: It is written. Lastly, as a kind of coup de grâce, Paul challenges the Galatians in 4:21–5:1 to hear once more what the Law itself says. He reminds them that it is written that Abraham had two sons by two different women (4:22). Both sons were circumcised, but only one was named Abraham’s heir. How was it that that one son was his heir? It was not according to circumcision or the Law, but according to the Promise. Ishmael, the disinherited son, was begotten of Abraham’s confidence in the flesh; Isaac, the heir, was begotten of his confidence in the Spirit. The mother of Ishmael was identified with the Law, the covenant that bears children into slavery and is linked to Jerusalem below, an earthly city of slaves. The mother of Isaac was identified with the Promise, the covenant that bears children according to the Promise and is linked to Jerusalem above, the heavenly city of the free.

Paul’s overall point reduces to this: if the Galatians hear the Law rightly, they will learn who are and who are not Abraham’s heirs. More than that, they will know to throw out any pseudo-evangelists who require circumcision and law-keeping. They will do so because the Law itself, rightly read, clarifies who Abraham’s heirs are and also prescribes the rejection of their persecutors, particularly false teachers. The Law, then, was never put in place to dispense the eschatological blessings of Abraham, and so it has never been the way to obtain them. As it was at that time, so it is now (4:29-31).

Leave a Comment

Love and Truth: Do We Sacrifice One for the Other? (2 John)

January 16, 2023 at 4:00 pm (2 John, Church, Heresy, Instructing the Body)

posted by R. Fowler White

In Scripture, Christians are called to devote themselves both to truth and to love. But can we pursue one without sacrificing the other? To get the bottom of this question, it helps us to reflect on John’s second letter. For our purposes here, we’ll understand the sender, the Elder, to be the Apostle John and the recipients, the elect lady and her children, to be a congregation and its members (as a whole and in its parts) or perhaps a mother church and the congregations born (planted) out of it.

The letter’s opening (2Jn 1-3) stands out for the way John describes the recipients’ relationship to himself and to others. First, he indicates how the recipients are related to him: whom I love in [the] truth. John most probably means that his love for them is not merely sincere, but is consistent with and required by God’s revealed truth. It is a love based in the truth they share. In fact, he will confirm this in 2Jn 7, 9. Second, he describes in a most striking way how the recipients are related to others: all who know the truth love the elect lady and her children in [the] truth. And why is this the case? He tells us: because of the truth that abides in us and will be with us forever (2Jn 2). In other words, they were bound in love because they were bound in truth. The love they shared was based in the truth they shared. After expressing his gratitude that these believers were living according to the truth despite opposition (2Jn 4), John takes up his exhortation in 2Jn 5-11.

John is careful to start off his appeal by establishing the link between truth and love. Basically, he says, “live your lives in keeping with love, just as y’all are living your lives in keeping with truth” (2Jn 5). Commitment to truth will bear fruit in commitment to love, and devotion to love will bear fruit in devotion to truth. Before moving on, John emphasizes, as he does elsewhere, that this duty to love is not new, novel, innovative, or even original with the Apostle himself. It’s the same obligation we’ve heard from the beginning. Whether we’re talking about the teaching of Jesus during His earthly ministry (Jn 13:34), the code of Moses at Sinai (Lev 19:18), or a duty binding even on Adam and his children (1Jn 3:11-12), our duty to love is a longstanding responsibility.

After John briefly reminds us of our duty to love, he states his reason for recalling that duty: For many deceivers have gone out into the world, those who do not confess the coming of Jesus Christ in the flesh. Such a one is the deceiver and the antichrist  (2Jn 7). Adding to his portrait of the deceivers, he says in 2Jn 9 that every heretic goes too far, goes beyond the bounds of truth—the teaching of Christ—documented by His Apostles. False teachers are often heard quoting some new word from the Holy Spirit to take us beyond the Apostles’ eyewitness teaching. The Holy Spirit, however, does not take us beyond the teaching of the Apostles. He gives us light to accept and abide in the revelation He has given. It is for this reason that we’re to devote ourselves continually to the Apostles’ doctrine. It is also for this reason that serious Christians will learn from the history of doctrine: that dimension of church history is the locus of the Spirit’s work of illumination, telling us where the boundaries of orthodoxy have been historically. Certainly, only Scripture is the rule of Christian faith and practice, but the church’s historic confessions and creeds are a help to us. They guide us as we strive not to progress beyond the Apostles’ doctrine but to progress in it.

Notice then that to lay the groundwork for the believers’ proper attitude toward heretics and their heresy, the Elder has deftly linked love and truth. He insists that genuine Christian love will discriminate against those who oppose the truth. Indeed, authentic Christian love means protecting ourselves and others against deception by false teachers. John reminds us that just as adherents to Christian truth know that love matters, so devotees to Christian love know that truth matters. Therefore, the Elder tells the elect lady and her children—congregations of Christ’s church—to watch themselves (2Jn 8), maintaining their composure as they work firmly but patiently with those who oppose God’s revealed will (cf. 2Tim 2:24-26). Such vigilance, John says, is particularly necessary for a congregation because to allow heretics or heresies to go unopposed puts the fruitfulness of that congregation’s own ministry in jeopardy. In fact, John says more: he highlights what a congregation should never do in response to a false teacher: do not receive him into your house (i.e., your house church) or give him any greeting (2Jn 10). To get John’s point here, we need to bear in mind a few critical features of hospitality in the biblical world: it wasn’t about inviting someone into our home for coffee or even a meal.

