The eschatological kingship of Christ begins already at his first coming culminating in his resurrection and ascension. Already at and dating from Christ’s exaltation, “God has placed all things under his feet and appointed him to be head over everything for the church” (Eph. 1:22; cf. v. 20). This is a key eschatological pronouncement…. The entire period between his exaltation and return, not just some segment toward the close, is the period of Christ’s eschatological kingship, exercised undiminished throughout.

I am grateful to Doug Wilson for his amiable rejoinder to my critique of postmillennialism and for providing me with an opportunity to further address this topic.
Despite its promise to address seven critical points, Doug’s rejoinder leaves me searching for substantive engagement. Rather than grappling with the exegesis of any of my arguments, Doug selectively interacts with isolated sentences, entirely sidestepping the two challenges my article poses: (1) recovering postmillennialism’s pillar prooftexts and (2) addressing its problem passages.
A Bumper Car in a Demolition Derby
Doug astutely observes, and appears to lament, that discussions on eschatology often resemble “paradigm bumper cars,” lacking meaningful interaction and debate. This happens when we fail to discuss, as he puts it, “our root assumptions, how … we justify those assumptions, and who has the burden of proof,” creating conversations with no depth.
I provided an alternative to bumper-car discourse by writing a substantial critique rooted in the grammar and syntax of the very Scriptures that Doug has said are central to his eschatological assumptions. Why then did he show up at the demolition derby, to which I invited all postmillennialists, in his bumper car? To demonstrate that his paradigm is not simply bumping into the hard reality of the biblical text, he needed to show where my exegesis falls short.
Instead, Doug sought to establish his root assumptions elsewhere. Let’s examine his arguments to see if the foundations hold.
Unintended Universalism
Doug identifies my article’s thesis early on:
Postmillennialism lacks a biblical text to establish its assumption that “the earth will be filled with the knowledge of the glory of the Lord as the waters cover the sea” (Hab 2:14) before the second coming.
In response, instead of trying to reclaim traditional prooftexts, Doug resigns himself to anchoring postmillennialism on John 3:16–17. He declares that postmillennialism’s foundation is “the love of God for the world as expressed in the cross of Christ,” concluding, “The love of God for this broken world is the bedrock. Everything else follows.”
While mining for postmillennialism’s elusive biblical bedrock in these parts, Doug tries to mix Arminianism and Calvinism, and thereby unwittingly makes a case for universalism:
I agree with the evangelical Arminians that the love of God as expressed in the atonement is a love that extends to the whole world (1 John 2:2). I also agree with evangelical Calvinists that the love of God as expressed in the cross of Christ is a love that secures the salvation of the object of that love (John 6:44). Put those two truths together and what you have is a robust and deep postmillennial foundation.
Actually, put those two statements together and what you have is universalism. Arminians believe the love of God as expressed in the atonement is a universally indiscriminate love that extends in the same way to every person without exception. Doug therefore affirms, by the time he finishes the second statement, that the love of God as expressed in the cross is a universally indiscriminate love that secures the salvation of its object, that is, the salvation of every person without exception.
In addition to Doug’s theological misstep, there are exegetical difficulties. For example, consider the key phrase “so that the world might be saved” in John 3:17. It does not imply that the majority of “the world” will be saved any more than the analogous phrase “so that you might be saved” in John 5:34 implies that the majority of Christ’s audience (“you”) would be saved. Both verses use the same construction: ἵνα (“so that”) + a passive aorist subjunctive of σῴζω (“might be saved”). In the second verse, the plural “you” refers to those who “were seeking all the more to kill him” (John 5:18; cf. 5:35–47). Consequently, John 3:17, in light of 5:34, actually challenges the belief that the majority of “the world” will be saved.
Passages referring to the salvation or Savior of the world (John 3:16–17; 12:47; 1 John 2:2; 4:14) do not imply that the majority of humanity will be saved. There is no need to explain away the straightforward meaning of texts like Matthew 7:13–14: “Wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it” (cf. 20:16; 22:14; Luke 13:23–24; 18:8).
God’s love for the world as expressed in the cross cannot support postmillennialism any more than it can universalism. I will grant that Doug is not a universalist, while reserving the right to question his clarity on definite atonement, if he concedes that he has not found in John 3:16–17 the sought-after text establishing his assumption that “the earth will be filled with the knowledge of the glory of the Lord as the waters cover the sea” (Hab 2:14) before “the resurrection of the righteous” (Luke 14:14).
Rightly Dividing the “Already” and “Not Yet”
According to Doug, non-postmillennialists insist that the future subjection of all things to the Second Man, the subjection that “we do not yet see” (Heb 2:8), “will never unfold.” He says, “To believe in it while also insisting that it will never unfold is hard for me to swallow.” Of course, no one believes “it will never unfold.” Non-postmillennialists simply recognize the subjection of all things to the Last Adam mentioned in Hebrews 2 as being “not yet” (Heb 2:8), as awaiting fulfillment in “the world to come” (Heb 2:5).
Doug appears similarly unaware of any paradigm but his own when he asserts, “It seems really odd to exult in a reign over the Lord’s enemies that His enemies never find out about.” Again, every Bible-believing Christian anticipates that all the enemies of Jesus will “find out about” his reign eventually. The only question is “When—before the second coming or at it?” Doug assumes that unless the enemies of Christ encounter his kingship in new and dramatic ways before the second coming, his interadvental reign will lack authentic victory.
Doug looks in the wrong direction for indications of Christ’s victorious inaugurated reign. The true indication lies in the past, not the future. The “already” subjection of all things to Christ fully unfolded when God “put all things under his feet” (Eph 1:22) in AD 30 (or 33). The exalted Christ has publicly triumphed over all his adversaries through the cross: “he disarmed the rulers and authorities and put them to open shame, by triumphing over them” (Col 2:15). He “has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, with angels, authorities, and powers having been subjected to him” (1 Pet 3:22). The fullness of inaugurated, interadvental victory was secured and realized when the resurrected Christ ascended to his heavenly throne.
Richard Gaffin writes in “Theonomy and Eschatology: Some Reflections on Postmillennialism,”
The eschatological kingship of Christ begins already at his first coming culminating in his resurrection and ascension. Already at and dating from Christ’s exaltation, “God has placed all things under his feet and appointed him to be head over everything for the church” (Eph. 1:22; cf. v. 20). This is a key eschatological pronouncement…. The entire period between his exaltation and return, not just some segment toward the close, is the period of Christ’s eschatological kingship, exercised undiminished throughout.
The reign of Jesus stands resolutely victorious thus far. It remains fundamentally triumphant at every point on the interadvental timeline. No further subjugation of adversaries or conversion of nations is necessary to declare and experience the complete victory of the inaugurated kingdom. Nothing will (or even could) come under the feet of Christ at a future point in his inaugurated kingdom that was not already subjected to him at his inauguration: “all things” in Ephesians 1:22 encompasses everything. The subjugation of Christ’s enemies cannot unfold during the inaugurated kingdom any more than it already has.
The inaugurated reign of Christ certainly holds unrealized potential. Ultimate triumph lies on the horizon. Key passages, such as 1 Corinthians 15:24–28 and Hebrews 2:5–8, emphasize this “not yet” subjection of all things to Christ. Significantly, this future subjection will unfold at “the end” (1 Cor 15:24) in “the world to come” (Heb 2:5) and not before (see following sections).
Doug’s insistence that this future subjection will unfold in our present world contradicts these texts and wrongly divides the dual nature of NT eschatology—the “already” and “not yet.” In this framework, the “already” centers on the first coming of Christ while the “not yet” anticipates his second coming. Recognizing the robustness of the “already” subjection of all things to Christ within the context of this dual focus of eschatological fulfillment helps us appreciate two important truths: (1) there is no need for or even possibility of any further subjection of Christ’s enemies during the inaugurated kingdom (Eph 1:22), and (2) our eager anticipation should be directed exclusively toward the “not yet” subjection of all things to Christ in “the world to come” (Heb 2:5–8).
The New Jerusalem Is Not Yet
In “Can Kings Come in Too?” Doug suggests that the prophecy of kings bringing the glory and honor of the nations into the new Jerusalem (Rev 21:24, 26) will find fulfillment in this world. To make his case, he dons his preterist hat and identifies the new Jerusalem in Revelation 21 and 22 as the church on earth right now.
The preterist interpretation of the new heaven and new earth and new Jerusalem in Revelation 21:1–22:5 is surely one of the most implausible idiosyncrasies of any eschatological system. This passage only depicts the “not yet,” the world to come, for only then will death, mourning, crying, and pain be eradicated (21:4); only then will the unrepentant be thrown into the lake of fire, which is the second death (21:8); only then will the sun and moon be unneeded (21:23–24); only then will the curse be no more (22:3); and only then will people on earth see Jesus face to face (22:4; 1 Cor 13:12).
The new Jerusalem has not yet come down out of heaven (Rev 21:2, 10). When John envisages the kings of the earth bringing the glory and honor of the nations into the new Jerusalem (21:24, 26), in fulfillment of Isaiah 60, he foresees events that will take place in the world to come.
“The Point When” Is Not Yet
Doug continues to hear the following when he reads 1 Corinthians 15:25: “For he must reign, gradually subduing his foes, until all his enemies are under his feet.” He still assumes that the subduing of enemies in this verse describes an interadvental process rather than a definitive point at “the end” (1 Cor 15:24). He overlooks the grammatical evidence that precludes his reading.
In section 2.2.2 of my original article, I show extensively that “the verse actually says that the subduing of all enemies will take place at the culmination of Christ’s reign and not before.” I defend the following translation: “For he must reign until the point when he shall put all his enemies under his feet.” There is actually a Greek word (οὗ) meaning “the point when” in this verse, and the aorist subjunctive verb translated “he shall put [all his enemies underfoot]” describes an action that will occur—from beginning to end—at that point. Apart from any engagement with my analysis, Doug concludes that “it sounds like an argument that Christ will reign over His enemies until the day when He finally starts to reign over them. Which maketh little sense.”
In addition to ignoring the grammar, this critique misunderstands the NT’s portrayal of eschatological fulfillment. It is entirely consistent with biblical teaching to affirm that the inaugurated King is reigning over all his subjected foes (Eph 1:20–22; Col 2:15; 1 Pet 3:22) while also anticipating a definitive subjugation of those foes at “the end” (1 Cor 15:24–28) in “the world to come” (Heb 2:5–8). Doug’s rebuttal fails to address the exegesis directly, leaving the initial interpretation unchallenged.
Anticipating His Inheritance
In “Trashing His Inheritance?” Doug isolates and focuses on my statement that “Psalm 2 nowhere prophesies redemption.” He disagrees, countering that the prophecy of Messiah’s “inheritance” (Psa 2:8) finds fulfillment in the “inheritance in the saints” (Eph 1:18), which according to Doug belongs to Christ through “redemption” (Eph 1:7).
The insurmountable problem with this counterargument is that the “inheritance in the saints” (Eph 1:18) belongs to the Father, not Christ (see 1:19–20). Jesus will not receive the inheritance promised to him in Psalm 2:8–9 until he returns (Rev 19:15).
A culmination of inheritances will occur at the second coming: (1) the Father will claim his “possession” on the day of “redemption” as anticipated in Ephesians 1:14 (NASB, NIV, CSB, KJV), (2) believers will receive their “inheritance” when they experience the “salvation ready to be revealed in the last time” as mentioned in 1 Peter 1:4–5, and (3) Christ will obtain his “inheritance”—“the nations”—by means of “a sharp sword” and “an iron rod” on the day of “God’s wrath” as prophesied in Psalm 2:8–9 and Revelation 19:15.
My statement that Psalm 2 nowhere prophesies redemption is part of a broader argument demonstrating that this psalm predicts the rebellion and ultimate judgment of the nations, not their redemption or conversion. This interpretation is supported by Revelation 19:15, which aligns Psalm 2:8–9 with eschatological judgment.
Doug highlights the Second Psalm’s relevance to “studying how the New Testament instructs us in the reading of the Old.” He mentions (rightly, of course) that Acts 4:25–26 and 13:33 cite Psalm 2:1–2 and 2:7 respectively as prophecies of the crucifixion and resurrection of Christ. Astonishingly, he fails to mention that Revelation 19:15 cites Psalm 2:8–9, which contains the prophecy of Messiah’s “inheritance.” Omitting this crucial discussion on Revelation 19:15 is significant, particularly since the near-universal consensus on Revelation 19:11–21 is that it prophesies the second coming.
In section 3.2, I argue that Revelation 19:11–21 depicts Christ’s return, as virtually all interpreters throughout history have concluded (Doug grants that this passage enjoys “virtually universal agreement from all interpreters” before going on in his commentary to place himself outside that longstanding consensus). Subsection 3.2.2 is even titled “Wilson’s Preterism.” Yet all of this remains unaddressed by Doug. Until he engages with these arguments, the prevailing interpretation stands: Psalm 2:8–9 foretells not the redemption but the decisive judgment of the nations at the kingdom’s culmination, at which point God will give the crucified and resurrected Christ his inheritance.
The exalted Christ already received what we might call the guarantee or downpayment of his future inheritance when the Father put “all things under his feet” (Eph 1:22). For God seated him “far above all rule and authority and power and dominion, and above every name that is named, not only in this age but also in the one to come” (Eph 1:21).
The Success of the Great Commission
In “Can We Just Sit Tight Then?” Doug quotes one of my topic sentences (“Fourth, the apostolic era saw the success of the Great Commission”) and rejects it while disregarding the exegetical support (he also seems to think mistakenly that I use Matthew 24:14 here). Then he quotes Mark 16:15, “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation,” concluding that “we are nowhere close to being done with that assigned task.”
We agree that the church’s task won’t be complete until Jesus returns; we mustn’t just sit tight. Nevertheless, three decades after the cross, the apostle to the gentiles declared that “the gospel” had been “preached to all creation” (Col 1:23) and had done its saving work “in all the world” (Col 1:6). Note how closely Paul’s language here mirrors Mark 16:15—there is nearly a word-for-word correspondence.
Paul affirms elsewhere that the gospel had “gone out to all the earth … to the ends of the world (Rom 10:18; cf. Acts 1:8) and had “been made known to all the nations,” where it was producing “the obedience of faith” (Rom 16:26; cf. 1:5), in fulfillment of the Abrahamic promise in Genesis 12:3 to bless all the nations (cf. Rev 5:9; 7:9). Remarkably, the advance of the gospel during the two millennia since Paul penned these words in Romans and Colossians is still not enough for postmillennialists to affirm the success of the Great Commission.
Christ’s prophecy that the gospel would be proclaimed “throughout the whole world as a testimony to all the nations” (Matt 24:14), according to Doug, “did happen, back in the first century.” He thus concedes that this did not necessarily include all global populations, such as the Mayans. In short, he acknowledges that “all the nations” does not imply comprehensive worldwide reach in Matthew 24:14. It’s unclear, then, on what basis Doug continues to infer that “all the nations” in 28:19 suggests a far more comprehensive scope than previously.
Consider the nations that did hear the gospel “back in the first century” in fulfillment of Matthew 24:14, such as the Macedonians. It would be unreasonable to assume that the majority of their populations were reached: “proclaimed … to all the nations” (24:14) does not imply that the majority of citizens in any nation heard the gospel. Similarly, “disciple all the nations” (28:19) does not imply that the majority of citizens in a discipled nation will be disciples.
The point is not that “proclaim” (24:14) and “disciple” (28:19) are synonymous. The point is that “all the nations” (24:14) and “all the nations” (28:19) are. These two verses do not necessarily describe the same activity, but they do share the same scope of activity when referring to “all the nations.” The phrase “disciple all the nations” communicates neither worldwide nor nationwide saturation. Doug’s counterargument needed to address this by engaging with the presented arguments.
Revisiting Doug’s Perspective
In “Heads or Tails,” Doug grants my argument in 2.2.3 that the verb “destroy” in 1 Corinthians 15:24 signifies the judgment of Christ’s enemies rather than their salvation. He claims I miss the point, though, which is that the salvation of God’s people is often the flip side of the coin: God saves his people by judging their enemies.
But that’s not how Doug argues on page 15 of Heaven Misplaced (which I quote in 2.2). There he interprets the destruction and subjugation of Christ’s enemies described in 1 Corinthians 15:24–25 as salvation (here is the quote again):
In the common assumption shared by many Christians, at the Lord’s return the first enemy to be destroyed is death. But the apostle here says that it is the last enemy to be destroyed. The Lord will rule from heaven, progressively subduing all His enemies through the power of the gospel, brought to the nations by His Church.
Here Doug posits that Christ vanquishes his foes “through the power of the gospel.” Recall that the gospel’s power is “the power of God for salvation” (Rom 1:16). Doug even clarifies in the final clause that the subjugation in view does not refer to punitive measures but to the evangelistic efforts of the church. This perspective is the focus of my critique in 2.2.3. As I wrote there, “καταργέω, the term Paul uses to describe the destruction of the rulers, authorities, and powers in 1 Corinthians 15:24, means ‘destroy, abolish, wipe out, bring to an end.’ To my knowledge, no lexicon, theological dictionary, commentary, or example from usage suggests that this verb can refer to salvation, the opposite of its meaning.”
In any case, the crux of the matter lies in the timing of the destruction. As I argue in sections 2.2.1 and 2.2.2, the definitive act variously described as destruction, subjugation, and subjection in 1 Corinthians 15:24–28 occurs solely at “the end” (1 Cor 15:24) in “the world to come” (Heb 2:5) “when all things shall be subjected to him” (1 Cor 15:28a; cf. Heb 2:5–8), “at which time the Son himself will also be subjected to him who subjected all things to him” (1 Cor 15:28b). Doug’s stance lacks scriptural support for a progressive salvation leading to a converted world prior to the second coming.
Doug’s Admission: The Core of Postmillennialism
Doug candidly confesses, “At the end of the day, if you ask me how I believe all this . . . I just do.” This underscores a critical point: eschatological convictions should be rooted in rigorous exegesis rather than one’s theological gut. The strength of one’s eschatology is measured by its scriptural foundation, not the depth of conviction.
The Superstore Remains Fully Stocked
Doug likens my comprehensive critique to a superstore brimming with arguments. He claims that his blog post—a mere shopping cart—is too small to address the breadth of content. He needs to get a bigger shopping cart. He owes readers a substantial response that avoids cherry-picking and engages in careful, methodologically disciplined grammatical-historical exegesis.
Jeremy Sexton is a pastor at Christ the King Church in Springfield, MO.
Related Posts:

The call to visit widows and orphans in their affliction, to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, care for the sick, and visit the prisoner—in other words, the call to care for the weakest and most helpless among us—these are not optional duties for the Christian life. They are the calling of every Christian, and they are the evidence of a life shaped by the gospel. 

I once heard a pastor quoted as saying that no one wanted to fool with going to hospitals, or visiting nursing homes, or dealing with death. Hospitals are full of the sick, nursing homes are tough places, and nobody wants to think about death. Derek Kidner writes in his commentary on Psalms that it is ironic that “the more a person needs human support, the less he naturally attracts it.”

In fact, there are plenty of reasons for not reaching out to and caring for those who most need our care and attention. For one, it can be hard to find the time. The simple ministry of being with and listening to someone takes time, and, usually, it is time that is unscheduled and unpredictable. And when we take the time, we often find ourselves lacking words to say and not knowing what we should do. We feel a sense of helplessness and inadequacy when we are confronted with someone in grief and loneliness and fear. Sometimes our efforts might be overlooked or the other person might never know or remember that we were there at all. Then there’s compassion fatigue. And guilt—the guilt of not doing more, of not doing better. And so we stay away.
But what blessings are we missing when we stay away? In his letter to the Philippians, Paul requests help from his readers, but he says that his chief concern is not their gift itself but the blessing that God would provide for them through their gift: “Not that I seek the gift, but I seek the fruit that increases to your credit” (Phil. 4:17). The Philippians could have kept their resources to themselves, but they would have missed the opportunity to cultivate contentment, compassion, and generosity in their own lives. The same goes for us in our acts of ministry to the least among us. What better ways are there for us to grow in faith, to nurture godliness, and to learn how to face trials with courage than to walk with others in their times of need?
I was at dinner with some friends recently and someone asked the question, “What about your life now would have been surprising to you twenty years ago?”

Read More
Related Posts:

Even though the PCA consists of men who love the Lord and love our standards, it is greatly divided.  The future still looks dim, but light continues to shine in the most unusual places at the most inopportune times. I attribute this to fervent prayer. Never discount the providence of God to change things.  My fear today in the modern evangelical world is that energized holiness is being replaced by quiet piety, and therapeutic theology under the guise of love has replaced the Law of God. 

I was not there, but I watched most of the 49th PCA General Assembly (GA) online. I’m actually elated, if only for a short time.  Let me tell you why.

The enrollment was the largest ever with 2380 commissioners registered. I don’t have the demographics, but this indicates to me that many ruling elders from our most conservative churches, especially in the southern states, turned out in large numbers. People in the pew are angry with the direction of the PCA.  I know of a number of churches who sent commissioners telling them “to fight for the truth.” These churches had not sent commissioners to the GA for many years.
If the National Partnership (a progressive caucus of well-known leaders in the PCA) was active, its influence was not detected. No doubt they lost on a number of key issues. It is encouraging to think that the National Partnership (NP) cannot overrule the actions of the commissioners at the General Assembly. The NP has endured bad PR over the last year, and they have not recovered.  What we saw in the Assembly was a “popular revolt.” The candidate of the conservative Gospel Reformation Network (GRN) was not elected as Moderator, but unlike the Southern Baptist Convention who elects a President with numerous powers, the PCA elects a moderator of the assembly whose influence stops after the Assembly.  Highly capable and virtuous men are usually elected as Moderator, and such was the case again this year with the election of RE John Bise.
The first major victory for the conservatives was the vote to withdraw from the National Association of Evangelical (NAE). The NAE has become part of the woke movement, and their political statements do not reflect the sentiments of most members in the PCA. This proposal has been before the Assembly on a number of occasions in the past, but was always defeated, usually after a speech by Dr. Roy Taylor, the former Stated Clerk.  Respect for him has always been so high that he would usually tip the vote in the direction of staying in the NAE.  Not this year!  The vote to leave was approved by a 60-40 ratio.  Taylor filed a protest, but that was all he could do.  The Assembly had spoken.
The major event again this year was the issue of homosexual officers. The proposed amendments to change the Book of Church Order last year failed, but this did not stop the grass roots from coming back again. Two new overture numbers you now need to remember are 15 and 29.
Overture 29 cleaned up the language of the proposed changes to the BCO that failed last year, and was easily adopted. It will be sent back to the presbyteries for a 2/3 vote, and I suspect that it will pass not only at the presbytery level, but also at the GA meeting next year in Memphis. I call it the generic overture. It reflects the position of the Ad-Interim Committee Report on Human Sexuality which has been widely praised by the PCA as a whole.  TE Greg Johnson rose to say that he could accept the wording of this proposed change to the Book of Church Order (BCO), but he also said that it was not kind and loving enough to the gay community. This confirms my point in a previous article in The Aquila Report that the language of this Overture can be so tweaked that it will change nothing “Targeting Homosexual Officers in the PCA Again: Are We Being too Nice?”
The “Jack in the Box” of the whole Assembly was Overture 15 which came out of Westminster Presbytery.[1] This Overture to amend the BCO was submitted last year but was rejected by a simple reference to the actions of the Assembly on other related overtures.  Last year it disappeared into the darkness.  The original wording stated, “Any man who identifies himself as a homosexual (even if his practices celibacy in that self-identification) shall be disqualified from holding office in the PCA.”  It was edited slightly before passage.  One of the weakest arguments against this overture was that it proposed a change to the wrong place in the BCO.  A common strategy in assembly meetings is death by procedural maneuvers.  It did not work this time.  Many members of the Assembly were “hungry” for a statement like this.  Concise and to the point!  Early in the debate, one commissioner rose and stated his disappointment with Overture 29 since it did not speak specifically to the issue of homosexual identity.  What was he going to tell his congregation at home?  He knew he needed some good news, and Overture 29 did not give that to him. He was told to wait until the consideration of Overture 15.
The highlight of the Assembly was the appearance of Dr. O. Palmer Robertson who has been absent it seems for decades. I sat under Dr. Robertson as Professor of Old Testament at Westminster Seminary in Philadelphia (1969-1972).  Robertson has been serving in Uganda as a missionary for 25 years and it appeared to me that he has not been keeping up with all the dialogue about homosexual officers. However, he was like a man resurrected from the past who spoke a different language than what is heard today in seminaries and progressive churches.  He spoke with intellectual passion and read Romans 1:26-28.  He pointed to the word “perversion” and how words like “sodomy” and “sodomite” were not used any more.  I believe his speech tipped the Assembly to approve Overture 15.  If nothing else comes from this Assembly, then at least modern seminary-trained teaching elders now are able to see how much seminary training has changed over the last 50 years. To listen to Dr. Robertson’s speech go here.
Overture 15 passed by an initial vote of 1094 to 1044, just a 50-vote margin. Yes, I understand what most people are saying about this.  It will never pass the high threshold of 2/3 of the presbyteries.  I will say two things about that. First, I never thought it would even make it to the floor of the General Assembly for a vote, but I was wrong. I don’t think it will pass the presbytery vote either, but I could be wrong again.  A year is a long time, and sometimes providential events change the course of history. Second, even if it does not pass the high bar set by the BCO, it was a moment of jubilance anyway.  It was needed to encourage the souls of those who have been losing most battles in years past.  I’ll take the joy and wallow in it for a while. If all the conservatives who have left the PCA would have stayed and fought with us, the victories would have been larger and sweeter.
Other items to note include the fact that 25% of the Assembly voted not re-elect the current Stated Clerk. This was highly unusual.  However, the missing link in the Assembly was the absence of any discussion about the $13.5 million taken by the PCA Boards and Agencies from the federal government (via the Small Business Administration) during the covid crisis.  See the Aquila Report “PCA Committees and Agencies Received At Least $13.5 Million From the Small Business Payroll Protection Program in 2020.” Under what was called the Payroll Protection Program (PPP), these entities received money from the federal government in the form of loans.  If those loans were properly used as restricted by the federal government, then they were forgiven.  They never have to be paid back. The PCA is proud of her heritage of not getting involved in political matters (except by way of humble petition), but when it comes to taking free money from the State (taxpayers of whom many who are not Christians), there appears to be no conscientious objection. Nothing was done illegally, but it’s amazing how the modern church can take taxpayer money for free from the State and use it for building of the Kingdom of God. The same civil government that legalizes homosexual marriage and is pushing ungodly transgenderism is the same entity that we go to when we need money. The same State that is targeting the church as an enemy has become our trusted philanthropist in a time of need.  What every happened to the separation of church and state?
Even though the PCA consists of men who love the Lord and love our standards, it is greatly divided.  The future still looks dim, but light continues to shine in the most unusual places at the most inopportune times. I attribute this to fervent prayer. Never discount the providence of God to change things.  My fear today in the modern evangelical world is that energized holiness is being replaced by quiet piety, and therapeutic theology under the guise of love has replaced the Law of God.  But brethren, I am hopeful!  Take heart, we who love the PCA are in this for the long run.

Larry E. Ball is a retired minister in the Presbyterian Church in America and is now a CPA. He lives in Kingsport, Tenn.
[1] The following is the wording approved by the General Assembly: “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.”

Related Posts: