Denying the Truth
John distinguishes truth and falsehood, what proceeds from the mouth of God and what is purported to be truth but is a lie. That’s why John will later urge us to “not believe every spirit, but test the spirits, whether they are of God; because many false prophets have gone out into the world” (1 John 4:1). How do we test the spirits? How do know truth? By holding fast to the revealed word of God, which is truth (John 17:14-19).
Whoever denies the Son does not have the Father either (1 John 2:23, NKJV).
What comes to mind when you think of antichrist? Perhaps a mighty demonic being or a rival to the throne of Jesus, such as described by Paul to the Thessalonians: “The coming of the lawless one is according to the working of Satan, with all power, signs, and lying wonders, and with all unrighteous deception among those who perish, because they did not receive the love of the truth, that they might be saved” (2 Thess. 2:9–10).
John, however, has spoken to us of many antichrists. Yet whether singular or plural, they are all cut from the same cloth and present us with the same challenge in our walk with Christ and work for Him in this world. That challenge has to do with love of the truth and acting upon it. At stake are matters of life and death.
John addresses believers as truth-holders. “I have not written to you because you do not know the truth, but because you know it, and that no lie is of the truth” (1 John 2:21).
Related Posts:
You Might also like
-
King Charles III and Securing the True Protestant Religion
Given the current state of the Church of Scotland and uncertainty of King Charles III’s sincere commitment to Protestantism, today’s pageantry may prove to be mere formality and tradition. Nevertheless, Jesus Christ, the only King and Head of the Church, has taught us to pray: “Thy kingdom come,” which, in part, is a petition that the church would be “countenanced and maintained by the civil magistrate” (Westminster Larger Catechism Q. 191).With the death of Queen Elizabeth II the United Kingdom and a watching world are preparing for a lot of royal pageantry. It’s a pageantry that comes with a lot of history and even a little bit of theology. This morning in London, according to an old tradition dating back centuries, King Charles III was officially proclaimed King in the presence of the Ascension Council. For the first time in history people were able to view the event and the simple but profound process by which this is done. With impressive activities and ceremonies the proclamation of the new monarchy will be made throughout the country.
One of the first things King Charles III did — and it was his stated intention to do so at the first opportunity — was to make a formal oath to the security of the Church of Scotland. He did so in the following words:
I, Charles the Third, by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and of My other Realms and Territories, King, Defender of the Faith, do faithfully promise and swear that I shall inviolably maintain and preserve the Settlement of the true Protestant Religion as established by the Laws made in Scotland in prosecution of the Claim of Right and particularly by an Act intituled “An Act for securing the Protestant Religion and Presbyterian Church Government” and by the Acts passed in the Parliament of both Kingdom for Union of the two Kingdoms, together with the Government, Worship, Discipline, Rights and Privileges of the Church of Scotland. So help me God.
What does all of this mean? As King of the United Kingdom, Charles III bears the title “Defender of the Faith.” As such, he is the Supreme Governor of the Church of England. By and large this position is mostly ceremonial and symbolic. However, even as the titular head of the Church of England, King Charles III will appoint high-ranking members of the church.
Historically, this position for the British Monarchy dates back to the Act of Supremacy in 1534. That act confirmed the king’s supremacy over the church. By 1536 King Henry VIII — who wanted out of his first marriage — broke with the Catholic Church and declared the Church of England as the established church and named himself the supreme head.
An “established” church is a church that is officially endorsed by the state – government sanctioned religion. This isn’t to be confused with theocracy, but simply means that a state is not secular and has an official religion. This may seem strange to Americans who value the First Amendment and the freedom of religion. The First Amendment says: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.” What has been true of the federal government since 1791 became true of every state by 1833. This has not, however, been true in the United Kingdom. Still today the Church of England is the established church in England, and the Church of Scotland in Scotland.
Read More -
Report on the PCA’s Jubilee Assembly
The Presbyterian Church in America at 50 is stronger, more committed to her Westminster heritage, more beautiful, more healthy, more orthodox, and more united than ever before. The PCA at 50 shows every sign of being a living, growing, vibrant Church. The PCA is worth fighting for because the PCA is worth having!
