The Church of Rome in France has had its share of sexual scandals. A French bishop explained to me that the vow fo celibacy does not include, necessarily, a vow of chastity. Why? It is impossible to keep. He explained that the church, while not permitting marriage, will tolerate, in certain instances, a man having a mistress. For a pro testamentum (our word protestant, i.e. for a witness) stated that unrepentant un-chaste behavior would disqualify one for ordained ministry.
In another discussion, I stated that if someone seeking ordination defined themselves as a non-practicing paedophile, he would be excluded from ordained ministry; as his sinful orientation could very well result in him "stumbling", thus doing irreparable damage to a child.
Interestingly, when J.G. Vos wrote his lesson on WLC 138 he attributes "the popular acceptance of a type of psychology which stresses 'self-expression' " as a contributing factor to the problem of "unrestrained indulgence of natural impulses, regardless of the law of God and the ordinance of marriage." This was the 1940's and he was referring to heterosexual behavior. G.I. Williamson points out in an editorial comment that the Westminster Assembly "displayed its fidelity to Scripture" by mentioning the "unpleasant subject" of sodomy.
is it just me (always a dangerous question) or is it possible, if not certain, that a candidate for the ministry can just lie about his unatura tendencies? Quite an accusation, I know. When several highly visible ministers hold to the view that the homosexual, thought life (concupiscience) is neutral, it's no wonder the PCA is in the position it finds itself in.
C.G. Finney was a prime example of entering the ministry under false pretenses. No one knows a candidates true heart, only until he speaks from it will he be known, and Mr. Johnson is a excellent example of this. He's still alive, so there's still time to repent. I think I just came up with the next book title, there.
If celibacy is a gift of the Holy Spirit that frees a believer from ordinate sexual desire, as opposed to satisfying ordinate sexual desire (not sin) within Holy Matrimony, that he may serve God with an undivided heart, how is it that the same gift of celibacy should be applied to inordinate (sinful) sexual desire, since sin is satisfied in justification, repentance, and sanctification of the heart and mind, not in willful refraining from sin’s outward expression? It seems that celibacy applied to homosexuality imposes the burden of continual and fruitless work of the flesh in response to sin rather than freedom from sin and guilt as offered in the Gospel of grace. If a man comes before a PCA court seeking ordination to office while confessing continuing inordinate sexual desire, how can that court uphold a Confessional Standard while finding such a man above reproach?
There is an issue of intellectual honesty that is being overlooked. First, the vast percentage of “self-identified gay men” have at one time or another engaged in heterosexual fantasy +/- actions. Secondly, anyone who has ever worked or ministered in a correctional setting is well aware that 70-80+% of the inmates have had some sort of sexual contact. So is it only homosexuals who are incarcerated? Or PERHAPS, just maybe it’s possible among fallen sinful man that there may be more volitional fluidity to such activities than is politically correct to mention.
Zero sanctification in 20-30 years? Still can’t trust himself with an unmonitored computer? It’s hard to imagine such a man being qualified to fill a pulpit as an ordained TE.
The Church of Rome in France has had its share of sexual scandals. A French bishop explained to me that the vow fo celibacy does not include, necessarily, a vow of chastity. Why? It is impossible to keep. He explained that the church, while not permitting marriage, will tolerate, in certain instances, a man having a mistress. For a pro testamentum (our word protestant, i.e. for a witness) stated that unrepentant un-chaste behavior would disqualify one for ordained ministry.
In another discussion, I stated that if someone seeking ordination defined themselves as a non-practicing paedophile, he would be excluded from ordained ministry; as his sinful orientation could very well result in him "stumbling", thus doing irreparable damage to a child.
Grace and Peace,
Hugh Wessel
MTW France
"It seems some see this debate as centered on simply, how worldly can a man be and not be disqualified?"
Boom
Interestingly, when J.G. Vos wrote his lesson on WLC 138 he attributes "the popular acceptance of a type of psychology which stresses 'self-expression' " as a contributing factor to the problem of "unrestrained indulgence of natural impulses, regardless of the law of God and the ordinance of marriage." This was the 1940's and he was referring to heterosexual behavior. G.I. Williamson points out in an editorial comment that the Westminster Assembly "displayed its fidelity to Scripture" by mentioning the "unpleasant subject" of sodomy.
is it just me (always a dangerous question) or is it possible, if not certain, that a candidate for the ministry can just lie about his unatura tendencies? Quite an accusation, I know. When several highly visible ministers hold to the view that the homosexual, thought life (concupiscience) is neutral, it's no wonder the PCA is in the position it finds itself in.
C.G. Finney was a prime example of entering the ministry under false pretenses. No one knows a candidates true heart, only until he speaks from it will he be known, and Mr. Johnson is a excellent example of this. He's still alive, so there's still time to repent. I think I just came up with the next book title, there.
If celibacy is a gift of the Holy Spirit that frees a believer from ordinate sexual desire, as opposed to satisfying ordinate sexual desire (not sin) within Holy Matrimony, that he may serve God with an undivided heart, how is it that the same gift of celibacy should be applied to inordinate (sinful) sexual desire, since sin is satisfied in justification, repentance, and sanctification of the heart and mind, not in willful refraining from sin’s outward expression? It seems that celibacy applied to homosexuality imposes the burden of continual and fruitless work of the flesh in response to sin rather than freedom from sin and guilt as offered in the Gospel of grace. If a man comes before a PCA court seeking ordination to office while confessing continuing inordinate sexual desire, how can that court uphold a Confessional Standard while finding such a man above reproach?
There is an issue of intellectual honesty that is being overlooked. First, the vast percentage of “self-identified gay men” have at one time or another engaged in heterosexual fantasy +/- actions. Secondly, anyone who has ever worked or ministered in a correctional setting is well aware that 70-80+% of the inmates have had some sort of sexual contact. So is it only homosexuals who are incarcerated? Or PERHAPS, just maybe it’s possible among fallen sinful man that there may be more volitional fluidity to such activities than is politically correct to mention.
Zero sanctification in 20-30 years? Still can’t trust himself with an unmonitored computer? It’s hard to imagine such a man being qualified to fill a pulpit as an ordained TE.