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 extempore 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.  

Dr. Gordon H. Clark.  What Do Presbyterians Believe?  The Westminster Confession of Faith Yesterday and Today.  1965.  Second edition.  John Robbins, ed.  (The Trinity Foundation:  Unicoi, 2001).  P. 106.

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.  Due to the brevity of this article I will not cite or quote those sections here.

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 publick, 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.]

 

 

 

 

 

Is There a Universally Recognized Human Right to Homosexual Immorality and Same Sex Marriage?

It is quite frustrating to see Evangelical theologians missing the whole point in their comments about homosexuality, transgenderism, and same sex marriage.  The vast majority of them are trying to find common ground with secular humanists who have invented their own facade which they call "human rights."  [See:  Is Same Sex Marriage a "Human Right"?]  The real question is who decides what these human rights are and how is the deduction made?  Is there an objective standard for determining morality?

This where I am strongly an advocate of the late Dr. Gordon H. Clark's presuppositionalism.  According to Dr. Clark's apologetics, everyone starts with undemonstrable and unprovable axioms or starting points.  This is clearly true of empirical science as well since empiricism is really based on logical positivism of one degree or another.  In fact, Dr. Clark went so far  as to say that empirical science is based on the fallacy of affirming the consequent.  Basically, a theory is a presupposition and the scientist finds every inductive evidence he or she can to affirm the theory.  So why is it that two scientists can examine the same inductive evidence with two different theories and come up with affirming conclusions for two different presupposed theories from the same evidence?  Even scientists are fideists.  [See:  Science and Truth].

The answer, of course, is that they have affirmed the conclusion beforehand.  If it is raining, the streets are wet.  The streets are wet, therefore it is raining.   If A, then B.  B, therefore A.  Of course there could many other factors involved that could cause the streets to be wet.

Logical positivism is self refuting because it says that only what can be learned from the five senses is legimately knowledge.  But the beginning premise is itself not capable of observation since it is an abstract proposition that can only be thought with the mind.  Do animals understand the proposition that 2 + 2 = 4?

To cut the argument short I would ask the question that if everyone--including scientists--begins with presupposed axioms, why would the world at large fault the Christian for beginning with the axiom of Scripture?  All knowledge for the Christian worldview begins with Scripture as the axiom.  Scripture is the God-breathed Word of God.  Every single word is fully inspired by God.  (2 Timothy 3:16; Matthew 4:4; 2 Peter 1:19-21; Psalm 119:89).

I keep repeating this point but it is worth repeating again.  Is the human mind just a product of chemistry in a body, a brain of grey matter?  Or is the human mind really a soul created by God through providence and natural generation?  Philosophers of science have yet to solve the mind/body problem.  Exactly how does the brain produce a thinking and sentient soul in the first place?  Yet we have psychologists and psychiatrists pronouncing yet another fallacy of affirming the consequent.  If there are genetic and biological predetermining factors that could cause homosexuality and transgender dysphoria, then there will be homosexuals and persons with transgender dysphoria.  There are actually homosexuals and transgender confused persons, therefore homosexuality and transgender dysphoria must be caused by genetic and biological predispositions of the human body.  But presupposing this is again affirming the consequent.  If A, then B.  B, therefore A.

The fact that no empirical scientist can demonstrate how a brain can manifest a thinking and sentient soul should raise questions about the logical fallacy of presupposing a confused individual was born with a man's body and a woman's mind or vice versa.  Just because a person has same sex attractions, does that prove that the person was biologically or genetically predetermined to that lifestyle or attraction?  The cause could be psychological disorders rather than genetics or biology.  Presupposing that the streets are wet because it is raining ignores the fact that the street could be wet because a water line broke some other place and flooded the area.   The same is true of presupposing the consequent and finding causes to support the consequent.  There could be any number of other causes underlying homosexuality and transgenderism.

Finally, do we know that there is some set of human rights that everyone universally is entitled to?  According to secular humanism these rights are "universally recognized."  But is that statement itself true?  Obviously not since every culture has different customs.  In ancient Greek and Roman societies sexual promiscuity and homosexuality and even pedophilia were commonly accepted practices.  In Christian societies these are taboos.  In short, presupposing a set of human rights based on popular opinion is a contradiction because there is no universally recognizable authority for developing a set of human rights.  Popular vote does not determine morality per se because morality is maleable and relative to each society.  Unless there is a deontological basis for morality there can be only a totalitarian determination of morality by the state.  For Christianity there is a higher authority than human opinions.  That authority is the Word of God, the Holy Scriptures.  We ought to obey the governing authorities and the civil authority.  (Romans 13:1-14).  But when the government commands Christians to accept homosexual marriage, transgenderism, and the murder of unborn babies, the Christian has a higher obligation to obey God rather than man.  (Acts 4:19, 5:29).  In recent comments President Obama said that Christians must accept the dogma of secular humanism and change the teaching of the Scriptures.  [See:  Christian Churches 'Must be Made to Affirm Homosexuality'].  The dogma of homosexual marriage and transgenderism is soon to be a legally enforced doctrine of the socialist state.  The same thing has been said by Hillary Clinton in regards to abortion.  Christians must accept the dehumanization of human babies or face legal sanctions, according to Clinton.  [See: Hillary Clinton: Force Christians to Change Their Religious Views to Support Abortion].

[Cf. Leviticus 18:22-23; Romans 1:27; 1 Corinthians 6:9-11; Genesis 19:5; Judges 19:22; Deuteronomy 22:5; Leviticus 19:28; 1 Kings 18:28]

I will ask this question again.  Which god is it that gives human beings the right to murder infants and practice perversions like homosexuality and mutilate their bodies to look like the opposite biological sex?  (2 Corinthians 4:3-6).  

Is Donald Trump any better?  No.  Trump is for using tax dollars to fund Planned Parenthood, which exists solely for women's health issues.   Of course, the term "women's health" in liberal jargon means the right to murder an infant in the womb at any stage of development from conception up to just prior to a normal birth at nine months.  Viability is not the determining factor but sheer dehumanization of a human person.  Even Hillary Clinton acknowledged that an unborn child is a person in a rare slip of the tongue:   [Hillary Clinton Admits That Abortion Kills a ‘Person’].   Donald Trump is a relativist in regards to morality as his affirmation of the LGBTQ lobby clearly shows.  Trump is no friend of Evangelical Christianity and to affirm his candidacy is the same as attacking Christianity since he would uphold totalitarian laws restricting religious freedom and theological dissent from the dogmas of the secular humanism state.

For the Christian the final authority in all matters of morality, faith, and practice is not the secularist state or socialism.  Instead the Christian is obligated to obey God when there is a conflict between state dogma and biblical deontological morality.  The Christian cannot in good conscience obey laws that command him or her to recognize a perversion as "marriage" or obey laws that command them to recognize a woman's right to murder her unborn baby at any stage after conception up to and including just prior to a normal birth.  The sixth commandment says, "Thou shalt not murder."   (Exodus 20:13).  The Bible is a book that is logical and propositional in nature and it is perfectly legitimate to logically deduce civil and judicial laws based on the morality revealed in the general principles of the Decalogue and the other moral laws revealed in Holy Scripture.  [See Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter 1:6].

 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).   WCF 1:6.

In short, true Christians are at this time a small minority or remnant in the United States of America and around the world.  Most of the western countries are now openly socialist, materialistic, and hostile to biblical Christianity.  Persecution is just around the corner.  How much longer will the liberal media and the totalitarian state be content with religious freedom?  They are already willing to take away the second amendment right to bear arms.  The freedom of speech and freedom of religion is also on their hit list as relative to the socialist and secular humanist agenda to stamp out the archaic religions of the past and replace them with theological relativism and secular atheism.  Those who are supporting Trump are not offering a legitimate alternate but simply affirming the same result but with a different leader.  Trump is willing to equivocate and dissimulate to win the Evangelical vote.  But in the end Trump's agenda is no different from the agenda of the far left.  His only points of difference with them is on the issue of open borders and free trade or the Transpacific Partnership.  Other than that Trump is still a socially progressive liberal.  But the question is how is it progress when America is regressing to atheism and paganism rather than staying true to the Christian values deduced from the Bible?  It is the rule of law that is deduced logically from the Scriptures that has made our nation great and that has caused western civilization to advance peace around the world.  Instead the secularists want to exalt an intolerant pluralism that does not include the right to believe the Bible literally as it is logically and propositionally revealed from God himself.  The best summary of the system of propositional truth in the Holy Scriptures is the Westminster Confession of Faith.

Humans alone are created in the image of God.  Since God is a spiritual being with no body, it logically follows that the image of God cannot be a material body.   (John 4:24).  It is man's soul which is spiritual and immaterial and it is this spiritual and immaterial soul that is the image of God.  God, being Logic (John 1:1), enlightens every man with the ability to think.  (John 1:9).  Man is not a tabula rasa at birth but is innately endowed with the ability to reason, think logically, keep time, remember the past, and examine contingencies to predict various outcomes for future events.   [See:  The Image of God in Man, by Dr. Gordon H. Clark].  If morality is relative to culture, then morality changes with culture.  The basic premise of secular humanism is that deontological ethics deduced from the archaic Scriptures of Christianity is subject to revision.   Tomorrow it might be perfectly fine to eliminate subhuman homeless persons who have nothing to contribute to society.  Unborn babies are merely a source of human body parts used to enhance the lives of those better able to pay for this service and who have something more significant to contribute to a socialist utopia.  Any political or theological dissent based on an objective standard of morality is intolerable to the secularists.  Although they pretend to be tolerant the one thing they cannot tolerate is legislating morality.  Instead they prefer to legislate immorality and outlaw religious dissent based on the proposition that the Bible is the plenary and verbally inspired words of God and without error in every proposition recorded therein.

Thinking Christians need to stand for the truth and make it known that relativism and progressivism is not an option and that they are willing to suffer persecution if necessary.   Those so-called Evangelical  churches that are more concerned with not losing their tax exempt status--read state licensed or state controlled churches--are not faithful to the Scriptures but to the state.  This distinction will become even more evident as time goes on.

Some so-called Scripturalists are libertarians or libertines.  They believe the axiom that nothing is wrong except what harms another person.  But the Decalogue and the Scriptures disagree.  Leaving out the first table of the Ten Commandments is unconscionable.  Belief in the God of the Bible is the very bedrock of a democratic and constitutional Republic.  Without the Bible the rule of law means nothing.  I end with the question,  "How do you deduce a libertarian political philosophy from the logical and propositional system revealed in the Bible by good and necessary consequence?"

Charlie J. Ray, M.Div.

Accommodation to Culture: Liberalism in the Southern Baptist Convention

"Heresy is basically intellectual; but it results in evil conduct just as orthodox belief produces sanctification. The reason deserves emphasis wherever people propose a non-doctrinal Christianity. What a man does is controlled by what he thinks. Lewd conduct is always the result of wrong ideas. Similarly orthodox theology inevitably produces good works."  -- Dr. Gordon H. Clark



First Baptist Church, Greenville, South Carolina to Accept Unrepentant Homosexuals into Membership.


I didn't take the time to research and verify that the story in the above link is accurate in associating First Baptist Church of Greenville, South Carolina with the Southern Baptist Convention.  However, taking the following story at face value, it would appear that some Baptists think that liberty of conscience means that Christians have no obligation to obey God's moral law.  Nothing could be further from the truth.  (Ezekiel 36:26-27).  Liberty of conscience has traditionally been interpreted to mean that no Christian is obligated to believe anything that cannot be demostrated or proved from Scripture.  It has never meant that the Bible means whatever you want it to mean.  Just as the prophets were moved by God to speak the very words of God and their words were not their own private interpretation of the revelation, so we as individuals cannot make the objective and propositional statements in Scripture say something we privately want it to say.  The word of God is perspicuous and clear and plain.  (2 Peter 1:18-21).

However, to be clear about the issues, Jim Dant, the senior pastor of First Baptist Church, Greenville, South Carolina is openly rejecting church discipline and the Bible and accepting unrepentant and open homosexuals into membership in his church.  Since the church is under a congregational form of government, it follows that the deacons and elders in the church as well as the congregation are all in full agreement with this outright rejection of God's written Word.  In light of the increasing apostasy of our nation and our Evangelical churches the following remarks of Dr. Gordon H. Clark are indeed prophetic.

Dr. Gordon H. Clark's commentary on 2 Peter 2:2.

2 Peter 2:2 (NKJV)
2 And many will follow their destructive ways, because of whom the way of truth will be blasphemed.

"For some unimportant verbal parallels see Romans 2:24, Psalm 119:30, and Acts 16:17, 19:9, 23. Heresy is basically intellectual; but it results in evil conduct just as orthodox belief produces sanctification. The reason deserves emphasis wherever people propose a non-doctrinal Christianity. What a man does is controlled by what he thinks. Lewd conduct is always the result of wrong ideas. Similarly orthodox theology inevitably produces good works. When the Jews attacked Paul's doctrine of justification by faith alone, he replied that justification necessarily produces sanctification. There is no such thing as dead orthodoxy. Right thinking is followed perforce by right living."

It is not enough, however, to condemn false doctrine. The evil conduct of heretics is usually more noticeable than their doctrinal divergences because uneducated Christians are often deceived by poor reasoning. Furthermore, immorality is an immediately pressing problem, and Peter in his situation must deal with it energetically. The verse says that the false teachers will make many disciples and the disciples will bring the Christian community into disrepute. So they did."

Dr. Gordon H. Clark. New Heavens, New Earth: A Commentary on First and Second Peter. 1967. 1972. Second Edition. (Jefferson: Trinity Foundation, 1993). P. 202-203.

Addendum:  Apparently this church and one other Baptist church in South Carolina have been disaffiliated from their association with the SBC over their position on gay marriage:  After Same Sex Wedding, Baptists Sever Ties with Greenville Church.

Southern Baptist Pastor Comes Out in Favor of Homosexual Rebellion

The following story confirms my other post below:   Anglicans Ablaze: Southern Baptist Pastor Comes Out in Favor of Homosexual Rebellion.

Who Says Liberal Churches Are Dying Out? Liberal Methodist Booked for Six Months

The common myth is that "conservative" Christianity is prevailing, prospering and growing both numerically and spiritually.  Unfortunately the propaganda does not seem to agree.  Some reports indicate that conservative denominations are losing active members as well.  And from the number of active supporters of social action/social gospel denominations--even if they are losing members--it would appear that liberal denominations are alive and well.  The Presbyterian Church USA, for example, has more active members than either the Presbyterian Church in America or the Orthdox Presbyterian Church, both conservative theologically.

Recently Frank Schaefer, a United Methodist pastor, was defrocked for refusing to agree not to perform any further gay marriages.  He refused.   Now he has been booked solidly for six months to speak at liberal congregations and gay events.  It would seem that he gained at least a temporary income base as a reward for his rebellion against the discipline of his denomination.  (See:  Frank Schaefer Headlines DC Gay Pride Event.)

While the visible church is supposed to be prophetic challenge to the world, it seems that the conservative churches are increasingly thinking that if the enemy cannot be beaten, why not join them?  After all, the cost of disagreeing with the propaganda of the secular humanists and socialists in popular media is that your denomination will be considered "fundamentalist" or "hyper-Calvinist" and no one will want to come to join your local congregations.  Since when did numbers or financial income determine the truth of the Scriptures?

Charlie

New Evangelicals Cave to the Homosexual Agenda: Gays Created in the Image of God

The Aquila Report posted an article that says that Focus on the Family, Liberty University, and a few other celebrity ministers are all saying that gays are created in the image of God.  The message is meant to equivocate on the issue in order to make Evangelicalism seem kinder and more loving toward sinners.  You can read the Aquila Report article here:  The Imago Dei Campaign:  Evangelical Groups Say Gays Made in God's Image.

Unfortunately, nowhere in the article is a definition of the image of God given.  The implication of the message is that there is nothing wrong with homosexuality.  The late Gordon H. Clark defined the image of God precisely.  He deduced from the Scriptures that since God is a spirit the image of God cannot be the physical body.  God has no physical body.   (John 4:24).  Furthermore, since the soul is a spiritual being that exists in the temple we call the body, it is the mind or soul that is the image of God, according to Dr. Clark.  The architecture of God's mind is logical and rational.  (John 1:1).  Since man is created in that same image man is likewise a rational and logical creature.   (John 1:9; Romans 12:1-2).

Technically, then, the Evangelical compromisers and equivocators are correct.  Homosexuals, reprobates, sinners, and criminals are all created in the image of God.  However, that image has been totally corrupted such that the rational mind of sinners has been darkened.  (Romans 1:21).  It should be noted that in Romans 1:21 the "heart" thinks and is therefore equivalent to the mind.   (Proverbs 23:7).  According to the Apostle Paul this darkening of the heart and mind by sin leads to the kind of idolatry that produces the perversions of lesbianism and male homosexuality:

. . . because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Professing to be wise, they became fools, 23 and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man-- and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things. 24 Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves, 25 who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen. 26 For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. 27  Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due. 28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a debased mind, to do those things which are not fitting; (Romans 1:21-28 NKJ) 

These so-called leaders on the Arminian side of Evangelicalism have the idea that they can persuade free wills to believe.  Therefore, they have decided to compromise the truth in hopes of seducing hardened sinners into believing a softer, kinder Gospel message.  Unfortunately, God is sovereign and needs no one to complete Himself.  God is not begging or pleading with reprobates to be saved.  He simply commands them to repent or change their minds and their thinking by way of the moral law.  (Matthew 3:2; Luke 13:1-5).

 Dr. Clark never wavered on the biblical doctrine of the image of God.  You can read his article on the image of God here:  The Image of God.  (PDF format).  Rev. Angus Stewart's article on the image of God is worth your close reading, also:  The Image of God in Man:  A Reformed Reassessment.  See also Dr. John Robbin's discussion of the image of God:

More Nonsense from the Van Tilian Pariah of Paradox: R. Scott Clark Says God Did Not Ordain Evil

By the decree of God, for the manifestation of His glory, some men and angels are predestinated unto everlasting life, and others foreordained to everlasting death. 

-- Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter 3:3

Somewhere along the line R. Scott Clark got brave and decided to tackle the question of why homosexuals are homosexuals.  The trouble is he contradicts Scripture and himself all along the way.  Of course, R. S. Clark is right when he says that God created Adam and Eve perfect, and there were no sexual deviants prior to the fall. But Scotty cannot decide if he agrees with Scripture and the Westminster Confession of Faith when both declare that all things come to pass by God's particular providence and divine decrees.  His response is that God did not "make" homosexuals that way:

So, no, it’s not true that “God made me this way.” All sin, including homosexuality, is a consequence of the fall but God did not make anything fallen. Our sinful dispositions, attitudes, and acts are the consequences of our fall in Adam. We sin because we’re sinners. On analogy with the other sins forbidden by God’s law, why can’t the idolater, the coveter, the thief, the heterosexual fornicator or adulterer or the murderer make the same argument? Of course he can’t! God has not violated his own law. God did not sin. He did not corrupt the world. We did.

“That may be,” one might argue “but isn’t God in control of all that happens? If so, why did he ordain that I should be born with these inclinations?” Again, as a consequence of the fall, every human is born with sinful inclinations. There are as many ways to transgress God’s law as there are imaginations and people. We are deeply corrupted by sin. Every faculty of our soul is corrupted by sin. We do not think as we ought. We do not will as we ought and we do not love as we ought. By nature, Scripture teachers [sic], we are inclined to hate God and our neighbor.

If you’re asking if I can explain how God can be sovereign over all things and not morally liable for the evil that happens in the world, I reply by saying that’s a great mystery to which no one has ever offered a completely satisfactory answer.  [From:  Gay Christians? (2)]

Dr. R. Scott Clark must be reading a different Bible than the one I read.  Or maybe he just cannot bring himself to accept what the Bible plainly says.  Any plow boy can read the text and see that God ordains evil.  And the Westminster Confession of Faith says plainly that this particularized providence extends even to the original fall of Adam.  Although God is not the author of sin, Scripture plainly says that all that comes to pass is ordained by God.  For Clark to say that he does not know where evil comes from or that God "did not corrupt the world" is to equivocate.   If he means that it was Adam's fault that God cursed the creation and all of Adam's progeny, then it would be correct that God "did not corrupt the world."  But if Clark means to say that evil just happens by itself (Proverbs 16:33), and that God did not curse Adam and the creation because of Adam's original sin, then obviously Scott Clark is not following Scripture or the Westminster Confession of Faith.  The Belgic Confession in Article 13 likewise says that nothing happens by chance, and everything that happens is ordained by God.

The clearest examples of Scott Clark's deliberate equivocation on this issue come from Scripture.  For one thing, the text in Genesis 3 clearly says that God cursed creation and all Adam's progeny because Adam disobeyed God.  So the evil we see is the result of both Adam's rebellion and God's curse placed on mankind.  Furthermore, the providence of God extends even to the original fall.

To the woman He said: "I will greatly multiply your sorrow and your conception; In pain you shall bring forth children; Your desire shall be for your husband, And he shall rule over you." 17 Then to Adam He said, "Because you have heeded the voice of your wife, and have eaten from the tree of which I commanded you, saying,`You shall not eat of it': "Cursed is the ground for your sake; In toil you shall eat of it All the days of your life. 18 Both thorns and thistles it shall bring forth for you, And you shall eat the herb of the field. 19 In the sweat of your face you shall eat bread Till you return to the ground, For out of it you were taken; For dust you are, And to dust you shall return." (Genesis 3:16-19 NKJ)

So it would appear that God's curse is the punishment and the justice He rendered as a result of Adam's rebellion.  Evil, therefore, is a result of God's curse.  Romans 5:16 and following shows this to be true as well:

And the gift is not like that which came through the one who sinned. For the judgment which came from one offense resulted in condemnation, but the free gift which came from many offenses resulted in justification. (Romans 5:16 NKJ)

All moral evil is the result of God's curse.  This is obvious because the tree of the knowledge of good and evil makes man aware of evil:

"but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die." (Genesis 2:17 NKJ)

The clincher here is that the Bible does say that God creates some vessels for destruction, which implies reprobates of every variety.  That would include by implication the homosexuals who refuse to repent.

The LORD has made all for Himself, Yes, even the wicked for the day of doom. (Proverbs 16:4 NKJ)

What if God, wanting to show His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, (Romans 9:22 NKJ)

God turns wicked men over to reprobation, according to Romans 1:18-32.  And in Romans 9:11-13, God hates Esau before he was born or had an opportunity to do good or evil.   Pharaoh is raised up for the very purpose that God would display His justice against the evil of men:

For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, "For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I may show My power in you, and that My name may be declared in all the earth." (Romans 9:17 NKJ)

Clearly, God's display of power in Pharaoh was demonstrated in the ten plagues and the wiping out of Pharaoh and his army in the Red Sea.  God was not exercising so-called "common grace" when He cursed Pharaoh.  The display of power mentioned in the text is clearly the execution of God's justice.  Furthermore, God predetermined everything that happened to Pharaoh.  Exodus 4:21 plainly says that God had predetermined to harden Pharaoh's heart, not that Pharaoh was punished because he first hardened his own heart.  Pharaoh could not have willed otherwise because he had no free will.

And the real clincher is that the Bible does tell us why there are homosexuals in the world today:

. . . because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Professing to be wise, they became fools, 23 and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man-- and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things. 24 Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves, 25 who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen. 26 For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. 27  Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due. 28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a debased mind, to do those things which are not fitting; (Romans 1:21-28 NKJ)

So homosexuality is a curse placed on idolaters by God.  Furthermore, God cursed all mankind after Adam's rebellion.  Homosexuality is one of the curses God placed on the reprobate.  Although some homosexuals may be elect and will be given the grace to repent and change their minds, the fact that homosexuals in general refuse to repent and are unable to change is proof of their reprobation.  Their excuse that God made them that way is no excuse; because even if God did make them that way, it was not a gift but a result of the curse God placed on Adam and all his progeny.  Even R. Scott Clark knows this, but he pretends he does not know it because he is more interested in appeasing worldly objectors than following the plain teaching of God's Word (2 Peter 1:19-21).

We can see this because R. Scott Clark admits that nothing God does is wrong:  "God has not violated his own law. God did not sin."  (Ibid.) Of course, what R. Scott Clark does not say is that God is subject to no law (Psalm 115:3; 135:6-12; Daniel 4:35).  The law is revealed to man for man's obedience, not God's obedience.  God needs no law outside Himself.  The moral law of God reveals our sin (Romans 3:20; 7:7).

Something else that R. S. Clark fails to mention is that total inability is no excuse for the sins of anyone who is reprobate, including homosexuals.  Simply because homosexuals are unable to change does not render them excused from obeying God's law.  This argument goes all the way back to Pelagius' and Augustine's debate.  Augustine's prayer seems to upset even Van Tilians:  "Lord, command what you will and grant what you command."

Because the carnal mind is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, nor indeed can be. (Romans 8:7 NKJ)

[See also:  Article 9 and Article 10 of the 39 Articles of Religion].

Furthermore, in response to R. Scott Clark's skepticism about God's decrees in regard to evil I must say that Isaiah 45:7 does not restrict "evil" to "calamities" but extends also to moral evil:

I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things. (Isaiah 45:7 KJV)

I find it ironic that Scott Clark says that he does not know where evil comes from.  The Bible says that both blessings and curses come from God:

Shall a trumpet be blown in the city, and the people not be afraid? shall there be evil in a city, and the LORD hath not done it? (Amos 3:6 KJV)

God not only creates homosexuals for destruction but He made them that way to display His justice (Romans 9:22; Proverbs 16:4).   Yet God is not the author of sin nor does He violate the volitions of moral agents.  They willingly do what they do even if they cannot will otherwise (James 1:13-17).  God will show mercy to whom He will show mercy and He will harden whom He will harden (Romans 9:16-18).  Paul's response to the objector here is that God can make any man whatever He wants to make him.  Shall the pot complain to the Potter, "Why did you make me a homosexual?"

Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus? 21  Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour? 22 What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction: (Romans 9:20-22 KJV)

And lastly, I will quote the Westminster Confession and the Belgic Confession to show that both say that God's providence leaves nothing to chance, including homosexuality:

Westminster Confession of Faith

Chapter 3: Of God's Eternal Decree

1. God, from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass:1 yet so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin,2 nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures; nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established.3

See also: WLC 12 | WSC 7


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1 Eph. 1:11; Rom. 11:33; Heb. 6:17; Rom. 9:15,18.

2 James 1:13,17; 1 John 1:5.

3 Acts 2:23; Matt. 17:12; Acts 4:27,28; John 19:11; Prov. 16:33.

2. Although God knows whatsoever may or can come to pass upon all supposed conditions,1 yet hath He not decreed anything because He foresaw it as future, or as that which would come to pass upon such conditions.2


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1 Acts 15:18; 1 Sam. 23:11,12; Matt. 11:21,23.

2 Rom. 9:11,13,16,18.

3. By the decree of God, for the manifestation of His glory, some men and angels1 are predestinated unto everlasting life, and others foreordained to everlasting death.2

See also: WLC 13


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1 1 Tim. 5:21; Matt. 25:41.

2 Rom. 9:22,23; Eph. 1:5,6; Prov. 16:4.

4. These angels and men, thus predestinated and foreordained, are particularly and unchangeably designed; and their number so certain and definite, that it cannot be either increased or diminished.1

See also: WLC 13


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1 2 Tim. 2:19; John 13:18.

5. Those of mankind that are predestinated unto life, God, before the foundation of the world was laid, according to His eternal and immutable purpose, and the secret counsel and good pleasure of His will, hath chosen in Christ unto everlasting glory,1 out of His mere free grace and love, without any foresight of faith or good works, or perserverance in either of them, or any other thing in the creature, as conditions, or causes moving Him thereunto;2 and all to the praise of His glorious grace.3


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1 Eph. 1:4,9,11; Rom. 8:30; 2 Tim. 1:9; 1 Thess. 5:9.

2 Rom. 9:11,13,16; Eph. 1:4,9.

3 Eph. 1:6,12.

6. As God hath appointed the elect unto glory, so hath He, by the eternal and most free purpose of His will, foreordained all the means thereunto.1 Wherefore, they who are elected being fallen in Adam, are redeemed by Christ;2 are effectually called unto faith in Christ by His Spirit working in due season; are justified, adopted, sanctified,3 and kept by His power, through faith, unto salvation.4 Neither are any other redeemed by Christ, effectually called, justified, adopted, sanctified, and saved, but the elect only.5


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1 1 Pet. 1:2; Eph. 1:4,5; Eph. 2:10; 2 Thess. 2:13.

2 1 Thess. 5:9,10; Tit. 2:14.

3 Rom. 8:30; Eph. 1:5; 2 Thess. 2:13.

4 1 Pet. 1:5.

5 John 17:9;Rom. 8:28; John 6:64,65; John 10:26; John 8:47; 1 John 2:19.

7. The rest of mankind, God was pleased, according to the unsearchable counsel of His own will, whereby He extendeth or withholdeth mercy, as He pleaseth, for the glory of His sovereign power over His creatures, to pass by, and to ordain them to dishonour and wrath for their sin, to the praise of His glorious justice.1


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1 Matt. 11:25,26; Rom. 9:17,18,21,22; 2 Tim. 2:19,20; Jude 1:4; 1 Pet. 2:8.

8. The doctrine of this high mystery of predestination is to be handled with special prudence and care,1 that men, attending the will of God revealed in His Word, and yielding obedience thereunto, may, from the certainty of their effectual vocation, be assured of their eternal election.2 So shall this doctrine afford matter of praise, reverence, and admiration of God,3 and of humility, diligence, and abundant consolation, to all that sincerely obey the Gospel.4


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1 Rom. 9:20; Rom. 11:33; Deut. 29:29.

2 2 Pet. 1:10.

3 Eph. 1:6; Rom. 11:33.

4 Rom. 11:5,6,20; 2 Pet. 1:10; Rom. 8:33; Luke 10:20.

Notice that there is nothing in the Westminster confession that says predestination and foreordination are not to be preached!  (Isaiah 46:9-10).  Rather, it is to be handled with care so that unbelievers are not let off the hook.  They are compelled to believe.  If they do not believe, they are still fully accountable to God for their own disobedience.  They are the authors of their own sin, even if God is the ultimate cause of their hardening (Exodus 4:21; Isaiah 46:10).

Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter 5, Of Providence


4. The almighty power, unsearchable wisdom, and infinite goodness of God so far manifest themselves in His providence, that it extendeth itself even to the first fall, and all other sins of angels and men,1 and that not by a bare permission,2 but such as hath joined with it a most wise and powerful bounding,3 and otherwise ordering and governing of them, in a manifold dispensation, to His own holy ends;4 yet so, as the sinfulness thereof proceedeth only from the creature, and not from God; who, being most holy and righteous, neither is nor can be the author or approver of sin.5

See also: WLC 19


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1 Rom. 11:32,33,34; 2 Sam. 24:1; 1 Chron. 21:1; 1 Kings 22:22,23; 1 Chron. 10:4,13,14; 2 Sam. 16:10; Acts 2:23; Acts 4:27,28.

2 Acts 14:16.

3 Ps. 76:10; 2 Kings 19:28.

4 Gen. 1:20; Isa. 10:6,7,12.

5 James 1:13,14,17; 1 John 2:16; Ps. 50:21.

The New Pope Endorses the Homosexual "Orientation"

Is there such thing as a homosexual orientation?  Obviously, there are those who have been so long slaves to their perversion that nothing can be done to deliver them from it apart from a supernatural intervention by God.  (Romans 1:18-32).  But "science" presupposes that homosexuals are "born" that way.  There is no proof apart from a presupposition that nature rather than nurture produces homosexuals.

Yet we have the newest pope saying that gays are born with an "orientation."  I fail to see how sinful thoughts constitute a biological or physiological attraction to sexual activity with the same sex.  God's original creation, according to Scripture, is for one man and for one woman to be joined together in holy matrimony.  (Genesis 2:7-25).

Click here to read the story:  Pope Francis says it is not his place to judge homosexuals

So Much for Queen Elizabeth's Upholding of Scripture: Signing the Same-sex Marriage Bill

Queen Signs Same-sex Marriage Bill

Exodus International Closes Down

Exodus International was questionable from the get go, in my opinion.  Ex-homosexuals are the last persons who should be trying to minister to homosexuals who want to stop living in their immorality.   Of course, the media are celebrating this event because they think homosexuality is something good, not a perversion of God's created order.  You can look for conservative Christianity to be further marginalized because of the visibility of this parachurch ministry and its very public closing.

Of course, it was founded on a faulty premise to begin with.  Psychology and manipulation can never change a rebel's heart and mind.  Only God can convert a lost soul.  Homosexuality, like drug addiction, is a difficult bondage to break.  Anyone who truly repents of that terrible perversion is a miracle of God's sovereign grace.

To read the story, click here:   Exodus Internation Closes Down

Charlie

Why Professional Athletes Should Not Be Role Models: Gay Athletes Promote Perversity in the Name of their Profession

Christians love to follow their favorite Christian athletes and lift them up as examples.  All that is well and good.  But the problem is that when we lift up mere men instead of Christ then the demonic side can lift up supposedly "good" role models designed to deceive and delude young people into following the perverse gay lifestyle. 

VirtueOnline posted this story:

MADISON, WI: St. Dunstan's Episcopal Church invites NFL Player to speak
Leroy Butler loses speaking gig at church after comment backing gay NBA player

By David W. Virtue
www.virtueonline.org
May 6, 2013

The feminist priest of St. Dunstan's Episcopal parish in Madison, Wisconsin is bringing Leroy Butler, inventor of the "Lambeau Leap" to her church.

LeRoy Butler, a former Green Bay Packers star, sent a Twitter message of congratulations to Jason Collins, a veteran NBA player who made headlines last week when he became the first NBA player to come out as gay.

Butler had been scheduled to do an anti-bullying presentation at an unnamed church. That church pressured Butler to withdraw his support for Collins. When he refused, they cancelled his appearance.

Sensing an inclusion moment, The Rev. Miranda Hassett sent a "Dear friends" letter to her parish on May 3 saying that she had heard that Butler had had his appearance cancelled and thought the parish should invite him to hear his views on bullying.

"LeRoy walked away from a good amount of money in order to stand for what's right," Hassett said of the $8,500 speaker's fee Butler would have received for the address.

"Like many Christian leaders, I saw that story go by and thought, 'Oh, no - another story that will reinforce the widely-held public view that Christians are intolerant and exclusionary. I wish we could invite Butler to come speak here.'" wrote Hassett.

The trouble here is that these "tolerant" churches are intolerant toward Jesus and Paul and the Holy Scriptures.  The fact of the matter is that Scripture condemns homosexuality and there is no way around it.  Of course, these "tolerant" liberals do not really believe the Bible in the first place.

Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves, 25 who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen. 26 For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. 27  Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due. 28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a debased mind, to do those things which are not fitting; (Romans 1:24-28 NKJ)

Mike Horton's Paradox: Justification and Sanctification "Apparently" Contradict

Nevertheless, they may, through the temptations of Satan and of the world, the prevalency of corruption remaining in them, and the neglect of the means of their preservation, fall into grievous sins; . . . and bring temporal judgments upon themselves.  

CHAPTER XVII—Of the Perseverance of the Saints, Westminster Confession of Faith

In an article in the July issue of Christianity Today, (Let's Not Cut Christ to Pieces), Dr. Michael Horton attempts to reconcile what "appears" to be a contradiction in his own mind, namely that justification by faith alone and sanctification are contradictory to each other.  However, Horton says that this is not a genuine contradiction but only "appears" to be so:

One problem of simplistic views of sin is that they always generate simplistic views of redemption. Scripture speaks of salvation in terms of a tension between the "already" of salvation and the "not-yet" that still awaits us. Unwilling to embrace the paradox of being "simultaneously justified and sinful," we reject either justification or sanctification. However, a simplistic view of sin as acts requires as its solution nothing more than red-faced threats or smiling therapies for getting our act together.  (Michael Horton, "Let's Not Cut Christ to Pieces," Christianity Today, July 12, 2012, page 3).

Unfortunately, this is more of Van Til's theology of paradox and dialectic analogy at work.  There are presuppositions inherent in Horton's remarks, namely that the Scriptures are not univocally the fully inspired, infallible, and inerrant words of God.   The problem is that Van Tilians, like the neo-orthodox existentialists, view truth as two-fold.  The Scripture is not the literal and univocal Word of God but only an analogy of the truth from a creaturely perspective.  If that is so, according to the late Gordon H. Clark, then we can know nothing that God reveals, since the revelation is not God's words or thoughts and "at no single point" does revelation equal God's direct words, thoughts or propositions.  The Van Tilians say that the Word of God is real knowledge but not God's knowledge.  They attempt to make a mediating position between neo-orthodoxy and the Evangelical position as it was asserted in The Fundamentals and at Old Princeton seminary.

The trouble with "paradoxes" in regards to justification and sanctification is that for all practical purposes these paradoxes are real contradictions in the minds of those presupposing there are "apparent" contradictions in the Bible.  Why not just presuppose that there are no paradoxes and that the "apparent" problems in Scripture have a logical solution?  Once the line is crossed into presupposing errors, contradictions, antinomies, and "apparent" paradoxes in Scripture, the door is wide open for a further erosion of biblical truth.  The problem is not with Scripture but with the subjectivist and existentialist reading of the Scripture as two-fold truth.  Emil Brunner said that Scripture is a "picture frame" around revelation but is not itself "revelation".  For the neo-orthodox theologians logical contradictions are not a problem since they have fully accepted Immanuel Kant's presupposition that transcendant revelation from above, i.e. the Creator, is impossible.  Horton and other Van Tilians tacitly accept this philosophy inherited from Kant and from Soren Kierkegaard.  That is how Horton can embrace an "apparent" contradiction between justification by faith alone and the process of sanctification.

The concern expressed by Horton in the article above is a pastoral concern.  How can we minister the Gospel to homosexuals without causing them psychological harm?  That is a legitimate concern.  But the problem is that we cannot embrace paradox to do so.  The Scriptures are unequivocal in asserting that God's moral law is immutable.  In other words, God's justice is blind.  Whoever breaks God's law is justly condemned.  That would include straight sinners as well as gay and transgendered sinners.  The doctrine of moral and natural inability does not excuse the sinner, as Horton rightly points out.  Pastors should be careful to point out that the first use of the moral law still applies after conversion so that church members do not become proud or self-righteous (Philippians 3:9; Romans 10:1-4; Ephesians 2:8-9).

But the problem with Horton's understanding of the biblical relationship between justification and sanctification is that he thinks that sanctification is a factor in justification.  As the late Gordon H. Clark pointed out, justification by faith alone is the source of any assurance we might have from our progress in the sanctified life.  (See:  Do We Know Enough or Obey Enough?)  We are are justified by faith alone (Romans 1:16; Galatians 3:11; Hebrews 10:38; Hebrews 11:1), therefore let us grow in the faith and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ (2 Peter 3:18).  Salvation is rooted in justification so we are saved.  But we are also "being saved" in that the root of the tree supports the tree, and the tree then produces fruit (Galatians 5:22-26).  (See also:  Thirty-Nine Articles, Article XII).  Justification by faith alone is the foundation for true assurance and all else is a false assurance based on self-justification.  (See:  Matthew 5:17-20, 48; Matthew 7:21-23).

Having said that, however, grace is not a license to sin (Romans 6:1-2).  If the Christian is struggling with sin, then he or she is to pray for God to grant them the grace to repent and to press on (1 John 1:8-9).  1 Peter 3:9 is not teaching Lordship Salvation or Wesleyan Entire Sanctification.  In fact, 1 John 1:8-9 flatly denies such a view.  But as we know more Scripture, we learn what God wants us to do and God gradually begins to change our thinking (Proverbs 23:7), making us more and more into his image and likeness (John 17:17; 2 Peter 3:18; 2 Peter 1:10-11).  There is hope for homosexuals precisely because God's Word can transform the thinking of anyone who is elect, no matter how far down they have fallen into the bondage of sin (Romans 12:1-2; Isaiah 1:18).  It is knowledge of Scripture that opens the door to believing that God will justify and save the worst sinners and pardon them of all their sins.  

It is God's Word that opens the door to sanctification as a progressive change in the Christian's life.  Salvation is not an existential encounter with an ambiguous, ineffable "person" we vaguely know as "Christ" (2 Corinthians 11:3-4) or a Gospel that is devoid of knowledge or dogmatic teaching (Galatians 1:8-9).  The Gospel is the full teaching of all the Scriptures (Romans 1:16-17; 2:16; 2 Timothy 3:15-17; 2 Peter 1:19-21), not a false division between "preaching" and "teaching."  In fact, this is nothing more than a throw back to the liberal theology of kerygma (preaching) as the kernel of truth with the husk of extraneous and unnecessary teaching of doctrine:

 Mr. Stott says, “It is commonly accepted today that within the New Testament itself a distinction is made between the kerugma (the proclamation of the gospel) and the didaché (the instruction of converts).” True, this idea is commonly accepted today. It is one of the most important parts of the anti-Scriptural theories of the dialectical theologians. And it should be resisted by those who believe the Bible.

Gordon H. Clark (2013-03-04T05:00:00+00:00). What Is The Christian Life? (Kindle Locations 2631-2634). The Trinity Foundation. Kindle Edition.

This view goes all the way back to Schliermacher:

Of course, according to Schleiermacher, we have no knowledge of God. At most we know, or better, feel his relation to us; and this relation is this feeling. Other doctrines, supposedly Christian doctrines, can likewise be obtained by analyzing experience. By rather specious analyses Schleiermacher thought he was able to deduce the doctrine of the Trinity, the Atonement, and even the Lord’s Supper. Theology is really psychology.

There are three points that especially need to be noted in this attempt to base Christianity on experience. The first is that the derivation of the doctrines is suspect. It is worse than suspect. It is ludicrous. There is just no possible logical way of analyzing an emotion or a feeling and proving the doctrine of the Trinity. The doctrine of the Trinity is found only in the Biblical revelation. No one would ever have thought of it, no one ever did think of it, apart from the Bible. True, some philosophers had three-fold sets of principles. Plato had the world of Ideas, the Demiurge, and chaotic Space. But this is not a tri-personal divine being. Plotinus had something similar. He spoke of the One, the Ideas, and the Soul. But he also had a Logos and a lower world. The whole was continuous. There is, no tri-personal supreme being. Plotinus’s One does not think and cannot know. Neo-Platonism is not at all similar to trinitarian Christianity. Schleiermacher therefore did not get the Trinity from Christian experience. One may doubt that his experience was Christian, anyway.