The 50th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in America was a mighty demonstration of God’s grace and faithfulness to His Church.
The Presbyterian Church in America at 50 is stronger, more committed to her Westminster heritage, more beautiful, more healthy, more orthodox, and more united than ever before. The PCA at 50 shows every sign of being a living, growing, vibrant Church. The PCA is worth fighting for because the PCA is worth having!
The PCA General Assembly convened in Memphis, Tenn. Tuesday, June 12. This year’s Assembly was exceptional as it combined the regular business of the Church with numerous times of reflection, prayer, and thanksgiving in light of the 50th Anniversary of the PCA’s Founding in 1973. God was exceedingly kind, faithful, and generous to the PCA at this year’s Assembly.Opening Worship & Election of the Moderator
At last report, 2290 elders (1559 TEs and 691 REs) gathered for the meeting of the General Assembly, which opened with a service of worship. The retiring Moderator, RE John Bise, chose the preacher for the evening, his former pastor TE Randy Thompson of FPC Tuscumbia, Ala. TE Thompson’s preaching matched the excellence of RE Bise’s work as Moderator last year.
Two men were put forward to serve as moderator. TE David Strain of FPC Jackson, Miss. offered TE Fred Greco. In his speech TE Strain emphasized the diligent service TE Greco has given to the church to help presbyters understand our polity as well as TE Greco’s qualifications to serve as Moderator of such a large gathering.
TE Charles McGowan of the McGowan Global Institute nominated TE Randy Pope. In his speech, TE McGowan emphasized TE Pope’s connection to PCA founding fathers TEs Jim Baird and Frank Barker; he concluded by asserting that if they were alive and could vote, they would vote for TE Pope as Moderator.
TE Fred Greco was elected by a wide margin (1077-739) to serve as Moderator. TE Greco serves on the Standing Judicial Commission (SJC) and is pastor of Christ Church in Katy, Tex.It is customary for the new Moderator to make a speech as he accepts the gavel; in this first speech, TE Greco paid tribute to his wife’s vital and generous support of his ministry, which he credited as enabling him to serve in the way he does.
Selected Overtures Adopted by the Fiftieth Assembly
Overture 7: Accountability for the Atlanta Staff & Permanent Committees
Throughout her history, there has been a tension in the PCA between being a “grassroots” denomination and a centralized denomination. In our early days, the PCA founding fathers would not even permit the central offices of the various agencies of the PCA to be located in the same city in order to further diffuse the influence of those agencies. After receiving the RPCES, the offices of the PCA Committees and Agencies were centralized in Atlanta.
At the 19th General Assembly (1991) in Birmingham, TE O. Palmer Robertson as Chairman of the Administrative Committee CofC, successfully repulsed an attempt by the Permanent Committees and their Atlanta staffs to wrest more control from the Assembly regarding policy and trajectory. At this the 50th Assembly, changes were instituted into the Rules of Assembly Operations (RAO) to codify that the Permanent Committees and the Atlanta staffs are indeed accountable to the Assembly.Overture 7 proposes the changes underlined above.
While Overture 7 (O7) did not initially garner a great deal of attention, some members of the PCA Atlanta staff reportedly indicated their reservations regarding this amendment at the Administrative Committee CofC meeting. After O7 became controversial, TE Zack Groff wrote a helpful summary of the issues. Overture 7 adds one sentence to the RAO requiring the Permanent Committees and Agency Boards to give account to the Assembly annually as to how they are fulfilling Assembly directives and/or any new policies adopted by the Permanent Committee or Agency Board.
By Tuesday, the Overtures Committee had wrested control of O7 from the various Permanent Committees and presented it to the Assembly for adoption with slight amendment. The overture passed overwhelmingly and went into effect immediately on Tuesday night around 10:00 p.m. What a kindness of our faithful God to transform an overture that was briefly controversial into a point of unity to help us begin the business of the Assembly.
This was one of the most important actions of the 50th General Assembly. As RE Melton Duncan noted on the largest and most influential podcast in the PCA, this overture reflected the “Spirit of 1973” as the Assembly moved to enable more closer review of every one of its agencies and committees. The adoption of this amendment is a step in the right direction of the Assembly reasserting control over its own Permanent Committees and Agencies and their Atlanta staffs.
Overture 13: Atheists in Church Courts
The longest debate at the Assembly concerned whether to admit atheists as witnesses in the church courts. The PCA Constitution currently permits only people who acknowledge belief in God as well as rewards and punishments after death to give testimony in PCA courts. The Constitution does not prohibit unbelievers, non-believers, or spiritualists from giving testimony in the Church courts; it only disqualifies atheists.
The Overtures Committee (OC) recommended against changing the PCA Constitution in this way. The OC reasoned such a change was unnecessary, since material evidence (e.g., police or medical reports) is always admissible. Others argued against adoption because of other unintended consequences. TE James Bruce of Hills & Plains Presbytery gave a superbly clarifying speech summarizing concerns regarding allowing those who deny the existence of God to bear witness in church courts.
A Minority Report on this matter was also presented to the Assembly given by TE Tim LeCroy. TE LeCroy’s report to the Assembly dwelt largely on hypothetical situations and seemed to be characterized by fear and suspicion regarding what the news media might say about the PCA. RE Steve Dowling, chairman of the OC, in his response called out TE LeCroy’s speech for some of its logical fallacies including mere appeals to emotion. RE Dowling also urged us not to fear men or the media, but to fear God in heaven.
RE Howie Donahoe gave a well-reasoned speech in favor of the minority report as he urged the Assembly to adopt the amendment proposed by O13.
The Overture was rejected by the Assembly in the most narrow margin of the week: 871-999 (53% against).
While I was nearly persuaded by RE Donahoe’s well-reasoned speech, I continue to believe the current witness eligibility standards are right and good. Church courts are fundamentally different from civil/criminal court. I believe this amendment was seeking to anticipate matters better left primarily to the magistrates to investigate and adjudicate (e.g., cases of abuse). The Church courts rightly must defer to the magistrate on such matters, since the magistrate is God’s deacon in his own sphere.
Overture 23: Chastity for Church Officers
Since 2018, the PCA Assemblies have met with the cloud of Revoice hanging over them. The 50th General Assembly overwhelmingly passed an amendment to clarify the chastity and sexual purity required of officers (elders and deacons) in the PCA:
…He should conform to the biblical requirement of chastity and sexual purity in his descriptions of himself, his convictions, character, and conduct.
There was little debate on this matter as 69% of the Assembly voted to close debate after hearing only one speech (that of TE Stephen Tipton of Gulf Coast Presbytery).2
There was apparently little need to debate the issue further. Overture 23 passed by a vote of 1673-223 (88.2% in favor).
If this amendment is ratified by the PCA Presbyteries, it should make the PCA entirely inhospitable to the Saint Louis Theology/Side-B/ “gay-but-celibate”/Revoice Movement. This amendment requires not merely celibacy, but chastity from church officers. It seems many of those who had long-opposed attempts to tighten and clarify our standards on sexual purity have now reached the point where they recognize the urgency and propriety of doing so. This is a matter for thanksgiving!
Overture 26: Ordination, Titles, and Clarity
Another proposed amendment that received significant debate involved whether unordained people may be referred to as pastor, elder, or deacon. Our Book of Church Order (BCO) clearly indicates all pastors, elders, and deacons are ordained. There are many congregations within the PCA who do not follow our BCO, but instead withhold ordination from those whom they call “deacons.” Other churches address unordained staff as “pastor.” This creates confusion as well as gives a false impression of who we are as a denomination and deprives the congregation of the blessing of more ordained leadership.
The proposed amendment would add one sentence to our BCO:
Furthermore, unordained people shall not be referred to as, or given the titles connected to, the ecclesial offices of pastor, elder, or deacon.
The Bible uses words like elder (old man), deacon (servant), and pastor (shepherd) in both a technical, titular sense and a generic sense (I have given the generic sense in parentheses). The Apostle Paul references pastors as gifts to the church and gives qualifications for elders and deacons in 1 Tim. 3, and Titus; this is the technical, titular sense of those words as it refers to the ordained officers of the Church.
But he also uses some of those words in a general sense (e.g., Rom. 13:4 in reference to Caesar as God’s servant/deacon).
This amendment would require churches to abide by what our BCO already requires and refrain from using generic words in a way that makes them sound “official.” This amendment is narrowly focused on the offices of pastor/elder and deacon. It does not address churches who have ordained deacons and unordained deaconesses, shepherdesses, or any other titles not connected to ordained office as those are matters of lawful latitude for the congregations of the PCA.
The Assembly approved Overture 26 by 74%. This is a good and narrow change to help us work toward greater unity within the PCA. It also represents a winsome attempt to show our brothers what their vows to the PCA Constitution require, which will hopefully help avoid sending requests for investigation of delinquent Sessions and officers (see BCO 40-5, 31-2).
Read more
2 It was I who moved the previous question in order to limit debate. After the vote was taken some members of the Assembly graciously and humbly enquired why I did so and they conveyed they wanted to have the opportunity to speak in favor of the proposed amendment. I believed the Assembly’s mind was not going to be changed by further debate (after 3-4 years of extensive debate) and so we should proceed to a vote. Nearly 70% of the Assembly agreed. I encourage those who desired, but did not have the opportunity to make speeches in favor of the proposed amendment to publish the speeches they wrote for this debate at the Assembly on their personal blogs or other news outlets. If you do not have a personal blog, I would be happy to publish your speech on my Substack. Please feel free to contact me.
Related Posts: -
How Can We Stop Discernment Turning Into Sinful Suspicion?
It is true that we may sometimes need to highlight things that are wrong; there may be legitimate suspicion based on reasonable evidence. This is different from readily jumping to hasty conclusions about things that could be charitably explained with the benefit of the doubt simply because we are ready to think badly of someone. There is, as Thomas Boston points out, a happy medium between complete gullibility and the evil groundless suspicion that Scripture condemns (1 Timothy 6:4). Such suspicions do not arise from any basis in reality but rather people’s own uncharitable spirits. It is uncharitably judging and condemning others in our hearts (Matthew 7:1). It moves swiftly and rashly to harsh condemnation contrary to the grace of Christian love (1 Corinthians 13:7).
As Boston notes, there is a danger of making ourselves the rule of everything, so that anything that does not meet our standard is automatically and absolutely condemned. It can also be done all too hastily because we trust our own instincts for faithfully distinguishing what is right from what is questionable. We then easily misrepresent others, their intentions, words, and actions and are ready to put the worst construction on them. It is all contrary to what is fair and just as well as love for our neighbour and the ninth commandment. Yet how easily it is done in relation to spiritual matters.
We might think that godly men will not fall into this temptation, but Scripture shows us otherwise. Indeed, the book of Job is full of this. Job must constantly resist the way that they rashly discern the punishment of secret sins and hypocrisy in the afflictions he experiences. His friends begin to charge him with all kinds of things merely on the basis of assumption. Rather than accept the limits of their discernment and understanding they start to dive deeply into hidden things with all sorts of conclusions. It is ultimately clear that they are utterly wrong in their unjust suspicions. This is why George Hutcheson says we must “not make the opinions of the best of men the rule of our consciences”.
Hutcheson shows how much we can learn from the book of Job on this point.The Lord condemns this explicitly in Eliphaz and his two friends. He even says that in speaking against God’s people we may well be speaking against God Himself (Job 43:7). Their words and principles had wronged God (Job 13:7-8) by misrepresenting Him. It seemed as if they were valiantly defending God and His holiness and justice but what they said was not right but condemned by God (Job 43:7). He vindicates Job because the principles he maintained concerning God were right even though he was not perfect in what he said but sometimes spoke rashly himself.
Read More