Since that time, I’ve been thinking about why the overtures failed.  They passed overwhelmingly at General Assembly after all.  I don’t claim to be an expert at the way things work to get an overture passed.  I’ve been trying to bone up on that.  But something occurred to me recently.  Why didn’t all of the men who voted in favor of the overtures take the opportunity to speak up during the discussion?

Like many other conservative elders in the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA), I was discouraged that Overtures 23 and 37 failed to pass at the presbytery level. As a Ruling Elder (RE) I’m not able to attend as many presbytery meetings as Teaching Elders (TEs).  But I made it a point to attend this past meeting – not only to vote but also to speak in favor of the overtures.  Out of about 50 voters, the overtures failed in the presbytery at a rate of about 5 to 1.  It wasn’t even close.
Since we took the vote by counting hands, I looked around to see who voted in favor and who opposed.  I counted roughly 10 hands in favor, which were 7 more than the 3 conservative voters that spoke up during the floor discussion.  Our presbytery set apart about an hour of time for pre-voting dialogue/debate.  One spoke in favor, then one spoke in opposition, and each speaker had about 3 minutes to make his case. We didn’t use the full hour and I was only allowed one chance to speak per overture.  Since I was one of the first in line to speak, I couldn’t respond to those who spoke in opposition to the overtures.
As I mentioned, the overtures failed in my presbytery.  This was discouraging, but not shocking.  Then some days later I heard that the overtures failed to pass across the entire denomination, which was both discouraging and shocking – especially for an optimillenialist.
Since that time, I’ve been thinking about why the overtures failed.  They passed overwhelmingly at General Assembly after all.  I don’t claim to be an expert at the way things work to get an overture passed.  I’ve been trying to bone up on that.  But something occurred to me recently.  Why didn’t all of the men who voted in favor of the overtures take the opportunity to speak up during the discussion?
With Titus 1 in mind, I’d like to make a plea to those elders who were silent except for their afirmative vote.  Since the Lord Jesus Christ gave qualifications for REs and TEs in His own holy Word, that means I must turn to His word as I appeal to my fellow PCA elders.
Titus 1:9 speaks of those who are qualified for the office of elder this way: “He must hold firm to the trustworthy word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to rebuke those who contradict it.” 
Since I met resistance to my speech at my presbytery meeting, I know that at least some of the REs and TEs who voted against the overtures understand they need to speak up.  They saw an RE encouraging a yes vote to the overtures, and they stood up and said something.  But I return to my question: Why didn’t all of the men who voted in favor of the overtures take the opportunity to speak up during the discussion?  Surely all elders have studied Titus 1:9 as they were considering their own qualifications to become an elder.
I anticipate readers of this article may be those very elders across all the presbyteries in the PCA.  Here then is my reminder of the command of Christ.  The elder “must hold firm to the trustworthy word as taught…”  He must also “be able to give instruction in sound doctrine.” And when the rubber hits the road, as it did during the latest presbytery meetings, he must “also rebuke those who contradict it.”  If the under-shepherd won’t rebuke those who contradict sound doctrine, he is unqualified for the office of elder.
So then, to those who silently voted in favor of the overtures; why do you remain silent?  In our culture, a vote is considered such a personal and private thing, that many can hide behind their vote without worry of being confronted for it.  So you may have voted conservative, and no one questioned you about it. If you had spoken up to rebuke those who contradict sound doctrine, then you likely would get confronted.  And so what if that happened? We know that we are to fear God over men.  God calls for our faithfulness as shepherds.  And faithfulness means rebuking those who contradict sound doctrine.  Titus 1:9 does NOT read this way “He must hold firm to the trustworthy word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to cast a vote against those who contradict it.”
If God says we need to rebuke those who contradict sound doctrine, then we must do it.  It’s not an option.  It’s not reserved for those who don’t seem to care about burning bridges or eating their presbytery lunch by themselves.  We elders must be qualified to teach – which means that fear of speaking to a crowd is something that we’ve already gotten over.  God calls us not only to speak in front of a crowd, but also to speak what is necessary to the crowd – even to (and maybe especially to) a crowd of fellow elders.
Speaking words of rebuke to those who contradict sound doctrine is what we are called to do.  You must do it, not because some RE that you’ve never heard of says so, but because the qualifications for elder has been revealed in the perfect and infallible Word of our Lord.  If you maintain that you are qualified for the office of elder, but refuse to say something when you see something, then either Jesus is wrong or you’re wrong.
And so I ask the question a final time: Why didn’t all of the elders who voted in favor of the overtures take the opportunity to speak up during the discussion?  If you are a conservative elder in the PCA, are you not concerned that these overtures failed?  If you are not concerned, why did you vote in favor of the overtures?  If you are concerned, then what are you concerned about?  Are you concerned that some elders in the PCA are contradicting sound doctrine?  Then read Titus 1:9 again.
Matt Balocca is a Ruling Elder in Grace Presbyterian Church in Fresno, Calif.

We are told to “follow the science”. What we have witnessed far too often over the past four years is “follow the money”. Be it corrupt politicians, Big Pharma, medicos with vested interests, or globalist bodies seeking to control us all, we have seen how quickly and easily science and medicine can be corrupted and hijacked for nefarious ends.

Some of us were quite sceptical of what was being done to us in the name of Covid from very early on in the piece. Things did not seem to add up, and the hysterical media alarmism, coupled with Statist overkill via lockdowns and all the rest certainly made us wonder.
And many of us wondered out loud. We got absolutely hammered and hated on for daring to ask hard questions and query the official narrative. For simply expressing our concerns we were turned into despised pariahs and treated as the scum of the earth.
Yet increasingly we are being vindicated. Barely a day goes by when we do not learn even more about just how wrong so much of the “science” was, how dictatorial and totalitarian our governments were, and how much medical fascism was allowed to take place. Simply considering all the injuries and deaths so far with rushed and improperly tested medicines should wake us up.
All this, coupled with the clearly stated aims of individuals and groups like Schwab, Harari, Gates, the World Economic Forum and the Great Reset mob, makes it clear that we whistle-blowers and questioners were absolutely right to stick our necks out and dare to look closer at what was – and is – happening.
There are now innumerable articles and videos and plenty of books on all this. Last year I offered this list of titles.
Four recent articles that have appeared on these matters are worth drawing your attention to. The first one speaks about slodderwetenschap (the Dutch term for ‘sloppy science’). The authors say this especially occurred during the COVID-19 pandemic:
We had front-row seats to witness the media reporting claims of a breakthrough made one day, then dismissed the next. It’s one of the first occasions the public has been able to clearly see how messy the scientific process can be – when it’s done sloppily.
One of the more public facets in the swirling whirl of COVID-19 misinformation was the continuing role of Dr Anthony Fauci, the Chief Medical Officer to the President of the USA. Fauci insisted that his pronouncements of the moment, such as suggesting it would only take 15 days to slow the spread of the virus or that masks were ‘unnecessary’, were ‘science’ and as such not to be questioned. Yet, the main method of science is to question. Fauci was abusing his claims of expertise and in the process helping to erode the public’s trust in science itself.
The researchers argue that one of the drivers of sloppy science is that people find it hard to accept results that are a work in progress; they much prefer the neatness and superficial completeness that often comes with incorrect work. It can mean that shortcuts are taken – and alternatives are ignored because they cause disruption.
Results that are desired are often declared correct due to political and financial pressures or even fears. This culture involves accepting storylines that are presented without further examination (eg, Fauci’s ‘I am Science’). Naïve acceptance can cause real harm – especially when the initial claims need to be qualified or are disproved. What arose during the COVID-19 pandemic was the increasing proliferation of unsound science, which meant policy leaders – misled by misinformation – made terrible decisions with devastating ramifications. The debate about the longevity of lockdowns as a means of dealing with COVID-19 and the seemingly deliberate suppression of the role of natural immunity post-infection stand out as two prominent examples.
They close their piece by outlining seven critical mistakes where sloppy science can creep into the scientific process:
1. Jumping straight into giving explanations for unexpected observations. The impulse to be the first to obtain results makes shortcuts tempting.2. Disregarding variables that could be of importance to the research. Selecting suitable variables is critical for good science – it’s a process that should not be rushed.3. Not correctly considering the context of the experiment. For example, how the research relates to the real world.4. Inflexible modelling. For example, only using a single model instead of an open-ended model to determine outcomes.5. Making bad sampling assertions. Like applying statistical functions across populations as a whole – when they may only apply to specific subsets.6. The overuse of labelling and categorisation.
Read More
Related Posts:

Written by Ryan M. McGraw |
Monday, August 19, 2024
A worldwide church is a clear indicator that the Seed of the woman has crushed the serpent’s head, which should encourage us to pray and persevere in a world that is hostile to Christ and his gospel. Second, Paul told the church in Rome that “the God of peace will soon crush Satan under your feet” (Rom. 16:20). This statement takes Christ’s victory over Satan from the end of Genesis 3:15 and combines it with the separation of the woman’s seed and the serpent’s seed in the middle. Christ gained victory over sin, death, and Satan for his people, and his people share in his victory over Satan. Through sin, Satan was our “father,” and when we sinned we did his will instead of God’s (John 8:44). Friendship with the world, the flesh, and the devil is enmity with God (James 4:4).

The Covenant of Grace
Our friendships say a lot about who we are. For example, the righteous should choose their friends carefully, knowing that the ways of the wicked lead them astray (Prov. 12:26). Friendships can make or break people, shaping who we are and making us better or worse for the experience. We tend to become like our friends, and our friends become like us. The covenant of grace is about making enemies with sin and Satan, and restoring friendship with God and his people, making us ultimately like Christ, who laid down his life for his friends (John 15:13).
Most of the Bible is about the covenant of grace, and the covenant of grace is about Christ (the Son). Westminster Larger Catechism 31 says, “The covenant of grace was made with Christ as the second Adam, and in him with all the elect as his seed.”1 We need a better representative than Adam; we need new hearts, and we need to be like God. Put differently, we need Jesus to be our Savior, the Spirit to dwell in our hearts, and God to be our Father. Genesis 3:15 through Revelation 22 is a single story about how God does this great work. Genesis 3:15 gives us the basic ideas of the covenant of grace, serving as a gateway into the rest of the Bible, making it a key to seeing the breathtaking unity of Scripture. This may be both the most basic and most blessed verse on covenant theology in the Bible. To understand Genesis 3:15, we need to get oriented to who’s who.
The text says,
I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and her offspring; he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel.
There are three contrasts in this text: the woman and the serpent, the Seed and the serpent, and the Seed and the seed.2 “Offspring” in the ESV and “seed” in my translation mean the same thing here. First, beginning where the problem started, Eve fell into sin by making friendship with the serpent and eating the forbidden fruit. God would put an end to this alliance by putting “enmity” between the serpent and her, breaking her friendship with sin and Satan. “Enmity,” like the word “enemy,” means the opposite of friendship. By sinning, Eve acted in enmity toward God, treating Satan as her friend, but God would break this relationship.
Second, skipping to the end for a moment, the serpent would crush the Seed’s heel, while the Seed would crush the serpent’s head. Translating the idea here can be tricky, but “bruise” is a bit weak. “Crush” ups the stakes a bit more appropriately. The Seed is singular, and he singularly suffers and undoes the curse of sin that the serpent brought on humanity. Since the serpent would crush the Seed’s heel but have his head crushed, the serpent gets the harsher outcome of the encounter. Third, in the middle of the verse the seed is also plural, pitting Satan’s (or the serpent’s) people against the woman’s people. This sets the pattern for the division of nations in Genesis, pitting the seed of the woman against the seed of the serpent. Just as the church is associated with Christ, so the world is associated with Satan. This is where the notorious ten chapters of genealogy in 1 Chronicles becomes relevant. Chronicles, and other places in the Bible, mark off the serpent’s seed from the woman’s seed, which marks the division between the world and the church. Though sacraments come later in the story, they will point to the Son saving the seed, following the outline established in this verse. So how does Genesis 3:15 put the covenant of grace in a nutshell? When God saves sinners, he ends our alliance with sin and Satan, like he did with Eve.
Read More
Related Posts: