Now that I have spoken of the suffering Saviour, I desire this of you. Rouse yourselves up to be suitably affected with what I have spoken from these truths. There are three or four ways you should respond.
Wonder
And the first thing I would exhort you to be taken up with is wondering. What man or woman is there among you that can hear these things spoken of, and not wonder at it? That Christ should have suffered all this for the like of you and me! That He who is the Son of God should have quit heaven, and that the Son of God should have become man, that He should have been put so sore to it as to die — for sinners!
I cannot tell what calls for wonder from us, if this doesn’t. O the height! O the breadth! O the length! O the depth of this mystery! That the Son of God should have been put so sore to it as to die for sinners, and not only to die, but to drink the cup of the Father’s wrath! Who can hear this declared, and not wonder at the hearing of it? O wonder! O wonder at it! Wonder at the hearing of it!
Detest Sin
Did our Lord Jesus Christ have to suffer such great sufferings? Well then, see how you should look on sin. Should not sin be very detestable to you, and very abominable? Should not be at very much pains to forsake sin, when it was sin that brought our blessed Lord Jesus Christ to undergo such great sufferings, sufferings which would have brought you to such sad condemnation, and to lie under the wrath of God eternally and eternally?
Sinners, I think that supposing there was nothing else to motivate you to forsake your sins, and to hate every false way, and to hate the very least word and thought of sin, that this might be a motive — that it brought our Lord Jesus Christ to undergo such great sufferings.
Love to Him will call for this. “All ye that love the Lord, hate evil” (Psalm 97:10).
Don’t Disappoint Him
Our Lord Jesus Christ was brought to so many and so great sufferings. And He has undergone them so cheerfully. Has He not? And He is satisfied to see the travail of his soul.
O do not yet then do what you can to disappoint Him, while He is making offer of His blood to wash you! Do not do anything that will make Him regret that He shed His blood for the like of you! For when you do not give him a suitable meeting, you give him good reason to regret it, for you are doing what in you lies to make His sufferings of none effect.
Read More

That the whole testimony of Scripture stands against those who would make homosexual lust an acceptable trait of ministers. For Scripture is uniform in denouncing everything to do with homosexual desire or deeds as sinful, and it is unthinkable that anyone whose thought was formed solely by Scripture would ever conclude that something like Revoice is a proper endeavor of the church, or of any who claim Christ as their Lord.

[Read Part One and Part Two]

