Is it your hope that MPC's departure from the PCA will, in some way, dissuade the Scott Sauls ect. from intensifying their efforts to fundamentally change the denomination? Even if MPC departs, isn't it possible that those in his frame of mind will seek to find another "poster boy" to foist upon an already weary population.
Win by attrition, the narrative must survive (see Mr. Johnson's "war" quote).
The progressives in the PCA have shown themselves to be ready, willing and able to cloak themselves in the mechinations of the secular political left.
By way of PCA history, it only took 100 years to come full circle to the H.E. Fosdick/J.G. Machen controversy and, more recently, the definition of concupiscience.
I've already determined that the TE of the PCA church I attend is certainly of this frame of mind when he said, quite forcefully, that Mr. Johnson is "a Christian and a Godly man." Honestly, I could not believe what I was hearing, but I knew exactly where he was coming from, his definition of concupiscence.
Please keep writing, Ryan. Your words are not wasted.
We have a new TE like that, too. He was not elected, he just showed up. He runs a nonprofit. The TE who *was* elected was a Scott Sauls and NP guy, but he hid all his Tweets and his blog from us, and so we only had his sermons and his word for what he believed. The NP emails were let out a year after this. And he is extremely intelligent, so he was able to craft his statements all very carefully and with nuance. It would have seemed uncharitable not to take him at his word.
Now a church we have attended for 20 years is de facto Side B. And the sheep there absolutely don't follow this stuff so they have no idea of the danger their kids are in. Now we feel at sea.
It's par for the course that every large organization has it's interior detractors. Yet when the Church proper is involved, it gets a more than egregiuos.
It should come as no suprise that PCA church I attend (my family are not members) is from the northeast, and the TE is, again, not suprisingly, a Kellerite (please, no offense).
All this to say: sit down with your TE (yes, feed him also), ask him seriously pointed questions, the kind that will make it impossible to hide behind nuance. He's fully capable of this. This is exactly what I did with my TE and now I know who and what he's about, and that after just one meeting (we agreed that more are required).
He made a very revealing response after we finished: "Nick, I've never been asked these kind of questions". The Socratic Method proved it's worth again.
"Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them."(Ro. 16:17)
Johnson, Revoice, Sodomy-in-Minister reconciliators... all contrary to the doctrine which we have learned. Avoid them. Couldn't be clearer. Lest you loose your nerve, remember Sodomy and all sinful desires like it are part of God's Judgement:
"And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;" (Ro. 1:28)
"For the time is come that judgment must begin at the house of God: and if it first begin at us, what shall the end be of them that obey not the gospel of God?" (1Pe. 4:17)
For the time is come that judgment must begin at the house of God: and if it first begin at us, what shall the end be of them that obey not the gospel of God? (1Pe. 4:17)
Sodomy and all sinful desires like it are part of Gods Judgement. Repentance is the only right response. Those who do not call for, indeed demand as a condition of continuing fellowship, repentance in this heinous sin in ministers are not being loving. The Church that accepts and affirms these sinful conditions in its ministers is on the road anticipated in WCF 25.5.
In the spirit of James 5:19-20, you ought to be straightforward and specifically show Randall where you observe he is wrong and humbly engage him being mindful of any possible logs impeding your vision . Prayerfully you have done so.
WCL144 also applies to the honest keeping of promises. Oaths to preserve peace of the church and pursue purity come to mind, are promises broken by Greg and legitimately called out.
I hope you and yours are well and I continue to pray for your ministry.
You may be right, his comment isn’t indented as a reply, I missed that, thanks for pointing that out. Although I guess my intent remains the same. If Dan is trying to call Ryan out it would be far better to do so privately and specifically rather than a vague public pot shot.
Not sure what you’re referencing, but… unless this is a hypocritical and spurious accusation… the courts are open. File the charge, and pray for repentance and reconciliation.
Because you are not specific, Mr. Biese is not able to respond. Consequently, the statement amounts to a tone policing fallacy. Tone policing is a violation of the ninth because it damages a brother’s reputation without the possibility of a response. You might consider being specific so he can respond, or a retraction if you can't be specific. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tone_policing
Is it your hope that MPC's departure from the PCA will, in some way, dissuade the Scott Sauls ect. from intensifying their efforts to fundamentally change the denomination? Even if MPC departs, isn't it possible that those in his frame of mind will seek to find another "poster boy" to foist upon an already weary population.
Win by attrition, the narrative must survive (see Mr. Johnson's "war" quote).
The progressives in the PCA have shown themselves to be ready, willing and able to cloak themselves in the mechinations of the secular political left.
By way of PCA history, it only took 100 years to come full circle to the H.E. Fosdick/J.G. Machen controversy and, more recently, the definition of concupiscience.
I've already determined that the TE of the PCA church I attend is certainly of this frame of mind when he said, quite forcefully, that Mr. Johnson is "a Christian and a Godly man." Honestly, I could not believe what I was hearing, but I knew exactly where he was coming from, his definition of concupiscence.
Please keep writing, Ryan. Your words are not wasted.
We have a new TE like that, too. He was not elected, he just showed up. He runs a nonprofit. The TE who *was* elected was a Scott Sauls and NP guy, but he hid all his Tweets and his blog from us, and so we only had his sermons and his word for what he believed. The NP emails were let out a year after this. And he is extremely intelligent, so he was able to craft his statements all very carefully and with nuance. It would have seemed uncharitable not to take him at his word.
Now a church we have attended for 20 years is de facto Side B. And the sheep there absolutely don't follow this stuff so they have no idea of the danger their kids are in. Now we feel at sea.
It's par for the course that every large organization has it's interior detractors. Yet when the Church proper is involved, it gets a more than egregiuos.
It should come as no suprise that PCA church I attend (my family are not members) is from the northeast, and the TE is, again, not suprisingly, a Kellerite (please, no offense).
All this to say: sit down with your TE (yes, feed him also), ask him seriously pointed questions, the kind that will make it impossible to hide behind nuance. He's fully capable of this. This is exactly what I did with my TE and now I know who and what he's about, and that after just one meeting (we agreed that more are required).
He made a very revealing response after we finished: "Nick, I've never been asked these kind of questions". The Socratic Method proved it's worth again.
Excellent commentary. Encouraged to see your analysis.
"Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them."(Ro. 16:17)
Johnson, Revoice, Sodomy-in-Minister reconciliators... all contrary to the doctrine which we have learned. Avoid them. Couldn't be clearer. Lest you loose your nerve, remember Sodomy and all sinful desires like it are part of God's Judgement:
"And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;" (Ro. 1:28)
"For the time is come that judgment must begin at the house of God: and if it first begin at us, what shall the end be of them that obey not the gospel of God?" (1Pe. 4:17)
For the time is come that judgment must begin at the house of God: and if it first begin at us, what shall the end be of them that obey not the gospel of God? (1Pe. 4:17)
Sodomy and all sinful desires like it are part of Gods Judgement. Repentance is the only right response. Those who do not call for, indeed demand as a condition of continuing fellowship, repentance in this heinous sin in ministers are not being loving. The Church that accepts and affirms these sinful conditions in its ministers is on the road anticipated in WCF 25.5.
You need to read WLC144, and take it to heart, brother.
In the spirit of James 5:19-20, you ought to be straightforward and specifically show Randall where you observe he is wrong and humbly engage him being mindful of any possible logs impeding your vision . Prayerfully you have done so.
WCL144 also applies to the honest keeping of promises. Oaths to preserve peace of the church and pursue purity come to mind, are promises broken by Greg and legitimately called out.
I hope you and yours are well and I continue to pray for your ministry.
Doug Sharp
Sharp, I believe Quakkelaar was addressing Biese, not Bachman—or Ryan, not Randall, if you will.
You may be right, his comment isn’t indented as a reply, I missed that, thanks for pointing that out. Although I guess my intent remains the same. If Dan is trying to call Ryan out it would be far better to do so privately and specifically rather than a vague public pot shot.
Not sure what you’re referencing, but… unless this is a hypocritical and spurious accusation… the courts are open. File the charge, and pray for repentance and reconciliation.
Because you are not specific, Mr. Biese is not able to respond. Consequently, the statement amounts to a tone policing fallacy. Tone policing is a violation of the ninth because it damages a brother’s reputation without the possibility of a response. You might consider being specific so he can respond, or a retraction if you can't be specific. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tone_policing