Written by Carl R. Trueman |
Monday, July 25, 2022
What is true in the groves of academe is even more powerfully true in our modern, technologized world. Western society is built on the myth that individuals are in charge of their identities. And when we are reminded that that is not the case, we tend to become rather angry. 

The sheer rage that has greeted the Dobbs decision demands reflection. The rhetoric regarding victims of incest and rape is powerful but hardly explains the anger, given that such cases are comparatively rare and exceptional. They make good material for emotional appeal to the populace, but are neither foundational to the philosophy of the pro-abortion cause nor the real source of the outrage we are witnessing. Nor do they explain the violence and vindictiveness now being directed at Catholic churches and crisis pregnancy centers, still less the weirdly passionate response of people in other countries whose laws are often no more liberal than the Mississippi legislation that drove the Dobbs case.
That abortion became the hallmark doctrine of modern feminism is itself fascinating, given that it requires a fundamental denial or repudiation of that which makes a woman a woman: a body formed around the potential for conceiving, gestating, and then bearing a child. Not all women can or do bear children, of course, but that does not mean they are not women in accordance with this biological definition. As Abigail Favale argues in The Genesis of Gender, to reject this definition on such grounds is to confuse act and potency. Therefore, a feminism that makes the destruction of the child a point of non-negotiable dogma is a feminism that rejects the very essence of what it means to be a woman. It is a perversion of what true feminism should be. This, incidentally, lies behind the current ironic and incoherent inability of those who are so passionate about women’s rights to define what “women” actually are.
And this gives us a clue to the outrage. The repeal of the right to abortion has two obvious consequences. First, it reasserts the importance of the physical body to female identity. Second, it strikes deep and hard at the idea that human beings are defined by their freedom and autonomy rather than by their dependency and obligation. In short, it contradicts two of the guiding myths of our contemporary culture, at least as understood by the elites. And when a culture’s guiding myths are challenged, one can expect those committed to them to be very angry and to hit back with force.
Read More
Related Posts:

That which keeps the believer in the grace of God includes the intercession of Christ and the believer drawing near to God through the one Mediator, Christ Jesus. So, although believers could fall away apart from the means of divine intercession, believers won’t fall away due to God’s gracious decree that secures the conditional-means of perseverance. 

Like a robust Christian worldview, a Reformed system of doctrine should be consistent, coherent and explanatory. What this means is: (a) the components of a sound theology may have mystery but not contradiction; (b) although theological constituent parts should be assessed discretely, they must be evaluated in light of the whole so that each ingredient does not undermine other elements of the one system they comprise; (c) such a unit of theology should provide a grid through which other texts of Scripture can be interpreted, reconciled, and practically applied. If there is paradox, it is in this. The Scriptures, from which our theology is derived, are to be interpreted through a theology we derive from the very same. That is to say, we inch our way to a reliable theological system while applying it as we go, even as we refine and improve upon it. Lastly, the Reformed tradition has uniquely produced reliable interpretative grids in her confessions and catechisms, if not also in the Systematic Theologies that complement them. In God’s kind providence, we needn’t re-invent the wheel!
A robust theology will include an ecclesiology and a soteriology (and much more). Whereas a Reformed doctrine of the church includes a visible-invisible distinction, a Reformed doctrine of salvation affirms a doctrine of perseverance of the saints. Muddled thinking about the former will result in grave misunderstanding of the latter. Apropos, Federal Vision (FV) theology typifies such confusion and equivocation with its lack of (a) covenant consistency, (b) intra-doctrinal coherence and (c) useful elucidation. Yet sadly, when it comes to theological antidotes to FV, the cures can be less than satisfying.
Because FV has been thoroughly debunked by the church (see PCA report), my interests lie elsewhere. Yet in order to grasp the inadequate responses to FV with respect to how warning passages comport with (even complement) the Reformed doctrine of perseverance, it would be helpful to grasp that the authors of Scripture were constrained to treat those within the visible church as if they were all united to Christ, (while appreciating some do not share in the salvific benefits of the Savior). Accordingly, the hermeneutical principle being advocated is the letters are principally intended for believers because they are written to believers. This common sense view avoids exegetical gymnastics by allowing the letters to be directed to their stated audience called: saints, beloved, chosen, predestined, household of God, etc.
Things begin to fall into place once we recognize that the letters are written to those in the church who are actually in Christ, and that false professions within the church’s pale cannot change that overarching principle. Given the reality of false professions in the church, the message to the saints was not diluted. It is crucial to grasp from the outset that the authors of Scripture were not responsible to accommodate unregenerate hypocrites in the church according to their unbelief but instead the authors treated them according to their ecclesiastical standing in the visible assembly. In other words, any member of the visible church is to be treated according to his or her baptism (then, when of age, profession), and not according to the indiscernible state of their soul. If unbelievers choose to deceive themselves and others about their Christianity, that’s on them. It cannot change Scripture’s intended target audience!
Mr. Postman, look and see…if there’s a letter in your bag for me:
The visible church is where the body of true believers assemble. Consequently, believers share the same physical mailing address as unbelievers in the church. Yet if Scripture’s principal audience are believers for whom Christ died, then from a Reformed perspective all members of the visible church cannot but be outwardly regarded as irreversibly redeemed and heaven-bound. This approach alleviates private judgments while making the indicatives and promises of Scripture acutely relevant to true believers. However, when apostasy occurs, the Scriptures do not teach that salvation is lost, or that the promise of salvation has somehow failed. Instead, when apostasy occurs another apostolic teaching takes precedence. When apostasy occurs, existential union with Christ is not severed but rather, latent unbelief finally comes to light.

