Paul urges women to learn in quietness and submission, while in verse 12 he states that he doesn’t permit a woman to teach or have authority over a man. The infinitives “to teach” (didaskein) and “to have/exercise authority” (authentein) contrast what Paul doesn’t permit women to do with what he does want them to do: learn and be “in full submission.” Teaching, as we’ve seen, is the domain of elders who must be “able to teach” (3:2; cf. 5:17; Titus 1:9). The exercise of authority, likewise, is the domain of elders who “rule well” (5:17; cf. 3:4–5). “Quietness,” of course, doesn’t mean women must never speak in church, just that they should willingly submit to male teachers and elders in the church (cf. 1 Pet. 3:4). 

God’s Word calls qualified men to teach and pastor God’s flock. In discussions of this topic, 1 Timothy 2–3 are central to explaining why Paul did not permit a woman to teach or have authority in the church and why the pastoral office is grounded in creation and not culture. If anyone needs to see the most recent scholarship on the debate, the third edition of Women in the Church: An Interpretation and Application of 1 Timothy 2:9–15 is a good place to begin.
For today, I will provide a brief introduction to 1 Timothy 2–3, a passage that clearly affirms male eldership in the household of God.
Paul’s first letter to Timothy contains vital and abiding instructions for the church and its leadership. Paul writes to his apostolic delegate, Timothy, toward the end of Paul’s life and ministry in order to leave a legacy and pass on the pattern of church leadership to his foremost disciple. These instructions are not limited to first-century Ephesus (where Timothy was at the time) but abiding principles grounded in God’s creation order (Paul writes similar instructions to Titus, who is on the island of Crete).
The Church as God’s Household
Underlying Paul’s instructions is the metaphor of the church as God’s household. While in some of his other letters Paul uses the metaphor of a body with many members and Christ at the head, here (as well as in Titus) Paul conceives of the church in terms of an ancient household. It is well-attested historical fact that in both first-century Jewish and Greco-Roman households, the father (paterfamilias) was the head. Similarly, Paul stipulates that male elders be responsible for God’s household, the church.
In the ancient world, households consisted not only of the nuclear family (parents and children) but also included relatives (such as widows) and even household servants. The head of the household had the important task of caring for all the members of his extended household and of ensuring that their needs were met. Likewise, male elders were to care for the needs of all church members.
Proper Conduct in God’s Household (1 Tim. 3:14–15)
The most relevant instructions regarding church leadership in 1 Timothy are found in chapters 2 and 3. Chapter 2 opens with the words, “First of all, then, I urge that ….” (ESV). Here we have the beginning of a set of instructions Paul gives to Timothy for ordering the life of the church, particularly its leadership. The unit concludes with the words, “I am writing these things to you so that … you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, a pillar and buttress of the truth” (1 Tim. 3:14–15).
So here we see that chapters 2–3 are built on the metaphor of the church as God’s household. We also see that Paul thought of these instructions as general directives on “how one ought to behave” in God’s household, which he solemnly calls “the church of the living God” and, in yet another metaphor, “a pillar and buttress of the truth.” For this reason we can be sure that the instructions on church leadership in chapters 2–3 contain abiding—rather than merely culturally relative—instructions for the church.
Male Elders (1 Tim. 3:1–7; 5:17)
In 1 Timothy 3:1, Paul introduces the “trustworthy saying” that, “if anyone aspires to the office of overseer (episkopē), he desires a noble task.” He stipulates that an overseer (episkopos) be “above reproach” and a faithful husband and adds several other qualifications (vv. 2–3). He adds an analogy between the natural and God’s spiritual household: “He must manage (proistēmi) his own household well … for if someone does not know how to manage (proistēmi) his own household, how will he care for God’s church?” (3:4–5).
Read More
Related Posts:

At its core, parliamentary procedure is a set of rules designed to guide us in our deliberations as a church. This is important since deliberation is central to the nature, purpose, and function of church courts. Fundamental to biblical polity, then, is that we enter the courts of the church with a determination to make our decisions there, in conversation with all the other presbyters of the church gathered there. As we listen to one another, God commands us to speak to one another with God’s own Word, “submitting to one another out of reverence for Christ” (Eph. 5:19–21).

“Behold, how good and pleasant it is when brothers dwell in unity!” (Ps. 133:1).
Life in Christ’s church can be hard, especially when we must deal with complicated, difficult, and controversial questions. Nevertheless, we purposefully close every General Assembly by singing Psalm 133 together as a prayer that God would continue to weave this unity into the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA).
Ours is not the first generation in which  the church has struggled for unity. What, though, are we supposed to do when “no small dissension and debate” (Acts 15:2) arises within the church?  What does the Bible teach us about resolving such dissensions and debate?
I want to argue a controversial idea: if we were to tease out all the principles that the Bible teaches for resolving our disagreements in the church, we would end up with a system that looks very much like what we call parliamentary procedure. Rather than seeing parliamentary procedure as arbitrary or arcane, and far from seeing parliamentary procedure as a hindrance to the work of the church, I want to argue that parliamentary procedure reflects the Bible’s own teaching for how to make decisions as a church.
The Bible teaches, then, that our church government should derive from the same principles of biblical wisdom that we use to structure our worship: “Let all things be done for building up….But all things should be done decently and in order.” (1 Cor. 14:26, 40; see WCF 1.6). In this article, I  explore three major ways in which the main principles of parliamentary procedure follow the general rules of the Word, “which are always to be observed” (WCF 1.6).
1. Parliamentary Procedure Gathers an Assembly to Deliberate
Let’s start with a foundational principle: in order to make decisions, we must gather together in the same place, at the same time. Just as we recognize the importance of gathering together for worship, as suggested by the routine use of the words for “come together” (sunerchomai; sunagō) in passages about corporate worship (e.g., Acts 11:26; 13:44; 14:27; 16:13; 20:7–8; 1 Cor. 11:17, 18, 20, 33, 34; 14:23, 26), so too should we acknowledge the importance of gathering together for deliberation and decision-making.
When the Jerusalem Council had to consider the ongoing relevance of circumcision in the Church, we read that “[T]he apostles and the elders were gathered together (sunagō) to consider this matter” (Acts 15:6). We don’t make decisions from afar or by correspondence, but by gathering together at one place, and at one time, to talk together about the questions before us.
To some degree, this principle can be extended into virtual meetings; however, Robert’s Rules of Order requires “at a minimum, conditions of opportunity for simultaneous aural communication among all participating members equivalent to those of meetings held in one room or area” (RONR [12th ed.] 9:31). Even if we meet on a Zoom call, we can make decisions if and only if we can, at the very least, hear one another.
2. Parliamentary Procedure Prioritizes our Listening
The reason that the Bible requires us to be together at the same place, at the same time, is to prioritize listening. While we often overlook it, the centrality of silence and listening in both Acts 15 and 1 Corinthians 14 is astonishing:

And all the assembly fell silent, and they listened to Barnabas and Paul as they related what signs and wonders God had done through them among the Gentiles. (Acts 15:12)
After they finished speaking [lit., “fell silent”], James replied, “Brothers, listen to me.” (Acts 15:13)
But if there is no one to interpret, let each of them keep silent in church and speak to himself and to God. (1 Cor. 14:28)
If a revelation is made to another sitting there, let the first be silent. (1 Cor. 14:30)
As in all the churches of the saints, the women should keep silent in the churches. (1 Cor. 14:33b–34a)

Read More

Written by Albert D. Taglieri |
Monday, December 27, 2021
TE Johnson’s written words in the SJC report describing his doctrines of sin and sanctification pose concerns.  The proposed doctrine of sin flattens distinctions, and in so doing it fails to properly identify internal actual sins.  This leads, consequently, to the doctrine of a faulty understanding of sanctification, which is stripped of both the hope and the expectation of changed desires and affections. And it from these doctrinal formulations that his underlying paradigm of “care” is grounded and found wanting. 

Introduction
In recent days, TE Greg Johnson has released his new book, Still Time to Care, about homosexuality in the church.  In the wake of his new paradigm of “care,” it is worth looking at the theology behind this paradigm, which can be found in his own words, within the report that the PCA’s Standing Judicial Commission (SJC) released.  The SJC voted to uphold Missouri Presbytery’s ruling that “TE Johnson’s ‘explanations’ on the four allegations were ‘satisfactory.’” (SJC, 28:5-6).  In this article I will analyze TE Johnson’s written words in the report and raise several precise concerns about the doctrines of sin and sanctification which he proposes, and which lie behind his new book.
This is a doctrinal analysis and does not intend to address or call into question TE Johnson’s Christian witness or experience.  From his words, I am confident that TE Johnson loves our Lord and desires earnestly to serve him.  However, there are serious theological concerns that appear contrary to the Westminster Standards.
First, TE Johnson flattens three important distinctions in the doctrine of sin.  He merges 1) the actual/original distinction; 2) the external/internal distinction; and 3) the commission/omission distinction, as if they were different names for the same thing.  This results in a subtle equivocation in the definition of “sin,” allowing TE Johnson to assert without apparent internal contradiction that homosexual attraction both is and is not sin, and implicitly denying that “internal sins” are “actual sins.”
Second and consequently, TE Johnson’s doctrine of sanctification suffers by denying that sanctification is comprehensive and ordinary.  These denials are intertwined: he calls sanctification ordinary but denies that the ordinariness of it applies to the whole man, including the affections.  In the realm of affections, while TE Johnson admits the possibility of sanctification, he denies that it is ordinary or expected.  In doing so, he reduces the ordinary experience of sanctification to the external, repeating the pharisaical error.  Additionally, TE Johnson’s explanation of the means of grace in sanctification leaves significant ambiguities about the work of the Spirit.  The omission of the principle means of grace, in favor of man’s action, in his description of mortification suggests a tendency towards externalizing the process of sanctification.
The Doctrine of Sin
TE Johnson has done an admirable job in his goal to avoid the error of Pelagianism, which argues that original sin is not sin, and thus not worthy of God’s punishment.  Throughout his written word, he emphasizes that original sin is, as our confession states, “truly and properly sin” (Westminster Confession of Faith (WCF) 6.5).  However, whether TE Johnson teaches that original sin is or is not properly called “sin” is not the question.  The question is under what category TE Johnson places homosexual attraction within the overarching category of “sin.”  Does TE Johnson teach that homosexual attraction is original sin or actual sin?  Here, his writing makes plain that he considers homosexual attraction to be in the category of original sin rather than actual sin.
TE Johnson states: “An internal sexual or romantic pull toward anyone God has not given me…[is] a motion of the internal corruption that remains in the believer throughout this life…This temptation is ‘original corruption’ and is ‘properly called sin,’ even when it does not lead to ‘actual sin” (SJC, 14:1-10).
TE Johnson correctly rejects the Pelagian error (that original sin is not sin), but also incorrectly categorizes homosexual attraction as original sin.  This is a confusion of the original/actual distinction with the internal/external distinction, treating “internal” and “original” as if they were synonymous.  The Reformed tradition has always realized that sins do not need to break into external action to be actual sins, but that internal “motions” such as thoughts, desires, etc., are also actual sins when they transgress God’s law.  Thus, Christ speaks of the experience of lust (or as TE Johnson characterizes: an internal sexual or romantic pull), as being equivalent to the commission of adultery.  Westminster Larger Catechism (WLC) 149 asks whether any man is able perfectly to keep the commandments of God, to which it answers: “No man is able, either of himself, or by any grace received in this life, perfectly to keep the commandments of God; but doth daily break them in thought, word, and deed” [emphasis added].
Because thoughts are defined in both Scripture and the Westminster Standards as sin, we cannot make, as TE Johnson does, the distinction between original and actual sins to consist in the absence or presence of the volition (involuntary acts are still acts), nor can we see actual sin as limited to only external action.  In fact, WLC 151 elaborates, declaring that transgressions are still actual sin, even when “only conceived in the heart,” and are merely aggravated when they “break forth in words and actions.”
TE Johnson then proceeds to merge into the two already collapsed distinctions the third, treating “omission” as another name for “original,” and “commission” as another name for “actual.”  He states that “We are culpable both for what we do (transgression) and also for what we are (any lack of conformity unto)” (SJC, 15:27-28).  The sentence without the parentheses is an excellent statement of the orthodox understanding of original sin.  However, the parentheses are concerned, insofar as they borrow language from WLC 24’s definition of sin, with pairing “transgression” with actual sin, and “want of conformity” with original sin.  The “want of conformity,” however, includes actual sins and is not identical to the category of original sin.  It instead describes sins of omission, as opposed to those of commission.  “Want of conformity” is not synonymous with original sin (although it may be said to include it).
Reformed theology sees three different, although interrelated, distinctions.  There are 6 different categories, with overlaps.  Preserving these, we confess that the experience of lust is an actual sin.  By contrast, TE Johnson’s written word treats each of these distinctions as merely a different name for the same thing: the two categories of “original/internal/omission” and “actual/external/commission.”  Through this flattening, he places lust into the category of original rather than actual sin.
A further comment demonstrates the subtlety of TE Johnson’s doctrine of sin.  Continuing from the previously quoted section, he writes: “I use the phrase ‘a sin’ in its vernacular sense as a synonym for ‘actual sin.’  When speaking of the motions of original corruption, I am more likely to speak of ‘indwelling sin.’  Temptations are ‘of sin’ in that they are ‘motions of’ original sin/internal corruption” (SJC, 15:30-33).  He clarifies elsewhere: “Same-sex attraction is part of our ‘original corruption’—specifically the part about being ‘inclined to all evil’” (SJC, 20:44-45).
The first quote explains why TE Johnson previously spoke of same-sex attraction (SSA) as “of sin” but not “a sin.”  Both quotes show that TE Johnson has self-consciously placed it in the category of original sin.[1]  While he is correct to continue affirming its culpability, he is incorrect in his categorization of it.  Despite this, his definitions provide an interesting case study, and I believe that proceeding from his definitions should properly end up affirming that it is an actual sin.
TE Johnson, both in the quoted section, and WCF in 6.5, distinguishes between original sin as the corruption of nature and its motions.  The motions of original sin are not original sin.  This is why the Confession in that place states concerning original sin that “both itself, and all the motions thereof, are truly and properly sin.”  In fact, as already quoted, TE Johnson correctly affirms a distinction between what we do, being actual sin, and what we are, being original sin.  I propose the following syllogism:
Major Premise: A motion of the corrupt nature is what the corrupt nature does.Minor Premise: But the corrupt nature is what I am.Conclusion: Therefore, a motion of the corrupt nature is what I do. 
Thus, a motion of the corrupt nature is actual sin but not original sin.  It is an event not a substance.  Therefore, the experience of SSA, as with any other experience of lust, is “a sin,” and not merely “of sin.”  It is instructive at this point to refer to Vermigli’s work on original sin.  He teaches that, “The apostle uses the term sin to mean more than just original sin.  The term encompasses all kinds of vices that flow from original sin.”[2]  Vermigli disagrees with TE Johnson, declaring that “vices” (which are internal, particular, and habitual—what TE Johnson refers to as the motions of the corrupt nature) are actual sins rather than original sin.
Another concern about TE Johnson’s doctrine of sin should be noted, as it is a relatively common understanding in the evangelical world.  TE Johnson states about his experience: “I look away when tempted.  I don’t take that second glance” (SJC, 18:13-18).  As with all who experience lust, TE Johnson’s resistance to sinful desires is commendable.  A minor clarification is required though: what about the first glance?  Is the first glance a sin?  Or is the second glance alone when it becomes a sin?  The popular evangelical perspective is that the first glance is not sin, but it becomes sin only when it is lingered on, or becomes a second glance – that is, when it obtains the conscious consent of the will.  But second glance ethics is not Reformed ethics.  Jesus’ statement in Matthew 5 does not characterize looks by quantity or sequence.  Our Lord condemns all lustful looks without qualification.  Instead, a second glance, or a “continuance” of sin, is merely an aggravation of sin, as WLC 151 helpfully delineates.  TE Johnson’s perspective is unclear, but the point is worthy of noting, as the ambiguity suggests that his doctrine may categorize the first glance as original sin, contrary to the Word.
The Doctrine of Sanctification
TE Johnson’s testimony and description of his experience seeking sanctification demonstrates that he has a godly desire for the elimination of sin.  Despite this earnest desire, there remain theological concerns in his doctrine of sanctification, in no small part due to the previous concerns stated about his doctrine of sin.  Several aspects are intertwined, and will be addressed in sequence: ordinariness, scope, and means.  The doctrine which TE Johnson’s written words propose are those where change is unexpected internally, and ordinarily limited to externals.  His description of the means of sanctification contains notable omissions, and tendencies to external procedures.
It is important to acknowledge at the outset that TE Johnson does acknowledge that sanctification is progressive.  He declares his full agreement with WCF 13.1 and is careful to guard the truth that after regeneration indwelling sin does remain.  However, the question at hand is not the presence of any progress, but the nature of that progress.  Statements about sanctification–orthodox in isolation–are transformed in the context of TE Johnson’s doctrine of sin, to mean something different than the Confession intended. A few quotes suffice to demonstrate the first concern: that TE Johnson’s doctrine affirms that internal change is not ordinary by stating that the lack of change is ordinary:
“Longtime Harvest USA director Tim Geiger has stated that he has also never seen same-sex attraction go away—in himself or in anyone else.  I suspect there are cases out there.  But ordinarily this is a lifetime struggle” [emphasis added], (SJC, 19:14-16).
“It is possible for God to reduce homoerotic temptation from the inclinations and desires of a believer…But struggle against sexual temptation is typically lifelong” (SJC, 19:30-38).
TE Johnson’s own experience includes some measure of change – he says that he has “found the frequency of these distractions is lessened through the decades” (SJC, 19:33-34).  Yet tension appears between his experience and his doctrine.  He suggests that change is not ordinary, but then he affirms the reality of some change. While, I do not wish to characterize his experience, only his doctrine’ his doctrine lacks an internal dimension of “progress” in “progressive sanctification.”  While it is true that the war against sin is lifelong (the lifelong nature of fighting sin is not merely ordinary – it is universal), it is also true that progress and change are also ordinary and to be expected, and that the war with “sin” in the abstract is distinct from the battle with this or that particular sin.  The “rare” possibility of change should not be set in opposition to lifelong battle, as though the existence of the lifelong battle removed change from the domain of the ordinary.  By using contrasts and repeated use of “but,” TE Johnson’s doctrine gives the appearance of acknowledging the possibility of progress, but then voiding it of power by declaring it extraordinary.
This says nothing about the speed of such progress or change.  It may be slowly realized, and for many it is.  And yet, there remains the expectation—the hope.  John Owen quotes Habakkuk 2:3, applying the sureness of God’s promises to sanctification: “For the vision is yet for an appointed time; But at the end it will speak, and it will not lie.  Though it tarries, wait for it; Because it will surely come, It will not tarry.”  One could add to this the declaration of Psalm 5, that we “wait expectantly” or “eagerly watch.”  Owen relates sanctification to faith, “If, then, thou canst raise up thy heart to a settled expectation of relief from Jesus Christ…thy soul shall be satisfied, he will assuredly deliver thee; he will slay the lust, and thy latter end shall be peace.  Only look for it at his hand; expect when and how he will do it.”[3]  Perhaps, instead of TE Johnson’s suggested opposition, “possible change but typically a lifelong struggle,” we should say that there is the “expectation of change, realized progressively in battle until death.”
The exercise of faith, expecting Christ’s grace in sanctification, is one of the means of sanctification.  The suggestion that a lack of change (or a minimal change) throughout the Christian’s life is ordinary, is therefore directly contrary, and even harmful, to God’s appointed means of sanctification.  TE Johnson correctly says, “It is possible,” but does not move to the promise that God is not only able but also willing.  As Gurnall stated: “The very considering God to be God, supposeth him almighty to pardon … is some relief.  But then to consider it as almighty power in bond and covenant to pardon, this is more” [emphasis added].[4]  The same applies to sanctification – God is not only able but willing.  1 Thessalonians 4 describes sanctification as the will of God; and Philippians 2 is stronger: he is not only able, and not only willing, but actively working in us to accomplish it.  He is able.  He is willing.  And he is doing!  Let us say with the Psalmist, “Oh, that men would give thanks to the Lord for His goodness, And for His wonderful works to the children of men!” (Psalm 107:8).
Another point of concern is TE Johnson’s focus on the externality of sanctification, limiting its scope.  This follows from his doctrine of sin, where he understands vices to be of original sin, instead of actual sins.  In fact, this is merely a deepening of the previous aspect of ordinariness discussed above, which should not be separated from it.  He correctly writes quoting WCF 6.5, that, “This corruption of nature, during this life, doth remain in those that are regenerated” (SJC, 19:9-10).  Yet, when internal actual sins are improperly placed into the category of original sin, this necessarily leads to a change of sanctification’s focus into the external, and correspondingly an expectation of no (or minimal) internal change.  Sanctification takes the shape of diminishing sinful (external) acts, not killing sinful desires.
Sanctification, however, extends to the whole being.  While imperfect, sanctification is “in the whole man” (WCF 13:2), and to reiterate the point of expectation, “doth overcome” in the whole man (WCF 13.3).  2 Corinthians 5:17 declares that in Christ “old things have passed away; behold, all things have become new.”  We have newness not only in external actions, but also in our internal affections.
TE Johnson, in limiting actual sin to sins located primarily in the volition, also limits sanctification to the domain of the volition, and casts it out of the affections.  He subtly achieves this limit in a change of vocabulary when the SJC inquires “Is homosexuality a heinous sin?” by answering with, “homosexual immorality” and “heterosexual immorality” are subsets of the broader “sexual immorality” (SJC, 26:32-27:5).  In fact, he tells us that, “[I]f a minister instead engages in actual gay sex or actual slander, then Paul’s logic would seem to indicate that such a minister is unfit for office. And much more seriously, without particular repentance, they have no basis for an assurance of salvation” [emphasis added], (SJC, 24:25-29).
By referring to only “actual gay sex” in his discussion of the sanctified character, he has explicitly limited the scope of ordinary sanctification to actions and not desires.  We understand from Scripture though, that the external action is to be merely the expression of the already changed internal character.  Otherwise, one may honor God with his actions, and yet his heart may remain far from him.
When TE Johnson writes that, “We don’t judge by what sinful temptation a minister experiences in his hearts so much as by what he does with that temptation.  Does he proactively mortify his sin?” (SJC, 25:15-17); this is an incredibly helpful statement.  With this we heartily agree – the presence of temptation is common to believers and will be until death when sanctification is complete.  However, the response of mortification which TE Johnson describes, appears incomplete if he limits it to the externals of whether a man “consistently if imperfectly does what God wants (and not what indwelling sin wants)” (SJC, 25:21-22).
This is certainly an important part of sanctification, but is not the full extent of sanctification, for sanctification occurs not merely in the actions, but in the desires as well.  While sanctification remains progressive we yet affirm with Morton Smith, that in it “Every act or function of our moral and spiritual being is brought into this operation of the Holy Spirit.  The Holy Spirit engages man’s consciousness, understanding, felling, will, conscience, and every aspect of our personality” (emphasis added)[5]
Another concern about TE Johnson’s doctrine of sanctification concerns what is mainly an ambiguity.  Following the external focus of sanctification’s effects, the means which TE Johnson describes also tend toward externality.  We agree that mortification is the proper response, but it is worth hearing how he describes mortification: “I meet with an elder weekly for accountability.  I avoid unmonitored internet connections.  I invest in Christian friendships in which I am known.  I have Covenant Eyes on my phone.  That experience is required of any Christian man walking in repentance.  Being same-sex attracted does not increase my struggle against sexual temptation, per se” (SJC, 18:14-18).
This looks suspiciously like checkbox ethics, as if the stated procedures are the proper mode and method of mortification.  He declares explicitly that such things are “required of any Christian man walking in repentance.”  While these things are certainly helpful, good, and useful, it seems difficult to argue that Covenant Eyes is a divinely appointed means of grace.  Instead, John Owen, after 13 chapters of preparation, tells us that mortification consists of acting in faith on Christ.  Since sanctification is “the work of God’s grace” (WLC 75) through the Spirit, the means are primarily spiritual.  TE Johnson omits from his description of what mortification looks like, any discussion of Christ’s “ordinances; especially the word, sacraments, and prayer; all which are made effectual to the elect for their salvation” (WLC 154) by the work of the Holy Spirit.
To pursue “Spirit-empowered victory” over sin is to use the divinely appointed means for that end.  If every time TE Johnson describes mortification in his responses, he omits these means in favor of self-action (SJC 25:24-42), or means unknown until the modern era (e.g., Covenant Eyes), it is reasonable to be concerned that his doctrine might induce others to look in the wrong place for sanctification.
John Webster  reminds all of us that while sanctification is a process in which we are active, God is the primary agent: “There is no point at which God’s action retires in favor of human undertakings…our making of a culture is as it were our inhabiting of a space in which we have been set, acting out roles and fulfilling tasks to which we have been appointed, and doing so with an energy which is God’s own gift.”[6]
The means of grace are instruments in God’s hands, not ours.  We approach God through them, in dependence upon him – not them.  Mortification is not routine human practice, but the Holy Spirit acting through means which God has appointed.[7]  I would encourage TE Johnson to resolve the ambiguity of his statements on mortification, and to be certain that his doctrine emphasizes these truths and directs believers to the primary means of grace.  Does “care” look like pointing people to hope, through the Spirit working by the means of grace?  Or does it consist in pointing people to other practices, not ordained by God as means of grace, so that they will gain psychological comfort in the absence of hope?
Conclusion
TE Johnson’s written words in the SJC report describing his doctrines of sin and sanctification pose concerns.  The proposed doctrine of sin flattens distinctions, and in so doing it fails to properly identify internal actual sins.  This leads, consequently, to the doctrine of a faulty understanding of sanctification, which is stripped of both the hope and the expectation of changed desires and affections. And it from these doctrinal formulations that his underlying paradigm of “care” is grounded and found wanting.
Albert D. Taglieri is a member of First Presbyterian Church of Gulfport, Miss.

[1] This is concerning given that the first allegation includes this exact charge.
[2] Peter Martyr Vermigli, On Original Sin, 85.
[3] John Owen, Works of John Owen, 6:80.
[4] William Gurnall, The Christian in Complete Armour, 35.
[5] Morton H. Smith, Systematic Theology, 2:490.
[6] John Webster, The Culture of Theology, 54.
[7] A helpful article, which describes a lengthy list of divinely appointed means of grace, may be found here: https://journal.rpts.edu/2020/10/02/how-sanctification-works-the-westminster-assembly-and-progressive-sanctification/