One feature of ancient hospitality is that it was commanded by God (e.g., Heb 13:2) and was directed toward traveling strangers (e.g., Gen 18:1-8). Remarkably, our hospitality, particularly toward itinerants such as the Apostles, will be one criterion of our judgment by the Son of Man, the King (Matt 25:31-46). Second, hospitality sent a message to those who saw it practiced: it announced that Christians who hosted itinerants were sponsoring them and affirming their standing as Christians to outsiders. In fact, part of hospitality was to welcome itinerants, a greeting that amounted to recognizing their good standing as Christians (cf. 2Jn 11). In short, Christians showing hospitality to itinerants was an act of shared Christian love.

With that background in mind, John is quick and emphatic to add here that hospitality to itinerant strangers is never to be indifferent to truth. His point to the elect lady and her children, then, is clear enough: “Don’t show hospitality to known false teachers or their disciples. To do so would be to give them a platform to promote their heresies and thus to become complicit in their evil deeds.”

So, says the Elder, let those entrusted with the ‘ministry of the keys’  in Christ’s church (cf. Matt 16:19) be careful to protect those in their charge. Just as they examine prospective members and officers of a congregation, so let them also examine itinerants such as missionaries and guest speakers. Let them also carefully counsel individual families on their response to itinerant heretics lest their homes become a snare of the devil. Why do this? Because Christians are devoted both to love and to truth. In other words, authentic Christian love means always protecting ourselves and others against false teachers and their teachings.

1 Comment

Hebrew Roots Movement, Part 3

December 30, 2022 at 11:46 am (Hebrew Roots Movement, Heresy, Hermeneutics, Law, Mosaic Law)

The law of God is at the heart of the HRM and the debates surrounding it. The traditional understanding of God’s law is that there are three parts of the law and three uses of the law. Reformed understanding would also include three main principles for understanding the Ten Commandments (though I will not go through those principles in this post). As far as I can tell, the HRM rejects all or most of these distinctions.

The three parts of the law are the moral, civil, and ceremonial. The moral law is the Ten Commandments. The civil laws are those laws given to Israel as a political entity for the Old Testament time. They were given to Israel for the time when they were in the land (Deuteronomy 5-6, note the recurring phrase “in the land”). They taught the Israelites about holiness, being distinct from the rest of the world. they included laws such as not sowing the land with two different kinds of seeds, or weaving cloth with two different kinds of thread. The dietary laws are also usually reckoned to be in this category. The ceremonial law is the sacrificial system, the worship laws, the feasts and festivals. Of course, there has always been some debate about whether a particular law belongs in one or the other of these three basic categories. However, the vast majority of the church has held to this distinction for most of its history.

The HRM believes the church invented this distinction without any biblical basis whatsoever. The HRM erases category distinctions between sets of laws, thus (at least potentially) putting the law of two different kinds of threads on the same footing as “Do not murder.” Jesus says, in Matthew 23:23 that there are weightier and less weighty matters of the law. Tithing mint and cumin is less weighty than justice and mercy. He says none of them should be neglected by the Pharisees, but the Pharisees lacked a sense of proportion. For a far larger and exegetical position defending the biblical position of the three parts of the law, see this excellent tome.

The three uses of the law are equally important in this discussion. The first use of the law, the pedagogical use, is outlined in Galatians 3:19ff. In this use, the law shows people how badly they fail to measure up to the law’s demands. What goes along with that is the equally important truth that the law shows us how perfectly Jesus Christ did measure up to the law’s demands. In this use, the gospel is set in contrast (not opposition) to the law. As Michael Horton would put it, the law says “Do this;” the gospel says “done.” Now, of course, there needs to be nuance applied to Horton’s statement, as he himself does. The nuance is quite adequately found in the other uses of the law.

The second use of the law is to restrain evil in the world, the civil use of the law. Romans 1-2 provide the foundation for this understanding of the law. The moral law is written on every person’s conscience. There is no particular need to dwell on this use of the law, as it probably would not be controversial among HRM proponents.

The third use of the law is as a guide to the Christian life. HRM proponents would probably agree partially. Reformed folk believe that the law is not to be obeyed to obtain or retain God’s saving favor. God’s fatherly pleasure is distinct, of course. Obeying the moral law is our thanksgiving and gratitude to God for the salvation He has given us as a free gift. In the video linked in the last post, Anne Elliott says that she circumcised her boy on the eighth day. Apparently, she has not properly understood Galatians 5:1-6. Neither circumcision nor uncircumcision counts for anything. If one accepts circumcision, then he is obligated to keep the entire law. This is the state of having fallen away from grace (towards works!). This is being severed from Christ. This is one of the main reasons I call the HRM heresy: it is the exact same heresy as Paul was fighting in the letter to Galatians. Next up, I will start exegeting individual texts that are at issue, grouping them around dietary laws, the feasts, circumcision, and show how the HRM twists Scripture to fit its grid, even while they accuse the church of doing so.

1 Comment

Hebrew Roots Movement, Part 2

December 29, 2022 at 10:27 am (Hebrew Roots Movement, Heresy, Hermeneutics)

Up next is hermeneutics, or how people interpret the Bible. It is not certain that there is any one particular method that holds true for all HRM proponents. What does appear to be common among HRM proponents, however, is the initially plausible-sounding cry “Put aside all lenses and biases and interpret the Scripture as if reading it for the first time.” This has much in common with many other hermeneutical approaches. There is a grain of truth here, in that biases can distort our picture of the biblical text. They don’t always do that, however. The naivete of the approach can be made quite plain by a few simple points: 1. Is it actually possible to lay aside all bias? You see, what “Put aside all lenses and biases and interpret the Scripture as if reading it for the first time” actually means, practically speaking, is “ignore anything and everything the church has said about Scripture for two thousand years.” Don’t expect the Holy Spirit to have given gifts of teaching to the church over that period. Far better to believe that the gates of Hell have actually prevailed against the church, and for most of its history. 2. Therefore, saying “lay aside all bias” actually puts in place a far more insidious bias that always goes unacknowledged and unchallenged: the church is always wrong. As Ken Ham often says, “The question is not whether you’re biased, but whether the bias that you’re biased with is the right bias to be biased with in the first place.” Everyone has a bias in the sense that they have a point of view. Or, to adapt Ligon Duncan’s statement on confessions of faith, everyone has a bias, but some simply won’t tell you what it is. Those who have creeds and confessions can simply point you to them, and say, “This is what we believe Scripture says as a whole, and therefore any interpretation which contradicts what we believe Scripture as a whole to be saying will not be countenanced.”

