Scripturalism, Libertarianism, Relativism and Sean Gerety

"But can he maintain intellectual consistency if he favors political liberty and rejects the Christian presuppositions?"  --  Dr. Gordon H. Clark

As the discussion of the nature and authority of government revealed its various complexities, it must have become evident that much of the argument passes beyond the limits of strictly political theory. That there are religious implications in every view was made clear. Other aspects of politics tended to merge either with sociology or with a general philosophy of history. Then, too, it was seen that the problem of politics could not be solved without answering the psychological question as to the nature of man. But of all the subjects to which the preceding chapter led, it is ethics that demands immediate attention. In fact, it may have seemed that not a single important decision on politics could be made without choosing between competing moral ideals. Of any particular proposal one had to ask whether it was right or wrong. If the proposal were shown to be a plausible means to an end, one could not avoid the question, Is this end a good end or an evil end? It is therefore impossible to arrive at a satisfactory theory of politics without having first settled the questions of ethics.

Gordon H. Clark (2014-06-05T04:00:00+00:00). A Christian View of Men and Things (Kindle Locations 2146-2153). The Trinity Foundation. Kindle Edition.

No doubt morality is of greater value than wealth, and nearly everyone would prefer a state with good citizens to a state of immoral citizens.

Gordon H. Clark (2014-06-05T04:00:00+00:00). A Christian View of Men and Things (Kindle Locations 1548-1549). The Trinity Foundation. Kindle Edition. 

I do not have the time to go into a lengthy article.  However, in a discussion group on Facebook called "Gordon Clark Discussions" I discovered that the self-appointed archbishop of Scripturalism, Sean Gerety, is a moral relativist in his view of ethics and political philosophy.  (See:  God's Hammer blog).  This is truly unfortunate, especially since Gerety is not really a spokesman for Scripturalism.  Furthermore, neither Dr. Gordon H. Clark nor Dr. John Robbins is still living, so we cannot refer to their expertise other than consulting their writings and extant audio lectures.

Dr. Gordon H. Clark advocated the axiom of Scripture.  Scripture alone is the Word of God.  For Dr. Clark all ethics and political philosophy are to be deduced from Scripture.  Libertarians, on the other hand, start with a libertarian philosophy that openly denies dogmatism and the Bible as the basis for their political philosophy.  They apparently apply the axiom that government should be limited and non-agressive.  The problem, however, is that there is no such thing as neutrality.  There is no middle ground between Scripturalism and secular humanism.  Basically, the libertarians have a political philosophy that calls for co-belligerence between atheists, secularists, Christians, Scripturalists, and various other political allies that wish to restrict the government's control over the population, business, the economy, religion, politics, etc.  Unfortunately, Dr. Robbins rejected co-belligerency with Roman Catholics in regards to socially conservative values like the pro-life movement.  So how would Robbins have approved of co-belligerency with those promote moral relativism in the civil and criminal laws of a nation?

By now you're asking what I mean by Gerety's moral relativism?  Well, the simple answer is that Gerety agrees with Ron Paul that the government should not restrict moral vices like drug abuse, pornography, homosexual marriage and homosexual civil rights.  Instead, these vices, including gambling, should be left up to individual states within the United States.  Unfortunately, Scripturalism contradicts moral relativism.  If the moral law of God as summarized in the Decalogue or Ten Commandments condemns an activity as sinful, then the government of any nation on earth is obligated to obey that law as much as any individual is obligated.  The seventh commandment is a deontological and apodeictic law that is universal.  From that universal law Scripturalism deduces that all sexual immorality is evil and therefore should be regulated by the state.  Adultery, fornication, homosexuality, and bestiality are all forbidden by the seventh commandment. (Exodus 20:1-17; Exodus 20:14). 

Gerety, however, wishes to have the state and federal governments break all the commandments except the sixth commandment, "Thou shalt not murder," the eighth commandment, "Thou shalt not steal," and the tenth commandment, "Thou shalt not covet."  Gerety specifically agreed with Al Sharpton that he does not want the government in his bedroom.  He also affirmed the government's "right" to pass laws in favor of pornography because "what a man does in his own bedroom is his own business."  But when the morality of a nation is degraded and depraved the very fabric of society itself is degraded.  Morality matters.  Even Oprah gets this since she disapproves of female circumcision in African nations, foot binding in the Chinese culture, and neck rings in Thailand.

Kant's moral imperative does not work because it is based on natural law or natural reason, which has been darkened by the noetic effects of sin.  The only way to know right from wrong definitively is by special revelation in Holy Scripture.  God expects obedience simply because He commands obedience.  He does not give reasons to creatures for obedience other than He commands obedience.  Those who disobey the covenant of works can expect judgment from God.  It is an argument of the Arminians that God owes man rewards.

According to Dr. Gordon H. Clark, the Bible stands as a whole book. It is all of a piece and the Scriptures cannot be broken.  (John 10:35).   (Audio:  The Inerrancy of the Bible).  The Bible is not composed of an aggregate of propositions.  Instead, according to Dr. Clark, the propositions of Scripture are to be organized into a system of theology.  The best summary of the system of theology in the Bible is the relatively brief statement we know as the Westminster Confession of Faith.  Further, Dr. Clark said that the system of theology in the Bible is the same system of theology in God's mind.  According to Dr. Clark, it is not a good idea to disagree with the Westminster Confession.  

And what does the Westminster Confession have to say about civil government?

CHAPTER XXIII—Of the Civil Magistrate

  1.      God, the supreme Lord and King of all the world, hath ordained civil magistrates to be under Him, over the people, for His own glory, and the public good: and, to this end, hath armed them with the power of the sword, for the defense and encouragement of them that are good, and for the punishment of evil doers. (Rom. 13:1–4, 1 Pet. 2:13–14)

  2.      It is lawful for Christians to accept and execute the office of a magistrate, when called thereunto: (Prov. 8:15–16, Rom. 13:1–2, 4) in the managing whereof, as they ought especially to maintain piety, justice, and peace, according to the wholesome laws of each commonwealth; (Ps. 2:10–12, 1 Tim. 2:2, Ps. 82:3–4, 2 Sam. 23:3, 1 Pet. 2:13) so, for that end, they may lawfully, now under the new testament, wage war, upon just and necessary occasion. (Luke 3:14, Rom. 13:4, Matt. 8:9–10, Acts 10:1–2, Rev. 17:14, 16)


The Westminster Confession of Faith (Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 1996).

I guess for Gerety pornographers are not really evil doers?  The Westminster Confession specifically says that the civil magistrates have an obligation to God.  They are to be "under Him."  How does homosexual marriage, gay rights, and pornography obey God or submit to God as being "under Him"?  Furthermore, the laws of a commonwealth are to be "wholesome."  How does homosexuality, pornography, abortion, and religious relativism/pluralism uphold the principle of "wholesome" laws?

If Scripture is the beginning axiom for libertarianism, then I would like to know how you deduce from Scripture a political philosophy that openly rejects dogmatic theology?  The Reformed Libertarian, an oxymoron by the way, insists that religious dogma cannot be a part of their political platform:

Libertarians can most certainly argue amongst themselves about epistemology and ethics, religion and sociology, culture and lifestyle.  And none of the opinions on these matters stem from libertarianism for libertarianism does not seek to, indeed cannot, address those issues.  Libertarianism has one role as a political theory: to make a statement on the “proper role of violence in social life” (Rothbard).  For when discussing what should be made legal and what should be illegal, we are attempting to determine what deeds should be punished with physical force and which deeds should not be punished with physical force.  

The Nature of Libertarianism

So my question is how is libertarianism compatible with Scripturalism or the Westminster Confession?    The fact of the matter is that libertarianism is a direct contradiction to the dogmatic theology of Dr. Gordon H. Clark, the logical and propositional system of theology in Scripture and summarized by the Westminster Confession of Faith.  The political philosophy deduced from Scripture could never approve of any violation of the seventh commandment, despite the protests of so-called "Scripturalists" who appeal to relativism.  In fact, Dr. Clark specifically says that the civil laws of any state or federal government should be deduced from the Ten Commandments.  That would include all of the commandments, not just the one or two favorites of Mr. Gerety.  (Audio:  Questions and Answers).

The primary principle of Scripturalism is that all theology and philosophy is to be logically deduced from Scripture:

Westminster Confession of Faith

Chapter 1.  Of the Holy Scripture

6.      The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man’s salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit or traditions of men. (2 Tim. 3:15–17, Gal. 1:8–9, 2 Thess. 2:2) Nevertheless, we acknowledge the inward illumination of the Spirit of God to be necessary for the saving understanding of such things as are revealed in the Word: (John 6:45, 1 Cor 2:9–12) and that there are some circumstances concerning the worship of God, and government of the Church, common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature, and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the Word, which are always to be observed. (1 Cor. 11:13–14, 1 Cor. 14:26, 40)

The Westminster Confession of Faith (Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 1996).

It could further be argued that the basis for the American principle of separation of church and state did not intend for the government to pass laws out of line with the moral law of God or laws hostile to Christian morality.  In fact, the Puritans never intended for religious freedom to include non-Christian religions, including Roman Catholicism:

WCF, Chapter 23, Of the Civil Magistrate

3.      Civil magistrates may not assume to themselves the administration of the Word and sacraments; (2 Chron. 26:18) or the power of the keys of the kingdom of heaven; (Matt. 18:17, Matt. 16:19, 1 Cor. 12:28–29, Eph. 4:11–12, 1 Cor. 4:1–2, Rom. 10:15, Heb. 5:4) or, in the least, interfere in the matter so faith. (John 18:36, Acts 5:29, Eph. 4:11–12) Yet, as nursing fathers, it is the duty of civil magistrates to protect the Church of our common Lord, without giving the preference to any denomination of Christians above the rest, in such a manner that all ecclesiastical persons whatever shall enjoy the full, free, and unquestioned liberty of discharging every part of their sacred functions, without violence or danger. (Isa. 49:23, Rom. 13:1–6) And, as Jesus Christ hath appointed a regular government and discipline in his Church, no law of any commonwealth should interfere with, let, or hinder, the due exercise thereof, among the voluntary members of any denomination of Christians, according to their own profession and belief. (Ps. 104:15, Acts 18:14–15) It is the duty of civil magistrates to protect the person and good name of all their people, in such an effectual manner as that no person be suffered, either upon pretence of religion or of infidelity, to offer any indignity, violence, abuse, or injury to any other person whatsoever: and to take order, that all religious and ecclesiastical assemblies be held without molestation or disturbance. (Rom. 13:4, 1 Tim. 2:2)

The Westminster Confession of Faith (Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 1996).

Additionally, it is the duty of the government to uphold the moral law of God as it is summarized in the Ten Commandments.  The phrase "general equity" is a direct reference to the Decalogue:

WCF, Chapter 19, Of the Law of God

  4.      To them also, as a body politic, He gave sundry judicial laws, which expired together with the state of that people; not obliging any other now, further than the general equity thereof may require. (Exod. 21, Exod. 22:1–29, Gen. 49:10, 1 Pet. 2:13–14, Matt. 5:17, 38–39, 1 Cor. 9:8–10)
  5.      The moral law doth for ever bind all, as well justified persons as others, to the obedience thereof; (Rom. 13:8, 9, Eph. 6:2, 1 John 2:3–4, 7–8) and that, not only in regard of the matter contained in it, but also in respect of the authority of God the Creator, who gave it. (James 2:10, 11) Neither doth Christ, in the Gospel, any way dissolve, but much strengthen this obligation. (Matt. 5:17–19, James 2:8, Rom. 3:31)


The Westminster Confession of Faith (Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 1996).

 It is my conclusion then that Sean Gerety has more in common with Al Sharpton than with either Gordon H. Clark or John Robbins.  In fact, Ron Paul is the poster boy for theological and political relativism and liberalism. 

The purpose of this chapter is to give evidence that Christian presuppositions justify civil governments of limited rights, whereas humanistic principles imply either anarchy or totalitarianism. The person who considers these matters is forced to make a choice. He may choose humanism because he is enamored of anarchy or of his chances of becoming a dictator; or he may have a desire for political liberty, in which case Christianity will provide him with a coherent worldview. But can he maintain intellectual consistency if he favors political liberty and rejects the Christian presuppositions?

Gordon H. Clark (2014-06-05T04:00:00+00:00). A Christian View of Men and Things (Kindle Locations 2036-2040). The Trinity Foundation. Kindle Edition.

A second objection to the argument of this chapter will also come to mind. It may be true that only in a theistic worldview can both anarchy and totalitarianism be avoided. But though this may be a satisfactory motive for choosing theism, it is not a reason for choosing Christianity. There are other forms of theism. Unitarianism, Judaism, and Mohammedanism are theistic, but they are not Christian. The argument of the chapter therefore provides no sufficient motive for choosing Christianity rather than Judaism. This second objection is not only as formally logical as the first, but it is materially more applicable. While there are hints as to how to answer the first objection, it seems there is none that meets this second. And for that matter, the chapter fails to motivate anarchists and dictators to choose Christianity or any other form of theism. Its force will be felt only by those who already have a love of freedom. In fact, those who desire to reduce men to the condition of regimented robots will be motivated against Christianity – and very consistently so. They make their choice. This simply means that political considerations favoring a theistic worldview constitute only a fraction of the argument. Arguments against totalitarianism must be sought, not in politics narrowly defined, but in ethics, or some more general sphere; and similarly, the choice between Christianity and other theistic systems requires theological and not just political arguments.

Gordon H. Clark (2014-06-05T04:00:00+00:00). A Christian View of Men and Things (Kindle Locations 2047-2056). The Trinity Foundation. Kindle Edition.

Chuck Colson: Advocate of the Manhattan Declaration and Latitudinarian "Evangelicalism"

Chuck Colson in an article posted at Christianity Today said:

An aversion to doctrine caused some thoroughly orthodox young evangelicals to decline to sign the Manhattan Declaration (which defends human life, traditional marriage, and religious liberty), even though the document is rooted in Scripture. As one young evangelical explained to me, "We don't like dogmatic statements that a lot of people have to sign." What about the Nicene Creed or the Westminster Confession of Faith?  [See link at Anglicans Ablaze: Doctrinal Bootcamp].

I almost choked on my coffee when I read that line.  Colson thinks that an "aversion" to doctrine caused folks like me not to sign the Manhattan Declaration?    I thought to myself, "Chuck, you have GOT to be kidding me????"   It is NOT an aversion to doctrine that caused many Reformed folks not to agree with the Manhattan Declaration.  In fact it was a CONCERN FOR DOCTRINE that caused us not to sign on the dotted line.  Why?  Because the Manhattan Declaration, like the other ecumenical documents endorsed by Colson, says that Roman Catholics and the Eastern Orthdox believe the same Gospel that Protestants believe.  That could not be further from the truth.  The fact is the anathemas of the 16th century canons of the Council of Trent still condemn Protestants.   To assume that Roman Catholics and other churches which teach faith plus good works as the basis for justification and salvation are "Christian" is to set naive people up to be deceived. 

One Presbyterian Church in America pastor recently told me that all that is necessary for salvation is that a church adheres to the three ecumenical creeds.   (See, How Far Has the PCA Fallen?) I guess that means that you don't need to believe that Scripture is the final authority?  Church tradition is an additional revelation alongside Scripture and you had better believe what the modern day apostles of Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthdoxy tell you else you're violating God's Word revealed to them?

What exactly does the Manhattan Declaration say which is objectionable to born again and Reformed Christians?  Let me show you.  The Preamble says:

Christians are heirs of a 2,000-year tradition of proclaiming God's word, seeking justice in our societies, resisting tyranny, and reaching out with compassion to the poor, oppressed and suffering.

While fully acknowledging the imperfections and shortcomings of Christian institutions and communities in all ages, we claim the heritage of those Christians who defended innocent life by rescuing discarded babies from trash heaps in Roman cities and publicly denouncing the Empire's sanctioning of infanticide. We remember with reverence those believers who sacrificed their lives by remaining in Roman cities to tend the sick and dying during the plagues, and who died bravely in the coliseums rather than deny their Lord.

After the barbarian tribes overran Europe, Christian monasteries preserved not only the Bible but also the literature and art of Western culture. It was Christians who combated the evil of slavery: Papal edicts in the 16th and 17th centuries decried the practice of slavery and first excommunicated anyone involved in the slave trade; evangelical Christians in England, led by John Wesley and William Wilberforce, put an end to the slave trade in that country. Christians under Wilberforce's leadership also formed hundreds of societies for helping the poor, the imprisoned, and child laborers chained to machines.  [See, Read the Declaration].

Already we have confusion.  The Declaration says that "Christians" have advocated social justice and "resisted tyranny, reaching out with compassion to the poor, oppressed and suffering."  And who are these "Christians" Colson is talking about?  Apparently the pope  is included, the same popes who cursed and condemned Protestants and burned Protestants at the stake!   Colson lauds the "papal edicts of the 16th and 17th centuries" simply because they stood on the right side of the slavery issue.  Excuse me but who was it who decided to burn the English martyrs at the stake?  Has Colson not read Fox's Book of Martyrs?  I might add Colson conveniently glosses over the fact that John Wesley vehemently attacked both George Whitefield and Augustus Toplady for being Calvinists and preaching the doctrines of grace.  I wonder how Wesley related to William Wilberforce on a personal level since Wilberforce was also a committed Calvinist?

So what else is there in the Declaration to which I object on doctrinal grounds? 

DECLARATION

We, as Orthodox, Catholic, and Evangelical Christians, have gathered, beginning in New York on September 28, 2009, to make the following declaration, which we sign as individuals, not on behalf of our organizations, but speaking to and from our communities. We act together in obedience to the one true God, the triune God of holiness and love, who has laid total claim on our lives and by that claim calls us with believers in all ages and all nations to seek and defend the good of all who bear his image. We set forth this declaration in light of the truth that is grounded in Holy Scripture, in natural human reason (which is itself, in our view, the gift of a beneficent God), and in the very nature of the human person. We call upon all people of goodwill, believers and non-believers alike, to consider carefully and reflect critically on the issues we here address as we, with St. Paul, commend this appeal to everyone's conscience in the sight of God.  [Ibid.]

Did you get that?  Colson uses deliberately ambiguous terms to sucker and deceive Evangelicals.  The terms "Orthodox" and "Catholic" mean "right doctrine" and "universal" in some contexts.  No Christian would disagree that we need to believe the right doctrines or that we need to advocate a universally applicable Gospel to all nations (Matthew 28:18-20; Mark 16:15-16; Acts 1:8).  But Colson and the other authors of the Manhattan Declaration do not mean any of that here.  The reference is clearly to the Eastern Orthodox Church and the Roman Catholic Church.  The document conveniently overlooks the Great Schism of 1054 between the Eastern Orthodox Church and Rome over the issue of papal supremacy and it overlooks the Protestant Reformation as if neither of those cataclysmic events ever took place! 

The next paragraph sounds majestic but further confuses the Gospel by implying that basis for unity between Christians is not the Gospel and the Holy Scriptures but "moral" concerns:

While the whole scope of Christian moral concern, including a special concern for the poor and vulnerable, claims our attention, we are especially troubled that in our nation today the lives of the unborn, the disabled, and the elderly are severely threatened; that the institution of marriage, already buffeted by promiscuity, infidelity and divorce, is in jeopardy of being redefined to accommodate fashionable ideologies; that freedom of religion and the rights of conscience are gravely jeopardized by those who would use the instruments of coercion to compel persons of faith to compromise their deepest convictions.  [Ibid.]

And finally the punch line:

We are Christians who have joined together across historic lines of ecclesial differences to affirm our right—and, more importantly, to embrace our obligation—to speak and act in defense of these truths. We pledge to each other, and to our fellow believers, that no power on earth, be it cultural or political, will intimidate us into silence or acquiescence. It is our duty to proclaim the Gospel of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ in its fullness, both in season and out of season. May God help us not to fail in that duty.  [Ibid.]

Did you get that?  The Manhattan Declaration says that the Eastern Orthodox Church, Roman Catholicism, and Evangelicals are all proclaiming "the Gospel of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ in its fullness . . ."

And Chuck Colson has the nerve to say that R.C. Sproul is a young, orthodox and naive Evangelical who refused to sign the Manhattan Declaration because Sproul has an "aversion to doctrine"?  (See, Sproul:  Why I Did Not Sign the Manhattan Declaration).   The utter absurdity of such a statement is ridiculous.  It is not merely the young who have refused to sign.  Many of us have a mind and have rejected the Manhattan Declaration on doctrinal grounds and not because of an "aversion to doctrine". 

If the Manhattan Declaration is any indication, theological liberalism is setting in.  Colson's theology is latitudinarian at best.  Major "Evangelical" magazines are selling out the Gospel to a false gospel of good works and moralism.  If The Episcopal Church and the Anglican provinces in the UK and Canada are any indication we can clearly see where Colson's thinking leads.  It leads to theological and ecclesiastical relativism, modernism, liberalism and eventually apostasy.  Basically for Colson and his liberal cronies co-belligerency becomes accepting Roman Catholics and the Eastern Orthodox as "Christians" and as "brothers" in Christ.  But are they?  Not according to the historical evidence and the Reformed Confessions of Faith:  Westminster Standards, Three Forms of Unity, and the Anglican Formularies.  (The Anglican Formularies are The Thirty-nine Articles of Religion of 1571, the 1662 Book of Common Prayer, and the Ordinal, which is included in the 1662 Book of Common Prayer).

What is ironic is that the Westminster Confession of 1646 said that the Roman Catholic Church and Eastern Orthodoxy were "synagogues of satan" because of their level of doctrinal impurity.  It also said that the pope  was an "antichrist".   (See, Chapter 25. Of the Church.  Westminster Confession, 1646.  See also, Article 19 of the Thirty-nine Articles of Religion.  See also, Belgic Confession: Chapter 25, of the Marks of the True Church).

For Colson becoming a Christian is some vague Christianity of the last 2,000 years, presumably a Christianity that includes all the heresies of medieval Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy.  And even more disturbing, Colson expects Christians to blindly follow the leader to hell if necessary.  He uses the brainwashing techniques used in military boot camp as an illustration:

The psychology of boot camp is instructive. The first six weeks are spent—figuratively speaking, mostly—beating out of recruits every habit, attitude, and preconceived notion about life and the world. You are told you are worthless and are "not a special snowflake," as Campbell says. You are now part of the Marine Corps and will do what the drill instructor says. Period.  [Doctrinal Boot Camp].

If this sort of thinking does not alarm Calvinists, I wonder what would alarm them?  Colson reveals his true motive here.  He wants to brainwash Christians and have them blindly follow their pastors and other religious leaders without question.  He advocates "beating out" of new converts any tendency to read and study Scripture for themselves or think for themselves.  Such a view not only throws out the priesthood of believers but it totally rejects the doctrine of private interpretation of Scripture.   (See 1 John 4:1-3; John 5:39; 2  Timothy 3:15-17; 2 Timothy 2:15; 2 Peter 1:19-21; 2 John 1:7-11). Private interpretation does not exclude confessions of faith in writing or the creeds.  But it does mean that the Christian is to examine fallible documents by the Word of God and that would include examining the contents of sermons and testing those sermons by the creeds, confessions and by the ultimate and final rule of faith:  Holy Scripture.  Sola Scriptura!

Colson's view is more in line with the top down mentality of Roman Catholicism than with the Protestant Reformation.  One has to suspect that his view has been tainted by reconstructionism and theonomy, another theological error which Colson endorses.  In fact, the Manhattan Declaration and other ecumenical compromises are the perfect illustration of why theonomy and reconstructionism are in fact theological heresies.  Both emphasize the here and now and social action above the two kingdom theology of Scripture and therefore preach another gospel, which is no gospel at all.  (Galatians 1:6-9; 2 Corinthians 11:3-4).  Fact is, Roman Catholics and theonomy have more in common with each other than theonomy has in common with the true Gospel and biblical Christianity as it is expounded in the Westminster Standards, the Three Forms of Unity, and the Anglican Formularies.


May the peace of God be with you,

Charlie



Postscript:  Belgic Confession:  Chapter 25,  Of the Marks of the True Church

We believe that we ought to discern diligently and very carefully from the Word of God what is the true church, for all sects which are in the world today claim for themselves the name of church.[1] We are not speaking here of the hypocrites, who are mixed in the church along with the good and yet are not part of the church, although they are outwardly in it.[2] We are speaking of the body and the communion of the true church which must be distinguished from all sects that call themselves the church.

The true church is to be recognized by the following marks: It practises the pure preaching of the gospel.[3] It maintains the pure administration of the sacraments as Christ instituted them.[4] It exercises church discipline for correcting and punishing sins.[5] In short, it governs itself according to the pure Word of God,[6] rejecting all things contrary to it[7] and regarding Jesus Christ as the only Head.[8] Hereby the true church can certainly be known and no one has the right to separate from it.

Those who are of the church may be recognized by the marks of Christians. They believe in Jesus Christ the only Saviour,[9] flee from sin and pursue righteousness,[10] love the true God and their neighbour[11] without turning to the right or left, and crucify their flesh and its works.[12] Although great weakness remains in them, they fight against it by the Spirit all the days of their life.[13] They appeal constantly to the blood, suffering, death, and obedience of Jesus Christ, in whom they have forgiveness of their sins through faith in Him.[14]

The false church assigns more authority to itself and its ordinances than to the Word of God. It does not want to submit itself to the yoke of Christ.[15] It does not administer the sacraments as Christ commanded in His Word, but adds to them and subtracts from them as it pleases. It bases itself more on men than on Jesus Christ. It persecutes those who live holy lives according to the Word of God and who rebuke the false church for its sins, greed, and idolatries.[16]

These two churches are easily recognized and distinguished from each other.

[1] Rev 2:9. [2] Rom 9:6. [3] Gal 1:8; 1 Tim 3:15. [4] Acts 19:3-5; 1 Cor 11:20-29. [5] Mt 18:15-17; 1 Cor 5:4, 5, 13; 2 Thess 3:6, 14; Tit 3:10. [6] Jn 8:47; Jn 17:20; Acts 17:11; Eph 2:20; Col 1:23; 1 Tim 6:3. [7] 1 Thess 5:21; 1 Tim 6:20; Rev 2:6. [8] Jn 10:14; Eph 5:23; Col 1:18. [9] Jn 1:12; 1 Jn 4:2. [10] Rom 6:2; Phil 3:12. [11] 1 Jn 4:19-21. [12] Gal 5:24. [13] Rom 7:15; Gal 5:17. [14] Rom 7:24, 25; 1 Jn 1:7-9. [15] Acts 4:17, 18; 2 Tim 4:3, 4; 2 Jn 9. [16] Jn 16:2.

--

Reasonable Christian Blog Glory be to the Father, and to the Son : and to the Holy Ghost; Answer. As it was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be : world without end. Amen. 1662 Book of Common Prayer

Bishop N. T. Wright: Reason Takes Precedence in the Homosexuality Debate

Obviously, Wright knows that following sinful desires is absolutely wrong but instead of sticking with Scripture as the final authority and church tradition as a secondary authority against homosexual behavior, he wishes to appeal to reason as the ultimate authority. Hence, he says that homosexuality is open for debate but polygamy or heterosexual promiscuity is not. Clearly, Wright's agenda is to muddy the waters with gray areas and ambiguity and relativism just as any theological liberal would. For Wright God's law is open for revision by modern standards of political correctness and modern cultural relativism. Wright reveals himself as a false prophet here and all should view him with extreme skepticism.