But there is also a second point to notice. Schleiermacher expressed a basic desire to make Christianity immune from scientific objections. Miracles are impossible. Therefore one must reject much of the Bible, if he wishes to make Christianity palatable to the modern mind. This is permissible because the Bible couches its beneficial message in the limited thought forms of a by-gone age. The precious kernel is wrapped around with worthless husks. Discard the husks and preserve the essential ideas.

But what is essential? Shortly after the death of Schleiermacher and under the influence of Hegel, the modernists concluded that the personality of God was not essential to Christianity. In fact, Schleiermacher himself was a pantheist. In philosophical writings it is quite clear that he had no sympathy for the theory of a personal God. But in his religious writings he tried to accommodate himself to the prejudice of common Christian opinion. His language therefore at times sounds semi-orthodox. But by 1850 there was quite a volume of theological writing that denied the personality of God.

Naturally also the atonement was considered unessential. After all, experience does not justify such a doctrine. It is repulsive to man’s moral sensibilities. It conflicts with moral experience. And of all things, the moral principles of the Sermon on the Mount are the essential kernel of Christianity. As Renan and others who wrote on the historical Jesus said, the real Jesus who stands behind the legends of the Gospels was a mild ethical teacher who had no theology at all.

Gordon H. Clark (2013-03-04T05:00:00+00:00). What Is The Christian Life? (Kindle Locations 2340-2363). The Trinity Foundation. Kindle Edition.

While it is admirable that Mike Horton wants to stand against antinomianism and accepting unrepentant homosexuals as communicant members of a local congregation, he does so at the expense of the Gospel, the univocal nature of Scripture as a uniform and unified revelation of God rather than an ambiguous analogy representing a two-fold view of truth.  If God's truth cannot be revealed to man univocally on the creaturely level, then revelation is impossible and we can know nothing.  Van Tilianism leads to skepticism.

Finally, in doing pastoral counseling with homosexuals there is no need to tell them they are reprobates since we cannot know that. We can only know whether or not they believe and are genuinely concerned to repent and grow in the grace and knowledge of the Lord Jesus Christ.  Horton's anecdote about a homosexual who hanged himself might be true in regards to the Lordship salvation view espoused by John MacArthur, Paul Washer and others.  That is because they view justification and sanctification as paradoxical.  In other words, they have confused the two and used the Van Tilian theology of analogy and paradox to excuse their confusion of law and Gospel, justification and sanctification.

The Christian who is struggling with sin--even same sex attraction or transgender thoughts--need not fear the legalism of the Lordship salvationists.  God's Word can justify anyone who truly believes.  And that faith will instantly begin a process of sanctification that is imperfect yet evident (Isaiah 64:6; Romans 7:1-25; 12:1-2).  God will work in those who belong to Him (Philippians 2:12-13).  He is able to complete it and will certainly do so (Philippians 1:6).  The Lordship view is really nothing more than Arminianism rehashed.  The sovereignty of God means that no one has an excuse to break God's moral law--even if they are unable to obey it!  But the Good News is that those who belong to Jesus will most certainly persevere to end, despite numerous failings along the way:

CHAPTER XVII—Of the Perseverance of the Saints

  1.      They, whom God hath accepted in His Beloved, effectually called, and sanctified by His Spirit, can neither totally nor finally fall away from the state of grace, but shall certainly persevere therein to the end, and be eternally saved. (Phil. 1:6, 2 Pet. 1:10, 1 John 3:9, 1 Pet. 1:5,9)
  2.      This perseverance of the saints depends not upon their own free will, but upon the immutability of the decree of election, flowing from the free and unchangeable love of God the Father; (2 Tim. 2:18–19, Jer. 31:3) upon the efficacy of the merit and intercession of Jesus Christ, (Heb. 10:10, 14, Heb. 13:20–21, Heb. 9:12–15, Rom. 8:33–39, John 17:11, 24, Luke 22:32, Heb. 7:25) the abiding of the Spirit, and of the seed of God within them, (John 14:16–17, 1 John 2:27, 1 John 3:9) and the nature of the covenant of grace: (Jer. 32:40) from all which ariseth also the certainty and infallibility thereof. (John 10:28, 2 Thess. 3:3, 1 John 2:19)
  3.      Nevertheless, they may, through the temptations of Satan and of the world, the prevalency of corruption remaining in them, and the neglect of the means of their preservation, fall into grievous sins; (Matt. 26:70, 72, 74) and, for a time, continue therein: (Ps. 51 title, Ps. 51:1) whereby they incur God’s displeasure, (Isa. 64:5, 7, 9, 2 Sam. 11:27) and grieve His Holy Spirit, (Eph. 4:30) come to be deprived of some measure of their graces and comforts, (Ps. 51:8, 10, 12, Rev. 2:4, Cant. 5:2–4, 6) have their hearts hardened, (Isa. 63:17, Mark 6:52, Mark 16:14) and their consciences wounded; (Ps. 32:3–4, Ps. 51:8) hurt and scandalize others, (2 Sam. 12:14) and bring temporal judgments upon themselves. (Ps. 89:31–32, 1 Cor. 11:32)


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

Grace is not a license to sin.  But those who truly believe will make some progress in living for Christ, however shaky that progress might be at first (Romans 6:1-2).  The way out of bondage to sinful lifestyles is to immerse oneself in the Word of God, trusting God to change our thinking more and more into agreement with God's Word.  When that happens, our behavior changes by the grace of God given to us beforehand.  (See Psalm 1:1-6).

The First Sunday after Easter.

The Collect.

ALMIGHTY Father, who has given thine only Son to die for our sins, and to rise again for our justification; Grant us so to put away the leaven of malice and wickedness, that we may alway serve thee in pureness of living and truth; through the merits of the same thy Son Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.