If a person desires to go with the whole “lay aside all bias and lenses” thing, what they usually do is introduce a new lens without telling you that they are doing so. Take the example of Lex Meyer, for example. Lex is the founder of Unlearn. He says in a video (his talk starts around the 30:30 mark) that we need to take off all the lenses that distort our understanding of Scripture and focus only on what Scripture itself says. His website is “Unlearn the lies.” Unfortunately for him, he then proceeds to introduce a grid for interpreting Scripture that is the Medieval quadriga! This is as churchly biased as it gets, ironically enough. He just doesn’t like modern churchly interpretation, but is quite willing to go back to the allegorical ways of the Medieval church. It is not surprising to me that this surfaced in the HRM, as the Medieval quadriga pretty much allows the reader to make the Scripture say anything he wants it to say.

If this is not the right way to go about things (and it is not!), then what is the right way? Firstly, we have to recognize that Scripture itself tells us that there is a pattern of sound teaching (2 Timothy 1:13-14), a faith once for all delivered to the saints (Jude 3). It is right and proper, therefore, to summarize that teaching in creeds and confessions. What some have helpfully called a hermeneutical spiral then begins to form: we form a grid that is always correctable, but which also forms a boundary beyond which lies heresy. This is not only informed by Scripture, but also informs our reading of Scripture. Up next, the biblical understanding of the law of God as contrasted with HRM.

2 Comments

Hebrew Roots Movement, Part 1

December 28, 2022 at 1:03 pm (Hebrew Roots Movement, Hermeneutics)

The Hebrew Roots Movement (HRM) has not only been around a while, but it has gained steam. There are many blogs, video conferences, and even now a seminary to train pastors in the HRM. Why has this movement gained so much headway? In part, I think it is because the church has failed to preach the true gospel, and has transitioned to moral therapeutic deism. Also, with the rise of progressivism, Christians believe that there needs to be something in place to stem the tide. They think to find that in obedience to Old Testament civil and ceremonial laws. To build on R. Scott Clark’s categories for a moment, it is a quest for illegitimate religious certainty (QIRC). It comes from a desire to live by sight and not by faith, especially in opposition to the shifting sands of progressivism. I dare say many HRM proponents would not agree with this assessment of the situation. They just want to be obedient. Of course, in desiring to answer these points of the HRM, we must be very careful not to throw out the baby with the bathwater. The moral law of the 10 Commandments still applies today, not in order to obtain or keep salvation, but as our expression of gratitude for the salvation we have received.

Previous treatments of the subject on this blog have been somewhat piece-meal, though there are some excellent contributions (especially those by Reed). See here, here, here, and here. I would encourage readers to go back through those, as they are helpful. Today I want to address one particular issue, the name of Jesus. HRM proponents almost always call Him “Jeshua.” They believe that when the NT became Greek (they think it was originally written in Hebrew), that Hellenism took over and distorted the message of the NT. While there have been a fair number of scholars who have believed the NT was originally written in Aramaic (read Isaiah 36-39 to see that Aramaic and Hebrew are not the same language, despite being about half cognate), very few reputable NT scholars of which I am aware believe the NT was originally written in Hebrew. For one thing, there are absolutely zero Hebrew manuscripts of the New Testament that have any antiquity, whereas we have Greek manuscripts that date to the second century A.D.

One of the main problems here for the HRM on this point is Pentecost. At the very least, the Cretans of Acts 2:11 would have spoken Greek. The Holy Spirit didn’t have any problems with translating the gospel into all of these languages. Why would Greek only be the problematic language? It was the lingua franca of the day. HRM proponents use many languages today. Why are modern languages any better than the supposedly devilish Greek language? Iesous is a direct transliteration of “Yeshua.” The two names mean exactly the same thing: “The Lord saves.” Matthew 1:21 explicitly ties Jesus’ Greek name with the salvation God brings. One thing the HRM proponents have never done is explain how the meaning of the Hebrew name and Greek name is supposedly so vastly different that it is somehow almost heretical to call Jesus “Iesous.” I am thinking James Barr’s The Semantics of Biblical Language has escaped their attention. If Pentecost proves that the gospel may and should be translated into all languages, then Greek cannot be the exception. I don’t believe for one second, incidentally, that the New Testament was originally written in anything other than Greek.

Most importantly for this point, there is no biblical text whatsoever that would even support the idea that Hebrew is a holier language than Greek. They cannot argue this from Scripture. Instead, they base everything off a highly questionable assumption that the NT was written originally in Hebrew, even though there is next to no evidence for it.

They typically argue that the disciples could not possibly have known Greek. This is almost universally rejected in the scholarly world today. For example, Karen Jobes’s excellent commentary on 1 Peter shows how Greek was the original language of writing the letter, and by someone for whom Greek was a second language (she measures Semitic interference). If Greek was the lingua franca, why would anyone make the preposterous claim that the disciples (and Jesus, for that matter!) could not possibly have known the language? Yet many HRM proponents make that precise claim.