That the Presbyterian Church in America has been deaf to the frequent exhortation to be watchful and discerning. Already the first stages of a slide into infidelity are being entered, and yet we seem blind to the frequent exhortation to not be deceived by those who, with smooth words and many assurances of good intention, yet labor to “pervert the grace of our God into sensuality” (Jude 4) and to make acceptable all manner of immorality with “empty words” (Eph. 5:6).
That we show a willful and remarkable ignorance of history and of the course of other denominations on this matter. Every church which has tolerated homosexual sin has reduced its size by driving away the faithful. The Presbyterian Church in the United States of America is an example, as is the United Methodist Church, which is actively splitting because of this matter. Also, the United Church of Christ, the Episcopal Church, the Brethren Church, the Disciples of Christ, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, the Moravian Church, the Christian Reformed Church, and the Reformed Church in America.
That our denomination risks replicating the career of the Church of Scotland: faithful and zealous at first, but soon overrun with a refined worldliness similar to that of our wider society.
That the world interprets matters very differently than the church. The knowledge that the Presbyterian Church in America allows the ordination of men who publicly identify themselves as homosexual is not likely to impress or please the world, which will be satisfied with nothing less than absolute defection from our beliefs and a complete embrace of its own.
That in an age in which people are conspicuous for the haste, superficiality, and inaccuracy of their judgments, it is likely that the fact of same-sex attracted Presbyterian ministers will not be met with more conversions of those that are ensnared in homosexual sin. It is feared that it instead makes their repentance less likely because it sends them a confused message. For on the one hand, we say that homosexual behavior is damning sin, and yet on the other we permit at least the desire for it in our church’s leaders. The unbeliever can scarcely be blamed if he interprets this to mean that the Presbyterian Church in America is confused in its teachings and therefore unworthy of being regarded as credible.
That there is an active campaign to normalize homosexual sin in the church, and that we are witnessing the first stages in the controversies surrounding such things as the Revoice conferences.
That Satan acts in this matter, as in every other, with cunning, patiently moving in steps and always disguising his position as good (2 Cor. 11:14-15). His first move has been to make acceptable the thought of what was previously unthinkable. Next was to make acceptable the utterance of what was in previous times unmentionable. We may expect future stages in which he gradually changes the question from one of the permissibility of those with same-sex attraction serving as ministers to one in which blatant sin is accepted totally.
That false teachers are not open and forthright but secretive and deceptive. As Peter says, it is the method of false teachers to “secretly bring in destructive heresies” (2 Pet. 2:1). Jude says of false teachers that they “crept in unnoticed” (Jude 4) and our Lord says of such people that they “come to you in sheep’s clothing” (Matt. 7:11).
That they who think they stand should take heed lest they fall (1 Cor. 10:12). As homosexual (and other) sin has found gradual acceptance in many other denominations until its goodness has become an unquestionable dogma, and until the powers of the church are used rather to silence sin’s critics than its proponents, so also is it possible for the Presbyterian Church in America to fall in this matter. We would be fools to imagine that we are inherently or incontrovertibly faithful, or to imagine we will persevere where others – including those with whom we have previously been associated – have fallen.
That the course of the acceptance of homosexuality has nowhere halted itself. In society it immediately yielded to the push to normalize yet worse abominations. In those denominations where it has been accepted it did not content itself with the stage at which it was simply tolerable or simply a question of temptation or celibate experience, but demanded – and seems everywhere to have received – a full acceptance in time. Sin advances until it dominates absolutely all that it touches. It can be resisted and beaten, but it nowhere checks itself.
That there are things which disqualify one from ministry – as age, sex, length of time as a believer, or lack of the needed gifts – which are not themselves sinful.
That there are sins, temptations, and past misdeeds which unfit one for ministry, because their association with the church’s leaders would bring scandal on the church.
That homosexual lust is one such disqualifying temptation and sin, for if acted upon it would destroy the church’s credibility in this matter and give much occasion to infidels to blaspheme.
That homosexual lust is thus disqualifying is proved by Scripture forbidding office to those whose course of life is unchaste, as for example he who is not a ‘man of one woman’ (1 Tim. 3:2, 12; Titus 1:6).
That such lust is disqualifying is seen also in that Scripture denies office to those that have especially dangerous sins of the heart. Scripture says that elders must be above reproach and forbids office to the greedy or arrogant (Titus 1:7) because these sins, though ones of internal disposition, yet tend to show themselves as scandalous external deeds. So also with sexual temptation, which is notoriously voracious and destructive of the personal holiness that one must have if he is to minister to Christ’s church (1 Pet. 2:11). If common sins such as arrogance disqualify, how much more sexual perversions.
That same-sex lust unfits one for ministry can be seen in that Scripture forbids office to those whose external sins are of a less scandalous character, such as those that fail to show hospitality (1 Tim. 3:3).
That homosexual attraction is disqualifying can be seen also in this, that Scripture presents homosexuality as being of a worse severity of sin than many others, a result of God removing the restraints of civil righteousness as a punishment for rank impiety (Rom. 1:24, 26-27). It is experienced in societies that have fallen into utter depravity (as Sodom or Gibeah) that are ripe for the calamitous judgment of God. Would we draw such things near to our own denomination?
That homosexual sin is not the only sin mentioned as proof of severe societal decline (Rom. 1:21-32), and that some of the other sins Paul mentions (as gossip, Rom. 1:29) have a lamentable currency among professing believers, in no way means the church should soften its message about the depravity of sexual perversion. Rather, it ought to be more diligent in declaring with appropriate vigor the whole counsel of God (Acts 20:27) as regards the evils of all sins.
That the whole testimony of Scripture stands against those who would make homosexual lust an acceptable trait of ministers. For Scripture is uniform in denouncing everything to do with homosexual desire or deeds as sinful, and it is unthinkable that anyone whose thought was formed solely by Scripture would ever conclude that something like Revoice is a proper endeavor of the church, or of any who claim Christ as their Lord.
That the testimony of the church is against those who would have ministers with perverse sexual desires. For it is everywhere the case that the church has regarded homosexual sin as shameful and especially depraved and has treated it with ardent and uncompromising disapproval. There was no church council that had the character of Revoice in the ancient or medieval church, and those groups that permitted sexual indecency (as antinomians or the Adamites) were roundly condemned.
That the testimony of the church and of Scripture being uniformly against even the slightest acceptance of anything to do with any perverse sexuality, any endeavor to that end is inspired by external sources.

Tom Hervey is a member of Woodruff Road Presbyterian Church (PCA) in Simpsonville, S.C.

I believe my ten arguments for a literal reading of Genesis 1 and my five response to objections sufficiently demonstrate the validity of the Westminster Confession (4.1) when it declares: “It pleased God the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, for the manifestation of the glory of His eternal power, wisdom, and goodness, in the beginning, to create, or make of nothing, the world, and all things therein whether visible or invisible, in the space of six days; and all very good.”

In Part One of this piece, I offered 10 reasons for reading the six days of creation as six chronologically successive periods of 24-hours each. Today, I will answer five common objections.
Objections to Literal, Chronological Days
1. Objection: Genesis 2:4 speaks of the entire creation week as a ‘day,’ showing that ‘day’ may not be literal.
Response: The phrase here is actually beyom, an idiomatic expression meaning “when” (NIV, NRSV, NAB).[1] Besides, even had Genesis 2 used “day” in a different sense, Genesis 1 carefully qualifies its creative days (see points 2–5 in the previous article).
2. Objection: Genesis 2:2–3 establishes the seventh day of God’s rest, which is ongoing and not a literal day. This shows the preceding six days could be long periods of time.
Response: (1) Contextually, this is an argument from silence—one which contradicts Exodus 20:11. (2) If true, it would imply no fall and curse (Genesis 3), for then God would be continually hallowing and blessing that “ongoing day.” In fact, God does not bless his eternal rest, but a particular day. (3) Days 1–6 (the actual creation period) are expressly delimited; Day 7 is not. (This is, however, because the creation week has ceased. To mention another “morning” would imply another day followed in that unique period.) Since this is the seventh in a series of six preceding literal days, how can we interpret it other than literally?
3. Objection: On Day 4 God creates the sun to provide light; but light was created on Day 1. This shows that the days are not chronologically ordered, but thematically cross-linked.
Response: This “problem” is answered in the context. On Day 1 God declares “good” the newly created light, but not his separating it from darkness to form “evening and morning.” This is because the final, providential mechanism for separating (the sun) is not created until Day 4. Thus, when Day 4 ends we finally read: “it was good” (Gen. 1:18). This is similar to the separation of the waters above and below on Day 2, which is not declared “good” until the final separation from the land on Day 3 (Gen. 1:9). Or like Adam’s creation not being “good” (Gen. 2:18) until Eve is separated out of him. Also, Scripture elsewhere suggests light was created separately from the sun (2 Cor. 4:6; Job 38:19–20) and can exist apart from it (Rev. 22:5).
Besides, most of the material in Genesis 1 demands chronological order—even for Framework advocates. This suggests that the surprising order of light-then-sun is also chronological. Not only is Genesis 1 structured by fifty-five waw-consecutives (often translated “and”) that indicate narrative sequence, but note: Separating the waters on Day 2 requires their prior creation on Day 1 (Gen. 1:2d). Creating the sea on Day 3 must predate the sea creatures of Day 5. Day 3 logically has dry land appearing before land vegetation later that day. Day 3 must predate Day 6, in that land must precede land animals and man. Day 6 must appear as the last stage of creation, in that man forms the obvious climax to God’s creation. Day 6 logically has man being created after animal life (Days 5 and 6) in that he is commanded to rule over it. Day 7 must conclude the series in that it announces the cessation of creation (Gen. 2:2). And so on.
Read More
Related Posts: