Following the scientific community’s widespread adoption of Darwinian evolutionary theory and the geological uniformitarianism of Charles Lyell in the nineteenth century, Christian scholars were divided into three camps. On the left were the theological Liberals (i.e., Modernists) who sought to shoehorn the rapidly changing scientific consensus into the Bible or otherwise reject the Bible writ large. On the right were the theological reactionaries (i.e., Fundamentalists) that vigorously rejected the purported findings and theorizing of natural scientists. Between the two were those who sought honestly and sincerely to figure out what was going on.

Having established that Scripture is inspired by God (Articles VI through X) and infallible in nature (Article XI), the Chicago Statement proceeds to defend the Inerrancy of Scripture in all that follows. We have come to the heart of the matter. Article XII begins:
We affirm that Scripture in its entirety is inerrant, being free from all falsehood, fraud, or deceit.
By this affirmation, the Statement makes two important theological moves. In the first place, it draws out the necessary implication of the inspiration and infallibility of the Bible as Holy Scripture. We know that God is truth (John 14:6) and does not change (Mal. 3:6; James 1:17), and we confess with Christ our Lord that His Word – being the God-breathed Word of truth (2 Tim. 3:16) – is likewise immutably true (John 17:17). If something is immutably true, then it must be without error (i.e., inerrant). God’s Word is immutably true and therefore necessarily inerrant.
In the second place, this affirmation includes an elegant explication of what it means for the Bible to be inerrant. The three terms used here as contrasts to inerrancy – falsehood, fraud, and deceit – clearly overlap in some measure. But are they simply synonyms? Did the framers of the Chicago Statement crack open a thesaurus and pick out three descriptors to develop the doctrine of inerrancy with a superficial statement of redundancy? I think not.
The inerrant Word of God is “free from all falsehood” in that it does not contain any error. There is neither jot nor tittle (Matt. 5:18) out of place or composed in error in the original manuscripts of God’s Word. The content of the now-lost autographs has been “by [God’s] singular care and providence, kept pure in all ages,” in the words of the Westminster Confession of Faith, which means that the Hebrew (and Aramaic) Old Testament and the Greek New Testament “are therefore authentical” (WCF 1.8). There are no errors or falsehoods due either to innocent mistakes, uncertain hypotheses, or malicious intent in God’s Word.
God’s Word is “free from all…fraud” in that it does not lie. Unlike the capricious false (and fraudulent) gods of the nations, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob is true to His Word. We read in Numbers 23:19 “God is not a man, that He should lie, nor a son of man, that He should repent; has He said, and will He not do it? Or has He spoken, and will He not make it good?” The Apostle Paul grounds “the hope of eternal life” at the beginning of his letter to Titus in the ancient promise of God, “who cannot lie” (Titus 1:2).
Read More
Related Posts:

God’s Word is given to mankind to know His will for our conduct and for our salvation; it is altogether clear and sufficient for Christian faith and practice. Through history, poetry, prophecy, and didactic instruction, God speaks to us in His Word in an intelligible manner. That is, God uses language to reveal to us His purposes for His glory and His people’s good. 

Having laid a foundation for the nature and authority of the Holy Scriptures as the Word of God in the three opening articles, the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy proceeds to define and defend mankind’s capacity to receive God’s Word. The framers of the Statement make the following affirmation in its fourth article:
We affirm that God who made mankind in His image has used language as a means of revelation.
This affirmation tells us something about God: He is our Creator. It also tells us something about mankind: we are made in God’s image. One implication of mankind’s nature as bearing God’s image is that intelligent spiritual relationship between the infinite Creator and His finite creation is possible. The gift of language is a means of revelation. Indeed, language is the means or vehicle of God’s special revelation whereby spiritually vital men and women can know God and His will for our salvation.
At the dawning of creation, God created all things by the power of His Word. Genesis chapter one specifies (and emphasizes) that God spoke all things into existence. On the sixth day, after some spoken deliberation (Gen. 1:26), the one holy, living, and triune “God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them” (Gen. 1:27). When He formed the man from the dust of the earth, He “breathed into his nostrils the breath of life” (Gen. 2:7). Thus, God created man and woman, in the words of the Westminster Confession of Faith, “with reasonable and immortal souls, endued with knowledge, righteousness, and true holiness, after His own image” (WCF 4.2).
Upon opening their eyes, what did Adam and Eve our first parents behold? They saw that all creation showcases the power, majesty, and handiwork of God their Creator.
Read More
Related Posts:

The doctrine of election and predestination is profoundly comforting in the light of Christ’s finished work on our behalf. He did not die to make life possible for us. Christ died and rose again to secure for each of us whom His Spirit unites to Himself immortality and everlasting blessedness in the presence of His Father. His saving work is as effectual and unchangeable as the invincible decree upon which it rests. 

In our theological lexicon, two words in particular stand out as notoriously confusing, potentially offensive, critically important, and profoundly comforting all at the same time. The terms ‘election’ and ‘predestination’ – which have nothing to do with political decision-making and very little to do with popular cultural notions of destiny – refer to God’s eternal decree to claim and to save a people for His own glory.
Any controversy surrounding these terms concerns the specificity and particularity of God’s decree. As the Westminster Confession of Faith expresses this feature of the doctrine, “By the decree of God, for the manifestation of His glory, some men and angels are predestinated unto everlasting life; and others foreordained to everlasting death” (WCF 3.3; emphasis added). It is precisely this some/others feature of election and predestination that provoked one dear Christian lady to say to me, “I don’t believe in predestination!”
But this protest against the doctrine of predestination directly contradicts plain statements such as those found in Ephesians 1:4-5, “He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we would be holy and blameless before Him. In love He predestined us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to Himself” (emphasis added). If we limited our understanding of God’s electing and predestinating decree to His purposing to save people in general, there would be considerable less potential for confusion or offense. But as Scripture makes clear, God chooses particular people (e.g., Deut. 7:6; 14:2; Ps. 135:4; Is. 43:10), and even individuals (e.g., Mal. 1:2f; Rom. 9:13), by divine decree. In other words, the Bible reveals to us a God who wields the prerogative not only to save men, but to choose those particular men whom He saves.
Read More
Related Posts:

When viewed in historical perspective (going back to 2013), it remains the case that more than any other denomination, the EPC is the destination of choice for PCA ministers transferring out of the PCA (71 in the years 2012-2022). The same move is much less common for entire congregations, despite certain high-profile examples, going back to the 1990s.

The Stated Clerk of the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA) reports annually on statistical changes that take place each year, including ministerial and congregational departures from the denomination.
Over the past two years, I have published posts (here, here, and here) which have brought together data to ‘track the stats’ regarding losses from the denomination. My question has been – and continues to be – What can this data tell us about the preferred destination(s) of the ministers and congregations that leave the PCA for other ecclesiastical settings?
The various lists of congregations added, transferred, or dissolved in 2022 are found on pages 239-240 of the Commissioner Handbook to the 50th General Assembly. Similar lists of ministers added to the PCA, dismissed to other denominations, deceased, or otherwise removed from office in 2022 are found on pages 240-246. Once the Minutes of the 50th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in America are finalized and published, this post will be updated to direct readers to the appropriate page numbers in the Minutes.
After comparing the statistical reports on pages 239-246 with other information I could find online, here are my summary findings for the changes in the roster of PCA congregations and ministers in 2022:
Congregations Organized in 2022: 24Gross Total of Congregations Added in 2022: 27
Congregations Dissolved in 2022: 8Congregations Dismissed to Other Denominations in 2022: 6 (1 ACNA; 1 BPC; 1 CMA; 1 CREC; 2 Independency)Gross Total of Congregations Lost in 2022: 14Read More
Related Posts:

God has appointed for the protection of the pulpit is biblically regulated and sincerely administered polity.[1] Note that polity is an instrument. Polity is not an end in itself. The proper end toward which biblical polity is aimed is the worship of God. Worship comprises the reading and preaching of God’s Word, along with various other indispensable elements. Thus, polity protects preaching.