They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us. But they went out, that it might become plain that they all are not of us.  (1 John 2:19)

The theological paradigm of treating all members within the church as irrevocably heaven-bound is readily established not only by the labels for church members such as “chosen” and “predestined” but, also, by the apostolic message of the surety of perseverance. The expressed confidence of the certainty of perseverance is to be communicated to all the church’s members without distinction, even upon the heels of the most severe warning passages in Scripture.

But, beloved, we are persuaded of better things of you, and things that accompany salvation, though we thus speak. (Hebrews 6:9)

But we are not of those who shrink back and are destroyed, but of those who have faith and preserve their souls. (Hebrews 10:39)

The “beloved” whom the author was persuaded would not “shrink back” and be “destroyed” are none other than the “holy brothers” who were said elsewhere to have shared in the “heavenly calling”.

Therefore, holy brothers, you who share in a heavenly calling, consider Jesus, the apostle and high priest of our confession… (Hebrews 3:1)

In other words, the author of Hebrews addressed all struggling members as true believers (as opposed to potential unbelievers). We can be assured of this because the warnings of apostasy are accompanied with an expressed confidence of perseverance. But again, if and when apostasy was consummated, those deemed faithless would have been identified and declared according to what had always been the case, that they were never truly of us. (1 John 2:19) As we might expect, Scripture covers all the bases! Just because there are hypocrites in the church does not mean the apostolate would have shirked its responsibilities by diluting the message intended to warn true believers to make their calling and election sure. (2 Peter 1:10) Additionally, on the surety of God’s word we can know that although only true believers will overcome without fail, the promise of pardon and perseverance is to be outwardly extended and ministerially confirmed to all who are numbered in the church.

And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved. (Acts 2:47)

Why unbelievers are not in view:
In apostasy, at least one of two things occur. One either (a) overtly denies or will not affirm saving doctrine or else (b) the church member’s manner of life openly manifests the unbelieving heart that was once imperceptible. In contradistinction to apostasy, persevering faith entails staying the existing course and not turning back.
Read More
Related Posts:

The ongoing crisis in the ARP Church has taken a new turn. Officers in the denomination are now refusing to release congregations with their property after their Presbytery has already granted them the right to dismissal. Does this recent turn in events indicate that the ARP is following the pattern of the PCUSA or the Episcopal Church by forbidding congregations and their ministers to disaffiliate with the denomination for the sake of their conscience? The events of the past several days seem to make one wonder.