Why is this important? Is calling Jesus “Yeshua” really all that bad? Of course it isn’t bad at all, in and of itself. Modern Hebrew speakers call Jesus “Yeshua.” It is all the baggage that comes with it in the HRM movement that introduces the problems. HRM proponents want to make the OT more important than the NT. This is part and parcel of their claim that Jesus really doesn’t change anything with regard to OT law. The fact is simple: believing that Jesus’ name cannot be translated from one language to another is pure superstition. There is no difference in meaning AT ALL between “Yeshua,” “Iesous,” and “Jesus.” They all mean “Yahweh saves.”

Speaking on a more personal note, most HRM proponents I have come into contact with tend to look down their noses at people who say “Jesus,” because they are somehow being less holy by translating the name. This is part of the larger attempt to make people feel like they are missing out on something if they do not obey the entire OT law. Galatians and Hebrews would beg to differ, despite the exegetical gymnastics the HRM tries to pull to make those texts say something different than what they actually say. Up next is hermeneutics.

2 Comments

The Truths of Which We Now Sing (1 Tim 3:16)

December 8, 2022 at 2:00 pm (1Timothy, Ascension, Christology, Evangelism, Gospel, Jesus, Worship)

posted by R. Fowler White

The Apostle Paul wrote in First Timothy 3:16 (NASB95): By common confession, great is the mystery of godliness: He who was revealed in the flesh, was vindicated in the Spirit, seen by angels, proclaimed among the nations, believed on in the world, taken up in glory. 

As we have entered another season of celebrating the incarnation of God the Son, we sing of that great mystery of godliness that, as expressed in the phrases of 1 Tim 3:16, has now been revealed in Christ. So let’s be clear: by mystery we don’t mean something esoteric or cryptic, but rather truth made known only by divine revelation. About this particular mystery there is said to be common consent in God’s confessing church. It is a mystery summarized here in six lyrical phrases from what was most probably an early Christian hymn, sung in three stanzas of two lines each. Let’s consider the truth revealed in each line.

We sing of the incarnation of Christ: He who was manifested in the flesh. According to the Apostle Paul, our song begins with the fact that that Child in the feeding trough was the pre-existent Son of the Father, God of God, God with God, who has permanently taken to Himself human nature, having become forever thereafter one Person with two natures, divine and human. Miraculously conceived and preserved from sin’s defilement by the Holy Spirit, His birth began His suffering. That suffering became hostility and insult; then betrayal, abandonment, scorn, rejection, condemnation; then torment, facing the terrors of death, feeling and bearing the weight of God’s wrath as a sacrifice for sin, enduring painful, shameful, cursed crucifixion. His death brought an end to the earthly phase of His manifestation in the flesh. Of His incarnation we sing in our song, because with it the historical accomplishment of our redemption began. But there is more to our song.

We sing of the vindication of Christ: He was vindicated [justified] by the Spirit. When He was manifested in the flesh, the Son became the servant who submitted Himself to God’s law and conquered Satan, sin, and death. He became the one Man whom God has justified by His works. Made alive by the Spirit, everything Jesus said and did was certified as faithful and true. We sing, then, of Christ vindicated, the only immortal and now glorified Man.

We sing of the appearances of Christ: He was seen by angels. Even heaven’s angels have beheld Him, resurrected and ascended in theophanic glory. Through the incarnate and vindicated Son of Man, humanity has been restored to the heavenly sanctuary, and the angelic host now assist Him to maintain heavenly Mt Zion’s accessibility and inviolability even as they assist all who will inherit salvation. To paraphrase what another has said, the angels sang at His birth, ministered to Him in His hour of temptation, guarded His tomb, testified to His resurrection, witnessed His ascension, and look forward to His return. Just so, we sing now of His appearances to angels.

We sing of the proclamation of Christ: He was proclaimed among the nations. As the NT teaches us, the Apostles were equipped and authorized for their gospel ministry by Christ. Once He was vindicated by the Spirit and seen by angels, we read of how they labored hard to tell the nations about the saving mission, the justifying grace, and the transforming mercy of the patient and powerful Christ. They did indeed tell the nations in their day of Christ—and the church built on the foundation of Christ continues to tell the nations of Him, so that, at last, people from all families on earth will join in praise to Christ who is God our King. Even so, we sing the everlasting song of Christ proclaimed among all nations.

We sing of the reception of Christ: He was believed on in the world. For over 2,000 years now Christ has been believed on in the world. The first eyewitnesses of His resurrection believed: Mary, Peter, John, even Thomas, among others. After the Twelve believed, then Pentecost came and thousands believed on that day. The evangelistic mission only expanded to reach even the imperial capital of Rome. We see a global, worldwide mission bringing a global, worldwide harvest from all nations, tribes, peoples, and tongues, a harvest so great that no one can count its numbers. It is of this Christ—of Christ believed on in the world—whom we sing.

Lastly in our hymn, we sing of the ascension of Christ: He was taken up in glory. Raised from the dead in glory, Christ was taken up in glory into the highest invisible heavens. He is there at this very moment, crowned and enthroned, radiating majesty and splendor, preparing a place for all of us who believe, making intercession for us, answering all accusations against us, making sure that we have access with boldness to the throne of grace. From glory He came; to glory He has returned. And so of His ascension, His present coronation and reign, we sing.

These are among the truths of which we the church now do sing in this season of celebration. Singing of such things as incarnation, vindication, theophany, proclamation, reception, and ascension is outmoded for many today. Yet those who smear us who sing are full of balderdash and twaddle. We sing because we know ourselves to be sinners in the sight of God. We sing because we know ourselves to be justly deserving God’s displeasure. We sing because we know ourselves to be without hope except in God’s sovereign mercy. We sing because we have believed in the Lord Jesus Christ as the Son of God and Savior of sinners. We sing because we have received and are resting upon Christ alone for salvation as He is offered in the Gospel.

Don’t sneer at us who sing. Join us in our confession and sing with us the truths that express the great mystery of godliness, once hidden now revealed in Christ: Christ manifested in the flesh, vindicated by the Spirit, seen by angels, proclaimed among the nations, believed on in the world, taken up in glory.

2 Comments

Are We Genteel or Maśkîlîm (Dan 12:3, 10)?

October 27, 2022 at 3:00 pm (Church, Evangelism, Instructing the Body, OT-Daniel, Preaching)

posted by R. Fowler White

“In an age enamored by soft words that lead to deception, we still have a duty to speak ‘truth’ to the deceived.”—Philip G. Bowersox, Smooth Words: Daniel’s Perspective on the Great Commission

The quote above from Philip G. Bowersox, pastor of Grace Bible Church in Oklahoma City, OK, is nothing if not a sobering call to duty for pastors and teachers. It’s a call to discern and to confront the reality of deception—no, the danger of deception—a threat that often goes undetected and unchecked as it creeps into our lives. This call to duty is made the more earnest when we ponder the unrelenting menace to which the Apostle John alerts us in his first letter. “Children,” he writes, “it is the last hour; and just as you heard that antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have appeared; from this we know that it is the last hour” (1 John 2:18 NASB95). Let those words sink in. They bring us up short, don’t they? John would have us understand that, living as we do after Christ’s ascension (as even his first readers did), we’re living in the last phase of history. Talk about a “wake up and smell the coffee” moment for us in God’s church.

As if the gist of John’s words is not arresting enough, we realize that he describes this final stage of history as an age in which antichrists and false prophets flourish (1 John 4:1). They, with their followers, promote beliefs and behaviors that are contrary to the faith handed down once for all to the saints (Jude 3). The details John provides demand our attention: the number of these deceivers is many (1 John 4:1), and they are already here (1 John 4:3). More than that, they are not just out there, in the world. No, John tells us that they went out from us after being with us in the church. In fact, it is not just that deceivers were once in the church: it is that they can be presently in the church just as it was the case at Thyatira (Rev 2:18-28). All told, the call to duty that Pastor Bowersox gives us echoes the context that John describes: because deceivers are present both outside and inside the church, we must speak truth to those who might be enamored with soft words—smooth words—and led astray wherever deceivers appear.

Skeptical as we are, you and I might ask, how seriously should we take these threats? Despite warnings from Christ and His Apostles, there seem always to be some in Christ’s church who simply deny reality. You probably know some of these folks. They prefer the pablum of therapeutic to-do lists that (allegedly) get them personal peace, influence, or affluence instead of the solid food of instruction necessary for them to develop discernment and endurance. The result? In their willfully childish rejection of nourishing food for their growth in holiness, they leave their souls defenseless against the waves and winds brought in the smooth, soft words of deceivers who would lead them to apostasy.

Whether, then, we look within the church or outside of it, we in Christ’s church find good reason to prepare ourselves to speak truth. The Apostle Paul tells us how to prepare in Eph 4:12-16. Through the ministry of the word, we grow up into Christ; we attain the faith of an adult Christian (cf. 2 Tim 3:14-17). Why? The reasons are straightforward. Only those who stay true to the Scriptures and mature in the faith are able to speak truth to others (Eph 4:15). Only those who learn to distinguish truth from error, good from evil, right from wrong are able, in turn, to speak truth to the deceived.

Knowing these things, we’ll devote ourselves to discipleship in community to learn from and with others the historic doctrines and practices by which Christ has built His church (Rom 6:17-18; Eph 4:20-23). We’ll place ourselves in the care of the shepherds and teachers whom Christ gives us through his Spirit, those who are committed and gifted to train us in what to believe and how to behave according to the faith handed down to the saints. We’ll do these things because the discipleship we need to counter the smooth, soft words of deceivers won’t become ours by just any means. It is the church’s unique purpose to gather and grow the saints. So, we’ll covenant with others of like mind to learn the historic truths of the faith—not least, those of justification and sanctification as highlighted by Bowersox.

Are our congregations prepared to speak wise words of truth to any who might be led astray (cf. Dan 12:3, 10)? Bowersox’s book is a fine resource to help get us ready. Take it up and read it. Then, like Daniel, in this last hour of smooth, soft, deceptive words, you’ll have wise words to speak, and you’ll stand with others, firm in one spirit, with one mind striving side by side for the faith of the gospel, and not frightened in anything by [our] opponents (Phil 1:27-28 ESV).

5 Comments

Toward A Catechism on Mortification

September 21, 2022 at 1:45 pm (Holy Spirit, Mortification, Perseverance, Sanctification)

posted by R. Fowler White

Mortify therefore your members which are upon the earth. Colossians 3:5 (KJV)

For if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die: but if ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live. Romans 8:13 (KJV)

For most folks, that word mortify in the citations above is plainly just an antiquated term found in an antiquated Bible translation. That opinion, however, is more than a little naïve, showing only how afflicted we can be by the arrogance of the modern. The fact is, the more we study that word and concept in the context of the Bible and in the context of the church’s historic confessional and theological discussions, we realize that there is enduring benefit in recovering their usage. That is particularly true if we want to get a handle on the basics of the Bible’s teaching about the Christian life: after all, as indicated by the citations above, mortification is evidently fundamental to Paul’s conception of the believer’s new life. The continuing value of the term is also seen when we seek to understand and engage responsibly in the current debate over the meaning and relevance of mortification in the lives of men who aspire to occupy or already occupy the office of elder or deacon in Christ’s church.

It was precisely for the reasons just stated that the questions and answers below were drawn up. Oh, to be sure, the catechetical format might not appeal to everybody. The format is not so much the point, however; the content is. It aims to distill the insights on mortification from what is widely regarded in Reformed circles as the masterwork on that biblical doctrine by John Owen (1616-1683). No doubt improvements can be made; hence the word “Toward” in the title of this post. For the moment, however, let me mention that, in drawing up this catechism, great benefit came from consulting the annotated edition of Owen’s original work by Kelly Kapic and Justin Taylor, the modernized edition of it by William Gross, and the popularized summaries of Owen’s teaching found in the books of Sinclair Ferguson, Kris Lundgaard, and Jerry Bridges. Readers may also notice that an attempt was made to integrate, wherever possible, language and concepts related to mortification found in the Westminster Confession and Catechisms. Finally, let me express my gratitude to Reed DePace, teaching elder and pastor of First Presbyterian Church (PCA), Montgomery, AL, as well as contributor here at Green Baggins. His patient interaction with multiple drafts of this catechism was very valuable. Of course, responsibility for the final form of this document must be my own.

Overall, my aim in drafting this catechism for myself and for others has been to get a firmer grasp on the serious business that mortification is, together with a greater appreciation for just how central mortification is to our Christian lives. This project has certainly motivated me to heed Owen’s stark reminder: “Be killing sin or it will be killing you.” As a result, my prayer is that we’ll all buckle down and go on to mature in holiness in the fear of God (2 Cor 7:1; Col 3:5-14; 1 Pet 2:24; Heb 12:14; Col 1:9-11; 1 Thess. 3:13; cf. Phil 3:12-14; 1 John 3:1-3), to grow in the saving grace and knowledge of Christ (1 Pet 2:2; 2 Pet 3:18), and to be transformed inwardly day by day (2 Cor 3:18; 4:16; Rom 12:2; Eph 4:23; Col 3:10).

Q. 1. What is mortification?
A. Mortification is both an initial and a progressive work of grace in believers by the Holy Spirit: the initial work of grace being that the Spirit unites believers to Christ in His death to sin, with the result that they are said to have been crucified with Christ and to have died to sin with Christ (Rom 6:3-7; Gal 2:20; 5:24; Phil 3:10b; Col 2:20; 3:3, 9); and the progressive work of grace being that the Spirit empowers believers to fulfill God’s command that through daily crucifixion they put to death the sin that remains in their mortal body, together with sin’s lusts and deeds (Rom 7:25; 8:13b; 13:14; 1 Cor 6:11; Gal 5:17-18, 22-25; Phil 2:12-13; Col 3:5; 2 Thess 1:11).

Q. 2. What specifically do we mean by the word “sin” when we speak of it as the target of mortification?
A. When we use the word “sin” for the target of mortification, we refer to sin and its lusts that remain in the mortal body of believers, corrupting their nature, defiling all the parts and faculties of soul and body, and inclining their mind, will, and affections habitually toward unholy thoughts, words, and deeds (Gen 6:5; Jer 17:9; Rom 3:10-19; 5:6; 6:12-13; 7:5, 7-8, 17-18, 20, 23, 25; 8:7; Gal 5:17; Col 1:21; Titus 1:15).

Q. 3. What do we not mean when we speak of “mortifying sin”?
A. When we speak of “mortifying sin,” we do not mean that sin is completely killed (i.e., eliminated or removed) in this life (Phil 3:12-13; cf. 1 Cor 9:24-27; 1 Tim 6:12, 19); nor that it is merely disguised in or diverted to a more socially acceptable or less discoverable expression (cf. Acts 8:23); nor that it is merely tamed, quieted, or only occasionally defeated (cf. Ps 78:32-37).

Q. 4. What do we mean when we speak of “mortifying sin”?
A. When we speak of “mortifying sin,” we mean habitually weakening sin, constantly fighting and contending against it, and realizing success over it, all through daily crucifixion.

Q. 5. What do we mean when we speak of “habitually weakening sin”?
A. When we speak of “habitually weakening sin,” we mean to say that, little by little, sin’s life, power, promptness, and eagerness are taken away, with the result that it acts more seldomly and more faintly, cries out sparingly, and is hardly heard in the heart, and with the result that the habits of sin are not able to rise up in believers to incline them with the same intensity, seriousness, and frequency, nor to make them its slave as it did before their conversion (Rom 6:6; 1 Cor. 6:18-19; 2 Cor 4:16; cf. Jas 1:14-15).

Q 6. What do we mean when we speak of “constantly fighting and contending against sin”?
A. When we speak of “constantly fighting and contending against sin,” we mean to say that believers recognize sin for what it is in the light of God’s wrath (Eph 2:3; 5:6; Col 3:6), recall the shame of past sin (Eph 2:1-2; 4:17-20; Col 3:7; Rom 6:21; Ezek 16:63), and learn the ways of sin’s success in their lives (Rom 7:15-25); and that believers also reckon with the reality that the Spirit has united them with Christ in His death to sin (Rom 6:2; Col 2:20; 3:3), and He empowers them to subject indwelling sin with its lusts and deeds to daily crucifixion (Rom 6:12-14; 7:21-25; 8:12-14; Gal 5:16-25; Col 3:5; Luke 9:23).

Q. 7. What do we mean when we speak of “realizing success over sin”?
A. When we speak of “realizing success over sin,” we mean to say that sin is no longer able habitually to keep believers from obeying God or to interrupt their peace with Him (Rom 6:11-14, 19-22; 7:21–8:4; Gal 5:16).

Q. 8. Do believers have the power to fulfill God’s command that they mortify sin?
A. No, believers do not have the power in and of themselves to fulfill God’s command that they mortify sin (Rom 7:18; Gal 5:17; cf. Rom 8:13).

Q. 9. Since believers lack the power in and of themselves to fulfill God’s command that they mortify sin, from whom do they obtain that power?
A. Only from Christ by the Holy Spirit and through faith do believers have the power to mortify sin (Rom 8:13; Gal 5:16).

Q. 10. In what ways are believers empowered to mortify sin?
A. The ways in which believers are empowered to mortify sin include the following: by meditating on the grandeur of God’s glorious perfections (John 17:24; 2 Cor 3:16-18; 4:6; Col 1:10-23; 1 Pet 1:14-21; 2:1-3) and earnestly seeking God for deliverance from their sin through Jesus Christ their Lord (Rom 7:24; Gal 5:17); by being convinced of their sin’s guilt, defilement, and corruption; truthfully diagnosing its severity (asking, e.g., if it is deep-rooted, long-indulged, often victorious, or only opposed to avoid shame or punishment) (cf. Isa 63:10; 2 Chron 36:15-16; 1 Cor 3:1-3; Eph 4:30; Heb 5:11-12; 6:1-3, 6); and being persuaded of the risks it poses to them (whether the risk is, e.g., that of being deceived, of being disciplined by God, of losing strength and peace, or of being exposed as unconverted) (Rom 7:14-25; Eph 4:17-24; 1 Pet 1:14; 4:2-6); by avoiding situations that incite sin and by dealing with sin when it first appears (1 Cor 6:18; 10:14; 1 Tim 6:3-11; 2 Tim 2:22; Jas 4:7); by considering the relationship between their sins and their natural temperament and being careful not to conclude too soon that the sin in them is really mortified; and by committing the considerations just mentioned to regular prayers of repentance and faith.

Q. 11. What benefits may believers enjoy through mortification?
A. The benefits that believers may enjoy through mortification include the following: that their strength and peace—indeed, their power and comfort—in their life with God will be stirred up, increased, and built up through the continual supply of strength from the sanctifying Spirit of adoption (Col 1:10–11; Eph 3:16–19; Rom 7:4-6; Gal 5:16, 22-23, 25; Heb 6:11–12; Jude 20); that they will more and more die to sin as its power to produce unholy thoughts, words, and deeds in their lives is taken away (Rom 8:4, 13; Gal 5:16, 19-21); that they will more and more have power to fight and overcome sin (Rom 6:14; 1 John 5:4; Eph 4:15–16), to bear the fruit of the Spirit, and to grow in all saving graces (Ezek 36:25-27; Rom 6:11-23; 7:4, 6; 8:13b; 2 Cor 7:1; Gal 5:22-23; Col 3:8-14; 1 Pet 2:24); and that they will enjoy communion with Christ in His death to sin (Rom 6:2-4, 6, 14; 8:13; Gal 5:16, 25; Phil 3:10b; 2 Cor 1:5), the assurance of God’s love (Rom 5:5), peace of conscience (Rom 5:1), joy in the Spirit (Rom 14:17), and growth and perseverance in grace to the end of their lives (2 Pet 3:18Phil 1:6; 1 Pet 1:5).

“Be killing sin or it will be killing you.” — John Owen

6 Comments

PASSING OVERTURE 15

August 30, 2022 at 11:02 am (Uncategorized)
Tags: , , , , , ,

Reed DePace, TE
Pastor, First Pres Montgomery, AL
August 29, 2022

A fellow PCA elder, a brother in Christ whom I am indeed grateful for, asked for my reaction to some arguments he was going to make before his session, urging them at their upcoming presbytery meeting to vote against Overture 15. In keeping with the best of biblical (i.e., presbyterian) practice, he asked for the reactions of someone he knows would most likely be opposed to his reasoning. (Well done, brother, well done.)

PCA presbyteries are now taking up this overture, with the first one to vote on it passing it (8/27/22, Central Carolina, 41-11-1). O15 is considered a long shot for receiving the two-thirds majority yes votes from our presbyteries. Accordingly, appreciating this brother’s integrity, and disagreeing with his reasoning for a “no” vote on O15, I thought I might edit my comments to him, and post them for consideration by others. My goal (as a faith-exercise of my calling as an officer in the PCA) is to see the Spirit use these admittedly imperfect arguments to persuade other PCA elders to support O15’s passage.

Here is O15, as passed by the PCA 49th GA (Birmingham Al, ’22):

“Men who describe themselves as homosexual, even those who describe themselves as homosexual and claim to practice celibacy by refraining from homosexual conduct, are disqualified from holding office in the Presbyterian Church in America.”

I want to offer two arguments for why this overture should be passed:

1) It avoids the identity language equivocation trap, and

2) It provides a simple and straightforward way of applying the above reproach standard.

The Equivocation Trap

Almost all the arguments I’ve seen against O15 anchor themselves on a reason for the failure of overtures 23 and 37 from the previous GA (48th, St. Louis). The main argument against them (persuasive in about forty percent of our presbyteries) was that the language of identity was problematic. Particularly, they noted that the teaching elder exemplar in view (i.e., the “poster child” prompting these overtures, no denigration intended) maintains that in his use of identity language (e.g., a homosexual pastor, a Christian who struggles with same-sex attraction as much as he did the first day he was saved) is nothing more than apologetic-ordered language intended to help in ministering to those struggling with the sins of same-sex attraction. The opponents to these overtures also noted that the TE in question also affirms his agreement with the biblical doctrine of new identity in Christ. The same arguments are being raised against passage of O15: such men are not identifying as homosexuals; instead they are identifying with those struggling with same-sex attraction.

Inside and Outside Definitions

I agree that the exemplar TE’s description of himself in terms of a believer who struggles with homosexuality fits both the inside and outside the PCA. He is able to do so not because he uses the same description inside that he does outside. Instead, he is able to do so because he uses the post-modern technique of equivocation. In the most egregious examples, this brother uses the same language inside and outside, qualifying his usage with descriptions fitted to each context’s own meaning of identity. This is equivocation. Using this technique, this brother can use self-descriptive language as a same-sex attracted pastor, in two diametrically opposed contexts, and affirm that he is consistent with the doctrine of both.

The Equivocation Trap

To push this a bit more, consider the self-description this brother offers in both contexts. His inside self-description as a homosexual pastor is more or less consistent with the Bible (as summarized in the Westminster Standards). The brother maintains he is merely “identifying” himself with besetting sins that he nevertheless biblically describes and seeks to biblically deal with.

In this brother’s outside self-identification, both in the context of his local PCA church ministry and his broader (at-large) ministry within the public sphere, he adopts the language AND the reasoning of the culture’s understanding of such identification. In this, the contemporary public realm, his identification is entirely infused with ontological (nature of being) considerations. When dinged by some of his fellow PCA officers for this blatantly anti-gospel identification, he switches from the outside explanation to the inside one. That is he equivocates, and the unprepared are snagged by the trap.

In short, he affirms that he is not identifying with his sin in such a way that it contradicts his affirmation of faith in Christ. Nevertheless, he affirms the culture’s understanding of identity, namely that such characteristics are of the essence of the person’s sense of self, characteristics that cannot be removed from the person without threatening the person’s very existence.

Avoid the Trap

This is the essence of the equivocation trap that, in hindsight, appears to have snagged GA48’s overtures 23 and 37. In simple terms, enough elders missed the descriptive identity equivocation such that they voted “no” on these overtures. They heard him affirm his belief in the biblical doctrine of ontological identity in Christ. But they missed that he also affirmed the (unbelieving) broader culture’s doctrine of ontological identity in one’s sins, a belief that is fundamentally an avowed, implacable, and unappeasable gospel-killing enemy. Being snagged in this trap led some to vote against overtures 23 and 37.

I suspect that some elders may again miss this equivocation trap. Reading GA49’s O15 as nothing more than a boiled down version of GA48’s overtures 23 and 37, they may vote “no” on O15. But, recognizing that equivocation is being used, we can avoid this trap, and vote in favor of O15.

The Above Reproach Standard

It seems to me that reckoning with the equivocation trap should be enough to persuade elders to vote for O15. Yet, there is even a better reason to pass O15. Remember that this year’s overtures committee tweaked the originating presbytery’s original language. Specifically, the OC replaced identity language with description language. While not knowing all the reasons behind this tweak, I grow increasingly persuaded that it is providentially fortuitous.

Description Broader the Identification

Many vocal opponents of O15 argue as if “identifies” is synonymous with “describes.” But that is simply not the case. To be sure, the description language encompasses the identity language. Yet the description language is broader, allowing further considerations to come into view. (A key one for me is the increasingly clear flaws in this brother’s understanding and practice of sanctification. See the recent book review of Still Time to Care, by our brothers in Ascension Presbytery: https://1ar.s3.amazonaws.com/2022/08/Ascension-2022-July-Report-of-AIC-Still-Time-to-Care.pdf).

Avoiding Measurement Weeds

Even more fundamentally, the description language in O15 pushes this whole question (if/when is a man with same-sex attraction qualified to hold office in Christ’s church?) back into the only clear biblical qualification assessment point, namely the question of whether/when such a man is above reproach. Debates over “what does identification really mean anyway?” push this question into the weeds where only worldly considerations apply. Even the otherwise helpful debates over the nature of same-sex desire and when it becomes an actionable sin are responded to with broader evangelical (re: Arminian, self-powered) measurement questions of when is same-sex attraction a problem: how much same-sex desire is allowable; how do we measure this: quantity of events, degree of intensity, frequency of presence, etc.?

The tweaked O15 description language denies all these measuring weeds. For men equipped with the keys to some of the most sacredly precious positions in the Kingdom of Christ, O15 simplifies the decision-making on our version of the broader homosexual clergy question. Is the man describing himself (present tense) as a homosexual, all equivocations aside? If so, as this means he is NOT above reproach, we can be sure that the Spirit has not called him to sacred office in the Church.

The Simple Self-Description

Think about this from the opposite perspective. Imagine you’re examining a man coming for ordination, or one seeking to transfer into your presbytery. In his paperwork submitted for the process, he notes issues of same-sex attraction in his life. Consider what we’d want to hear from him. We do not want some convoluted explanation that seems more wrapped up in the world’s ontological realities than in the gospel’s. This man needs to feed the sheep, correct the sheep, shelter the sheep, protect the sheep, and equip the sheep with the gospel weapons of spiritual warfare in an increasingly re-Sodomizing and Gomorrahizing land.

Instead of confusing language that compels us to spend time (years now) asking whether this is a problem or not, imagine that the brother offered simple and clear expressions describing himself and the remnants of his same-sex attraction in this manner: “No, I’m not a homosexual, nor am I describable by my former lusts to which I was enslaved. To be sure, the old man, who revelingly wallowed in those cesspools of the soul, is still zombie-like scratching at the coffin lid that Jesus has bolted him shut in. But no, I’m not a homosexual. I’m not rightly described by my former same-sex attraction lusts, if even only the lingering memory of them. I am a new man in Christ; the old is gone.”

I think we would all agree that it is this simple: a man needs to see and express that his same-sex attraction was properly descriptive of his former self, before regeneration. He now needs to see and express that his same-sex attraction is effectively dead, not as in not present, but so dormant that even the mildest and most infrequent of stirrings are met with a vigorous resort to Spirit-based mortification. This needs to be so much the man’s experience, that, knowing that unbelief always presents the equivocation trap, he wisely refuses to engage in the use of this technique.

Let’s Pass Overture 15

To be sure, the Enemy will continue to attack us, offering further equivocations that some of us may get tripped up by. But, at least at this point in the battle, until Christ’s already victory is realized once and for all, O15 makes it simple for us to make such judgment calls.

Fathers and brothers, let’s pass Overture 15.

Reed DePace, TE
Pastor, First Pres Montgomery, AL

3 Comments

« Older entries