After the 50th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA), I had the unique privilege to spend 8.5 hours in my car with a founding father of the denomination. Dr. Joseph A. Pipa, Jr. and I made the long drive from Memphis to Greenville with much to talk about. We discussed our various interactions with friends, former classmates and (his) students, and the business of the Assembly.
At some point before I introduced my travel companion to Buc-ee’s for the first time, Dr. Pipa reflected on a felicitous feature of denominational health evidenced at this year’s Assembly. He remarked upon the impressive competencies and capabilities of many of the young pastors who took to the microphone to make floor speeches. He celebrated the rising generation’s knowledgeable, confident, and effective engagement with church polity and deliberation.
However, he did not stop there in his reflection. What he said next stuck in my mind as we made the trek home. The best I can do at this point is a paraphrase because I was driving, and not taking notes, at the time. Dr. Pipa said something along the lines of, “As happy as I am about how competent these men are in their polity, I certainly hope that they are at least as competent and adequately prepared to preach effectively as we all get back to the real work of ministry.” There is profound wisdom here for those of us who are increasingly interested and engaged in matters of polity.
I believe that Dr. Pipa’s point was that church government is subordinate to the worship of God. Rightly regulated church government exists for the sake of rightly regulated corporate worship. Because the ministry of the Word is a necessary part of corporate worship (a matter discussed at one point during the deliberations of the Assembly), our polity exists for the sake of preaching. In other words, polity serves preaching and is subordinate to it. How so? Specifically, polity protects the pulpit, and it does so in at least two ways.
In the first place, polity protects the pulpit from those who would otherwise abuse the God-ordained means of grace for their own advantage. The Apostle Paul pointedly charged the elders in Ephesus, “Be on guard for yourselves and for all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood” (Acts 20:28).
Read More
Related Posts:

Though other resources exist for deeper investigation and more thorough mastery of the deliberative process, this booklet is uniquely clear, to the point, and pertinent to churchmen in the PCA. Whether you are new to the world of session meetings, presbyteries, and General Assembly or have been laboring faithfully over many years in Christ’s vineyard, this booklet will prove useful to you.

Every conscientious presbyter serving in the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA) should have a chunky blue binder containing the Book of Church Order (BCO) within easy reach of his desk or workspace.
Like all good binders, this one includes pockets on the insides of the front and back covers. Into those pockets, you may have lodged away some handwritten notes, a helpful flowchart or two, or even a reading plan with study guide to the Westminster Standards. This year, you will want to add a new booklet written by Pastor Jacob Gerber of Harvest Community Church (PCA) in Omaha, Nebraska: Parliamentary Procedure for Presbyters: A Beginner’s Guide.
Presbyterian Polity and the Gospel Reformation Network (GRN) have partnered to publish this helpful (and mercifully brief) guide to parliamentary procedure (i.e., Robert’s Rules of Order) within the context of the various deliberative settings of the PCA. The initial copies of this new resource will be offered exclusively as gifts for attendees of the 2023 GRN National Conference in Charlotte and the GRN’s upcoming PCAGA Luncheon in Memphis. Be sure to register for these two events today (click here for more info).
Read More
Related Posts:

Much like Cain, the [Nashville] shooter was on a hunt for self-expression on her terms rather than God’s. Whereas Cain despised God in his heart and by his outward worship, she despised God in her heart and by her outward “gender identity.” There is no divine approbation for false worship, and there is no divine approbation for self-delusion, especially when it is imposed upon others. Without any sure foundation for her identity, she—like Cain—resorted to murderous terroristic violence.

Tragedy in Nashville
Recent horrors in Nashville, Tennessee have left Christians around the world brokenhearted, grieving with the families of the children, schoolteachers, and staff who were slain. At the same time, media pundits from across the social and political spectrum have sought for an explanation, appealing to various (and predictable) issues: the availability of guns, speculations about the shooter’s childhood experiences, the failure of pharmaceutical medical intervention, the violent anti-Christian register of transgender political rhetoric, and so on down the list.
The truth is that some of these factors—and many more besides—may be part of the eventual explanation for what transpired, serving either as a necessary condition or as a contributing cause. But the root cause is much bigger and goes much deeper than any one of these considerations. At root in this horrific tragedy is sin’s corrupting influence expressing itself in the killers’s three-dimensional hatred: hatred of self, hatred of God, and hatred of neighbor.
By the killer’s own admission to a former classmate immediately before her assault on the Covenant School, she was on a self-loathing suicide mission.1 In relation to God, her self-expression and identification as a man was a rejection of her Creator and how He designed her in her mother’s womb (Ps. 139:13), a hatred of God expressed in her destruction of six of His image-bearers. But most obviously, her massacre of innocent Christian children and adults was indicative of her hatred of neighbor spilling over into what some commentators have labeled an act of “transgender terrorism.”
With her Manifesto and plans currently kept under wraps during the Metro Nashville Police Department (MNPD) investigation, there is little that can be said about the incremental steps she took in the ideation, conception, planning, and execution of Monday’s attack. In the analysis of the killer’s act of heinous sin, her Manifesto may reveal either a clearly expressed motive or a fog of mental derangement impossible to decipher. The eventual release of the shooter’s Manifesto is pending close inspection by experts in criminal profiling at the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Behavioral Analysis Unit.2
Read More
Related Posts:

The promise of God to hear prayers is for all those who come confessing their sins and seeking divine pardon in and through Christ alone, who made atonement for our sins on Calvary’s tree where He hung despised and rejected for our sakes.

A few years back, there was a clever trend afoot that brought light amusement to some and great annoyance to others. Friends and family members would record a voicemail greeting that began with a cheery “hello,” only to pause for a few seconds before launching into the rest of the greeting, “I can’t come to the phone right now.” That brief interlude was just long enough to prompt many of us – myself included – to launch into conversation. Having been greeted by a familiar voice, you could reasonably assume to be speaking with (and heard by) your loved one on the other end of the call. But instead you had fallen prey to cheap trickery. What few words passed your lips dissipated in futility, left unheard like the crash of a tree in an uninhabited rainforest. The promise of a friendly hearing was broken as the rest of the voicemail greeting bombarded your unsuspecting ears. With thanks to God and confidence in His promises, we can be grateful that such is never the case when we call upon His Name in prayer.
God in His Word speaks of an unbreakable promise of what we might call “a friendly hearing” at His throne of grace. Christians in the midst of spiritual warfare are counseled, “draw near to God and He will draw near to you” (Jas. 4:8). This assurance of God’s readiness to commune with us in our acts of devotion flows out of the very nature and character of God, whom David addresses with the salutation, “O You who hear prayer” (Ps. 65:2). We might render David’s words as “O Hearer of Prayer” or “O Prayer-Hearer.” This is rightly to be regarded as a divine title, for it is our Triune God who guides us in prayer by the Spirit, perfects our prayers in and through Christ, and receives – or hears – our prayers before the Father’s throne. He promises to hear the prayers of His people, for He cannot deny Himself.
However, God’s Word does confront us with solemn warnings and threats against impenitent prayer. Christ cautioned His disciples not to pray like the hypocrites do, for social advancement and the esteem of men (Matt. 6:5). Neither should we pray like heathens, with vain multiplication of words and phrases (Matt. 6:7), divorced from any kind of intelligible meaning or spiritual efficacy. To call upon the Name of the Lord as a godless hypocrite or as a superstitious unbeliever is powerless. This sobering reality finds expression in Job’s rhetorical questions, “What is the hope of the godless (KJV: hypocrite) when he is cut off, when God requires his life? Will God hear his cry when distress comes upon him? Will he take delight in the Almighty? Will he call on God at all times?” (Job 27:8-10).
Read More
Related Posts:

We use different terms to describe the Christian minister: pastor, teacher, ambassador, evangelist, preacher, steward of the mysteries of God. In fulfillment of these various but related roles, ministers confidently hold forth the truth of Christ, assured that God is effectually calling and irresistibly drawing His wayward sheep into His fold. 

Front office and back office, cast and crew, sales and operations, business development and customer care: what do each of these pairs have in common? Typically, members of the first group in each couplet will have very little—if anything—to do with working in the second group. Such separation may be necessary for large businesses or entertainment productions, but what about for the church? Are evangelism and pastoral care two mutually exclusive functions in which pastors may, or must, choose to specialize? The doctrine of God’s irresistible grace—or, effectual calling—clarifies the answer as we continue our study through shepherding and the doctrines of grace.
The Westminster Shorter Catechism defines effectual calling as “the work of God’s Spirit, whereby, convincing us of our sin and misery, enlightening our minds in the knowledge of Christ, and renewing our wills, He doth persuade and enable us to embrace Jesus Christ, freely offered to us in the gospel.” It is the Holy Spirit’s work of giving us a new spiritual vitality such that we recognize the horror of our sin and respond in faith to Christ’s call to “repent and believe” on Him alone for salvation. What does this have to do with relating evangelism and pastoral care to one another?
In the tenth chapter of John’s Gospel, Christ Jesus identifies Himself as the “Good Shepherd” (vv. 11, 14). In connection with this self-designation, Christ asserts that He lays down His life for His sheep (v. 11), and that He knows His sheep who in turn know Him (v. 14). These are indispensable features of faithful pastoral care in the church. However, Christ continues in verse 16, “I have other sheep that are not of this fold. I must bring them also, and they will listen to my voice.” For His immediate hearers, Christ expanded the definition of His flock to include those outside the nation of Israel. What’s more, He has expanded the nature of His shepherding to include bringing foreign sheep into His fold, and He does so by means of calling out with His voice.
Read More

Related Posts:

To frame the issue as a question, does God’s Word warrant the inclusion of a paragraph in our BCO that disqualifies from ministry (as Deacons or Elders) “men who describe themselves as homosexual?” Having wrestled with this question, I believe that the answer is yes. Indeed, I am more and more convinced of the biblical genius of Overture 15. To understand how I reached this conclusion, we would do well to walk through a few preliminary matters.

This year, twelve proposed changes to the Presbyterian Church in America’s (PCA) Book of Church Order (BCO) will come before the denomination’s eighty-eight presbyteries for consideration.[1] Three of the twelve proposals address aspects of ministerial qualifications and examination.
Perhaps the most talked-about item is that which resulted from Overture 15 before the 49th Stated Meeting of the General Assembly. Upon the proposal’s successful passage by two-thirds of the presbyteries and ratification by the 50th General Assembly, a new paragraph will augment Chapter 7 of the BCO (on Church Officers in general) as follows:
7-4. Men who describe themselves as homosexual, even those who describe themselves as homosexual and claim to practice celibacy by refraining from homosexual conduct, are disqualified from holding office in the Presbyterian Church in America.
It is undeniable that the substance and phrasing of this proposed addition to the BCO has attracted special attention before,[2] during,[3] and after the 49th General Assembly. Already, the post-Assembly discussion on this proposal has been unsurprisingly vigorous on both sides of the issue.[4]
It is not my purpose in this brief post to respond to any of the missives that are already circulating the Internet. Instead, I intend to explore the biblical propriety of what this proposed addition to the BCO will do upon ratification: specifically banning (and thus, singling out) homosexual self-description by those who hold spiritual office in our Church.
To frame the issue as a question, does God’s Word warrant the inclusion of a paragraph in our BCO that disqualifies from ministry (as Deacons or Elders) “men who describe themselves as homosexual?” Having wrestled with this question, I believe that the answer is yes. Indeed, I am more and more convinced of the biblical genius of Overture 15. To understand how I reached this conclusion, we would do well to walk through a few preliminary matters.
Christ the King over His Kingdom
The preface to the BCO opens with a glorious description of Jesus Christ as “The King and Head of the Church.” The third and fourth paragraphs set out the place reserved for Christ to rule and govern the Church as His Kingdom.
It belongs to His Majesty from His throne of glory to rule and teach the Church through His Word and Spirit by the ministry of men; thus mediately exercising His own authority and enforcing His own laws, unto the edification and establishment of His Kingdom.
Christ, as King, has given to His Church officers, oracles and ordinances; and especially has He ordained therein His system of doctrine, government, discipline and worship, all of which are either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary inference may be deduced therefrom; and to which things He commands that nothing be added, and that from them naught be taken away.
In this exalted language drawn from Scripture and our doctrinal Standards, we read of Christ reserving to Himself both decisive authority over His church and the means of communicating that authority. In the publication, preservation, and propagation of His Word, He has established and continues to build up the Kingdom of Heaven in and as the visible church.
The Westminster Confession of Faith defines the visible church as “the kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ” (WCF 25.2).  Geerhardus Vos likewise argued in favor of understanding “the visible church as a veritable embodiment of [Christ’s] kingdom.”[5] Vos made the point that though the Kingdom of Heaven is fundamentally spiritual and ultimately more expansive than the church, it nonetheless finds visible expression in the visible church as one manifestation among many.
If Christ the King rules over the church as His Kingdom,[6] then we must evaluate every proposal affecting the government of His Kingdom – including the qualifications of that Kingdom’s officers – against the record of the King’s righteous administration of His Kingdom in times past. What has Jesus done in the past to inform our deliberations in the present as He continues to rule over us by His Word and Spirit?[7]
Christ the King in His Kingdom
When “Christ, the Son of God, became man, by taking to Himself a true body, and a reasonable soul” (WSC 22), He descended from heaven to earth to inaugurate His heavenly Kingdom. Thus, His preaching ministry was one of glad tidings of the Kingdom of heaven (Matthew 4:23ff), proclaiming the gospel of release, recovery, and redemption (Luke 4:16-21; Isaiah 61:1, 2).
While it is entirely proper and necessary to speak of Christ doing something new in His earthly ministry, His mighty deeds of deliverance in the first century A.D. cannot be divorced from His mighty deeds of deliverance recorded in the Scriptures of the Old Testament. Indeed, the Old Testament background of Christ’s kingship is crucial for understanding rightly what He intends for His Kingdom today.[8] Christ came not to destroy the essence of the Kingdom of old, but to fulfill all its purposes in Himself (Matthew 5:17). His ministry is one of reformation and fulfillment, not of abrogation and invention.
How did Christ righteously administer His Kingdom when its visible expression was that ancient nation of Israelites dwelling in the land promised to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob? Two passages of Christ’s royal charter come to mind as especially relevant to our consideration of the proposal to disqualify any man from ordained office who would describe himself as homosexual.
In the first place, we consider the record of righteous King Asa’s 41-year reign over Judah in 1 Kings 15:10-24. We are told that “Asa did what was right in the sight of the LORD, like David his father” (v. 11). Indeed, “the heart of Asa was wholly devoted to the LORD all his days” (v. 14). Interestingly, the very first example of Asa’s David-like righteousness before God is that he “put away the male cult prostitutes (KJV: sodomites) from the land and removed all the idols which his fathers had made” (v. 12). Exegetically, the parallel construction of these two clauses (“put away… and removed”) suggests that both of Asa’s commendable acts of reformation concerned the religious worship of the Kingdom (i.e., the visible church of Asa’s day). The evidence of Asa’s true and lively devotion to the Lord consisted in his expulsive ban of “the male cult prostitutes,” or “sodomites” from the religious worship of the people of God.
Read More

[1] You can read a helpful primer of the twelve items here (thanks to Larry Hoop and byFaith). You can track the progress of the proposals here as the presbyteries vote upon them (thanks to Scott Edburg and Joshua Torrey).
[2] See Scott Edburg, “New Overtures for a Pressing Concern.”
[3] For example, see “Great Speeches of PCAGA49,” which includes links to the floor debate surrounding Overture 15. Watch the speeches by RE Matt Fender, TE Richard D. Phillips, and TE O. Palmer Robertson for the best examples of the argument presented at the 49th General Assembly in favor of Overture 15. Consult as well The Aquila Report’s helpful transcription of Dr. O. Palmer Robertson’s speech.
[4] See the following opinion pieces on The Aquila Report: Joe Gibbons, “Exploring Overture 15 from the PCA General Assembly;” Larry Ball, “Overture 15 – The Tipping Point for a Split in the PCA?;” Luke Kallberg, “A Response to “Exploring Overture 15 from the PCA General Assembly” – Revised;” as well as Jared Nelson’s fine piece on this site, “Stepping Up to Overture 29.”
[5] Geerhardus Vos, The Teaching of Jesus Concerning the Kingdom of God and the Church (New York: American Tract Society, 1903), 161. Readers can find a .pdf version of this excellent little book for free online here.
[6] For a classic biblical theological presentation of Christ Jesus as the incarnate Shepherd King promised and anticipated in the Old Testament, see F. F. Bruce, The New Testament Development of Old Testament Themes (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1969), 100-114.
[7] If ever you find yourself wondering “what would Jesus do?” the better questions to bring to Scripture are “what did Jesus do?” and “what is Jesus doing?”
[8] For a helpful presentation of the relationship between the Kingdom of God in the Old Testament and in Christ’s teaching, see Vos, The Teaching of Jesus, 11-25.
Related Posts: