A Brief Response to Last Sunday's Election Sermon by Dr. Neil Stewart

 

A Short Response to Last Sunday’s Election Sermon by Dr. Neil Stewart

 

Sermon Text:  Romans 13:1-7 ESV.  1 Timothy 2:1-6 ESV

 

This post is about First Presbyterian Church, Columbia, South Carolina.  The current pastor is Dr. Neil Stewart, who is an Irishman who testifies that he was converted in northern Ireland under the ministry of Dr. Derek Thomas. 

Although this sermon was overall very good and to the point, there were a few objectionable portions which I would like to address.  In the spirit of fairness, therefore, I will give a commentary on the video which is posted on YouTube with appropriate minute marks.  To give brevity to this article I will only comment on the objectionable portions.  The reader is invited to listen to the entire video in context here:  November 3^rd, 2024.

In this sermon, Dr. Stewart addresses the comparison of theonomy with the enduring moral law.  He also addresses the issue of woke ideology and the Frankfort school of Marxism.  Modern day Marxists have applied Marxist ideology to racial inequality and sexual orientation.  Unfortunately, Dr. Stewart was not clear on where he lands on these issues.  His sermon is mostly descriptive, not a defense of the biblical view of these things.  The most telling prevarication in the sermon is when he gets into the issue of gay marriage.  At around the 1:21:30 minute mark, Dr. Stewart makes the following remark verbatim:

“So gay marriage for example—now if you’re homosexual, hetero,uh, uh, or same sex attracted,  you are welcome in this church.  Your sins are no dirtier than mine.  We both need the same Savior.”

On the surface these seem like benign remarks.  It was an ex-tempore remark in the middle of a sermon.  However, knowing the theological commitments of mainstream Evangelical Presbyterianism, I can tell you that the doctrine of common grace lies beneath this compromise.  The idea that evangelism and mission is more important than biblical exegesis, systematic theology, and the Reformed confessional standards is the reason that large denominations go liberal. 

The problem here is that Dr. Stewart indirectly acknowledges that same sex attraction is due to some sort of inborn biological or genetic predisposition.  The ideology of sexual orientation was in fact invented by socialists who were pushing the sexual revolution in order to radically redefine western culture.  Dr. Stewart does touch on this in his description of woke ideology.  The problem is that he never gives the biblical answer to the problem.  The Bible teaches that sin comes from the fall of Adam and original sin.  The doctrine of total depravity or total inability means that a homosexual person is unable to repent unless and until God Himself regenerates that person and makes him or her free from their slavery to sexual immorality.

 

The late Dr. Gordon H. Clark, an expert in philosophy and apologetics, rebutted the argument that there is a biological predisposition to sin in his commentary on the Westminster Confession of Faith, chapter 9, Of Free Will.  The confession says:

 

I. God hath endued the will of man with that natural liberty, that is neither forced, nor by any absolute necessity of nature determined, to good or evil.a

 

a.      Deut 30:19; Mat 17:12; James 1:14.  [See:  Chapter IX, Of Free Will]

 

If you will read the chapter carefully, you will see that paragraph I is talking about Adam’s will prior to the fall.  The other paragraphs talk about man’s condition after the fall.  And in paragraphs III and IV the natural man under natural bondage is a reference to the total and complete corruption of fallen man’s human nature.  The image of God has not been eradicated because man is a rational creature.  But the image of God is so thoroughly corrupted that he is unable to think only good thoughts anymore.  He is unable to free himself from sin.  But the problem is a spiritual problem of the soul, not a biological problem:

What then does the Confession mean by the natural liberty of the will?  The remainder of the section quoted answers this question as well as two lines can.  Man’s will “is neither forced, nor by any absolute necessity of nature determined . . .”  These words were written to repudiate those philosophies which explain human conduct in terms of physico-chemical law.  Although the Westminster divines did not know twentieth century behaviorism, nor even Spinoza, they very probably knew Thomas Hobbes, and they certainly knew earlier materialistic theories.  That man’s conduct is determined by inanimate forces is what the Confession denies.  Man is not a machine; his motions cannot be described by mathematical equations as can the motions of the planets.  His hopes, plans and activities are not controlled by physical conditions.  He is not determined by any absolute necessity of nature.

Furthermore, Dr. Stewart’s remark that homosexual sins are no dirtier than his sin is flat wrong.  How do I know this?  I know because the Westminster Larger Catechism says so without any equivocation whatsoever.  Some sins are more egregiously evil than other sins.  Even our criminial justice system shows this.  The Marxist ideology wants to make all crime the same and to make the criminal the victim of an unjust and racist system.  They want to make the homosexual a victim instead of a pervert who has violated the moral law of God.  To his credit, Dr. Stewart does mention some of this in his summary of woke ideology.  But to say that all sins are equal in the eyes of God, as he implied, is a direct contradiction of the Bible and the Westminster Larger Catechism with proof texts. 

Dr. Stewart correctly distinguishes between the moral law, the civil law of Old Testament Israel, and the ceremonial and sacrificial laws of the Old Testament.  He rejects theonomy on steroids and correctly says that the civil laws of Israel passed away with that nation.  However, he correctly says that the moral law is forever binding on both unbelievers and believers.  The Westminster Standards deals with this in the Confession and the Larger and Shorter Catechisms.  However, due to the brevity of this article I will not cite or quote those sections here.

However, to show that Dr. Stewart incorrectly equated homosexual sins with heterosexual sins and other sins, you can read the WLC questions and answers below:

 

Q. 150. Are all transgressions of the law of God equally heinous in themselves, and in the sight of God?

A. All transgressions of the law of God are not equally heinous; but some sins in themselves, and by reason of several aggravations, are more heinous in the sight of God than others.

 

John 19:11; Ezek. 8:6, 13, 15; 1 John 5:16; Ps. 78:17, 32, 56.

 

Q. 151. What are those aggravations that make some sins more heinous than others?

A. Sins receive their aggravations,

 

1. From the persons offending: if they be of riper age, greater experience or grace, eminent for profession, gifts, place, office, guides to others, and whose example is likely to be followed by others.

 

2. From the parties offended: if immediately against God, his attributes, and worship; against Christ, and his grace; the Holy Spirit, his witness, and workings; against superiors, men of eminency, and such as we stand especially related and engaged unto; against any of the saints, particularly weak brethren, the souls of them or any other, and the common good of all or many.

 

3. From the nature and quality of the offence: if it be against the express letter of the law, break many commandments, contain in it many sins: if not only conceived in the heart, but break forth in words and actions, scandalize others, and admit of no reparation: if against means, mercies, judgments, light of nature, conviction of conscience, public or private admonition, censures of the church, civil punishments; and our prayers, purposes, promises, vows, covenants, and engagements to God or men: if done deliberately, wilfully, presumptuously, impudently, boastingly, maliciously, frequently, obstinately, with delight, continuance, or relapsing after repentance.

 

4. From circumstances of time and place: if on the Lord’s day, or other times of divine worship; or immediately before or after these, or other helps to prevent or remedy such miscarriages: if in public, or in the presence of others, who are thereby likely to be provoked or defiled.

 

Jer. 2:8; Job 32:7, 9; Ecc. 4:13; 1 Kings 11:4, 9; 2 Sam. 12:14; 1 Cor. 5:1; Jas. 4:17; Luke 12:47-48; Jer. 5:4-5; 2 Sam. 12:7-9; Ezek. 8:11-12; Rom. 2:17-24; Gal. 2:11-14; Matt. 21:38-39; 1 Sam. 2:25; Acts 5:4; Ps. 51:4; Rom. 2:4; Mal. 1:8, 14; Heb. 2:2-3; Heb. 12:25; Heb. 10:29; Matt. 12:31-32; Eph. 4:30; Heb. 6:4-6; Jude 1:8; Num. 12:8-9; Isa. 3:5; Prov. 30:17; 2 Cor. 12:15; Ps. 55:12-15; Zeph. 2:8, 10-11; Matt. 18:6; 1 Cor. 6:8; Rev. 17:6; 1 Cor. 8:11-12; Rom. 14:13, 15, 21; Ezek. 13:19; 1 Cor. 8:12; Rev. 18:12-13; Matt. 23:15; 1 Thess. 2:15-16; Josh. 22:20; Prov. 6:30-33; Ezra 9:10-12; 1 Kings 11:9-10; Col. 3:5; 1 Tim. 6:10; Prov. 5:8-12; Prov. 6:32-33; Josh. 7:21; Jas. 1:14-15; Matt. 5:22; Mic. 2:1; Matt. 18:7; Rom. 2:23-24; Deut. 22:22, 28-29; Prov. 6:32-35; Matt. 11:21-24; John 15:22; Isa. 1:3; Deut. 32:6; Amos 4:8-11; Jer. 5:3; Rom. 1:26-27; Rom. 1:32; Dan. 5:22; Titus 3:10-11; Prov. 29:1; Titus 3:10; Matt. 18:17; Prov. 27:22: Prov. 23:35; Ps. 78:34-37; Jer. 2:20; Jer. 42:5-6, 20, 21; Ecc. 5:4-6; Prov. 20:25; Lev. 26:25; Prov. 2:17; Ezek. 17:18-19; Ps. 36:4; Jer. 6:16; Num. 15:30; Ex. 21:14; Jer. 3:3; Prov. 7:13; Ps. 52:1; 3 John 1:10; Num. 14:22; Zech. 7:11-12; Prov. 2:14; Isa. 57:17; Jer. 34:8-11; 2 Pet. 2:20-22; 2 Kings 5:26; Jer. 7:10; Isa. 26:10; Ezek. 23:37-39; Isa. 58:3-5; Num. 25:6-7; 1 Cor. 11:20-21; Jer. 7:8-10; Prov. 7:14-15; John 13:27, 30; Ezra 9:13-14; 2 Sam. 16:22; 1 Sam. 2:22-24.

 

Q. 152. What doth every sin deserve at the hands of God?

A. Every sin, even the least, being against the sovereignty, goodness, and holiness of God, and against his righteous law, deserveth his wrath and curse, both in this life, and that which is to come; and cannot be expiated but by the blood of Christ.

 

Jas. 2:10-11; Ex. 20:1-2; Hab. 1:13; Lev. 10:3; Lev. 11:44-45; 1 John 3:4; Rom. 7:12; Eph. 5:6; Gal. 3:10; Lam. 3:39; Deut. 28:15-68; Matt. 25:41; Heb. 9:22; 1 Pet. 1:18-19.

 

Q. 153. What doth God require of us, that we may escape his wrath and curse due to us by reason of the transgression of the law?

A. That we may escape the wrath and curse of God due to us by reason of the transgression of the law, he requireth of us repentance toward God, and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ, and the diligent use of the outward means whereby Christ communicates to us the benefits of his mediation.

 

Acts 20:21; Matt. 3:7-8; Luke 13:3, 5; Acts 16:30-31; John 3:16, 18; Prov. 2:1-5; Prov. 8:33-36.

 

[See:  The Westminster Larger Catechism 150-153.]