The General Synod of the Associate Reformed Presbyterian (ARP) Church approved at their annual meeting in June 2024 to dissolve Second Presbytery effective September 1 (How a 224-Year-Old ARP Presbytery was Dissolved in a Day). In response to this historic action, Second Presbytery scheduled a called meeting on August 13, 2024. They needed to consider several items of business related to their dissolution.1
Even before the moderator, Billy Barron, could open the meeting in prayer, an elder from the Greenville ARP Church, Dan Eller, stood to make a point of order. He declared that items 2-6 (see endnotes) were out of order because these items did not “require immediate attention” by Second Presbytery (Form of Government [FoG] 10.12) and that if the members of the court deliberated them, they would be violating their ordination vows by not submitting to the FoG and sowing discord among their brothers. The moderator agreed with Mr. Eller’s point of order. But his ruling was challenged and overruled by a roll call vote of 32-14. Therefore, the court proceeded to deliberate the 6 items of the “first called meeting.”
According to another notice distributed by the Stated Clerk, David Griffin, a “second called meeting” per FoG 10.12 was requested by three members of the Presbytery. The purpose of this second called meeting was to “provide for open response and any actions related to the dissolution of Second Presbytery for congregations and ministers.” This second called meeting was necessitated by the fact that the moderator, Mr. Barron, was not willing to amend item 6 in the first called meeting when requested by one of the three ministers.
Once again before the meeting could begin, Mr. Barron declared the second called meeting out of order and that he would not call the meeting to order. There was once again a challenge to the moderator’s ruling, and his ruling was overturned.
During business, the following motion was moved and seconded: “That Second Presbytery grant dismissal or transfer to any minister or congregation who requests so in writing to the Stated Clerk of Second Presbytery prior to September 1, per FoG 9.65 and 10.3.E, K.” (all emphases added)
After much debate, the motion was approved by a standing vote of 25-19. However, at the end of this second called meeting, Mr. Eller placed a Complaint (Book of Discipline [BoD] 5.12) on the Clerk’s desk protesting the approval of the motion. As of the writing of this report (8/20/24), Second Presbytery has not called a meeting to consider the Complaint (BoD 5.13.A).
The next day, August 14, the Principal Clerk of the General Synod, Kyle Sims, filed allegations2 against several members of Second Presbytery accusing them of breaking the Ninth commandment and/or violating their ordination vows. In his email to Mr. Griffin, Mr. Sims did not include any details.
On Sunday, August 18, 2024, at least three congregations in Second Presbytery at their duly called congregational meetings voted to be dismissed from Second Presbytery. The actions of these congregations were notified to the Clerk of Second Presbytery in writing via email that night and a hard copy of the notice was delivered to him on Monday, August 19. Furthermore, five ministers in good standing transferred their credentials to a non-ARP Presbytery on Monday as well, according to FoG 9.65.
However, later that day, August 19, Mr. Griffin, sent the following emails to the congregations and ministers:
“I am writing to let you know that I received your communication regarding your congregation’s vote to leave Second Presbytery and the Associate Reformed Presbyterian denomination. However, be advised that a Complaint has been filed against Second Presbytery’s actions, accusing Second Presbytery of violating the Standards of the ARP Church. As such, I would advise you to refrain from any legal action until such time that the appropriate church court can act upon this Complaint. There may be legal ramifications given the constitutionality of your actions, based not on the action of Second Presbytery, but instead on the Standards of the ARP Church. As such, I cannot remove your congregation from the roll until such time that this matter is adjudicated.”
“I am writing to let you know that I received your communication regarding your decision to leave Second Presbytery and the ARP denomination. However, be advised that a Complaint has been filed against Second Presbytery’s actions, accusing Second Presbytery of violating the Standards of the Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church. As such, I would advise you to refrain from any action until such time that the appropriate church court can act upon this Complaint. There may be ramifications given the constitutionality of your withdrawal, based not on the action of Second Presbytery, but instead on the Standards of the ARP Church. As such, I cannot remove your name from the roll until such time that this matter is adjudicated. If you are not properly transferred to another ecclesiastical body by September 1, you will no longer be considered ordained.”
What is being implied by the Clerk? What “legal ramifications” are being explored? Is the ARP facing another constitutional crisis (see Constitutional Crisis in the ARP Church: What is the Point of a Complaint?)? Complaints are not judicial matters and thus are not “adjudicated.” Even if Second Presbytery receives the Complaint at a called meeting and “reverses its alleged errors,” the actions that have properly taken place since the motion’s approval cannot be overturned. Is Second Presbytery trying to seize the properties of congregations and defrock ministers who acted in accordance with the will of Second Presbytery? On what basis can Mr. Griffin claim that the action of Second Presbytery was unconstitutional? Why is the Clerk of Second Presbytery or some other members not allowing these congregations and ministers to live in peace when they have acted properly? Does the Clerk have the authority to deny the removal of a congregation and a minister from the roll of Presbytery? Will the Executive Board of Synod declare “an emergency” to overturn the action of Second Presbytery when they were unwilling to do so when two Complaints were filed against the General Synod regarding the unconstitutional dissolution of Second Presbytery? Will the Executive Board violate the Manual of Authorities and Duties that clearly states that the “Executive Board has no authority to over-ride or act on any Presbytery matters” (p. 13 Authority of the Executive Board of Synod) to prevent these congregations and ministers from leaving in peace? The sad saga continues.
Seth Yi is a Minister in the Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church and is the Pastor of Newberry ARP in Newberry, SC.

Endnotes
1. The items of business for the called meeting were announced as:

Approval of the retention of an attorney to advise on matters related to the dissolution of the corporation and distribution of funds.
Approve the dissolution of the Corporation of Second Presbytery of the Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church; also, approve the distribution of Second Presbytery assets, per Recommendation 6 of General Synod Report Index 11.
Appointment of Trustees to handle any matters directly related to the dissolution of the corporation and/or Second Presbytery before and after September 1.
Receive and vote upon the following two recommendations of the Stewardship Committee and any matters directly related hereunto:

a. That Presbytery NOT approve the $600,000.00 to the Board of Benefits for the purpose of reducing the debt on the Retirement Pension Fund
b. That an endowment be established for the purpose of church planting and revitalization in the footprint of Second Presbytery and that it be funded with $5 million in our Vanguard investment account. The additional outstanding mortgages due to Second Presbytery be added to this account upon receipt. A distribution of between 4 and 6% be distributed from the endowment for such purposes each year.
5. Receive a report on the Lower Long Cane Church and consider any action that needs to be taken.
6. Provide time for discussion regarding the decision of General Synod to dissolve Second Presbytery.
2. Mr. Sims’ allegation email:
On Wed, Aug 14, 2024 at 8:48 AM Principal Clerk [email protected] wrote:Mr. Clerk,I alleged that Mr. Seth Yi has broken the 9th commandment and violated his ordination vows.Praying for his repentance,Rev. Kyle E. Sims, D.MinPrincipal Clerk,Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church
Related Posts: