The life that produces divisions because of bitterness, jealousy, selfishness, and ambition is not merely unwise, it is from the devil himself. Beware of bitterness; even it’s root “defiles many” (Heb 12:15). Beware of covetousness; it is idolatry (Col 3:5). Beware of the schemes of the devil, and don’t be ignorant of his schemes (2 Cor 2:11). True, godly wisdom is “from above”. It is from God himself. This wisdom is different from the world’s wisdom, because it produces “meekness” and a harvest of peace. When you reap the fruits of godly wisdom, brothers are restored, not divided. When you reap the fruits of godly wisdom, humility abounds.

Who is wise and understanding among you? By his good conduct let him show his works in the meekness of wisdom.But if you have bitter jealousy and selfish ambition in your hearts, do not boast and be false to the truth. This is not the wisdom that comes down from above, but is earthly, unspiritual, demonic. For where jealousy and selfish ambition exist, there will be disorder and every vile practice.But the wisdom from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, open to reason, full of mercy and good fruits, impartial and sincere. And a harvest of righteousness is sown in peace by those who make peace.”
James 3:13-18
Solomon instructs us, in a variety of ways, to “be wise” (Prov 8:33 for example). But often I struggle to know what is the “wise” thing to do. In the book of James (along with the rest of Scripture), God has given us a litmus test of sorts to distinguish between what is true, godly wisdom, and what is earthly and demonic. To be sure, there are situations where wisdom will be more nuanced, but as a rule, the verses above describe what wisdom most naturally looks like. I want to spend a little time explaining the verses above and hopefully help us to better discern what is wise, and what is not.
Earthly, Unspiritual, Demonic
For the sake of this post, let’s think of a situation that requires wisdom. Someone comes to you looking for godly counsel.
Read More
Related Posts:

Most PCA elders have accepted Good Faith Subscription in the sense that they acknowledge stated differences are permitted within the denomination. However, there is a lack of clarity about what should happen once a stated difference is made known. BCO 21-4.f states that it is the obligation of presbyteries to consider whether the difference undermines the fundamentals of the system of the Westminster Standards as well as the vitals of religion. 

For as long as I have been a minister in the Presbyterian Church in America (ordained in 2011), there have been intramural debates within the denomination about subscription to the Church’s agreed-upon edition of the Westminster Standards (Confession of Faith, Larger, and Shorter Catechisms) as its theological documents. The disagreement has not been about the existence of the Standards, but rather about how they should be applied. It is not my intention to rehearse for you the history of the development of the PCA’s official position on this point. Rather, my intention is simply to draw some observations about the current ecclesiastical lay of the land, consider some wrong responses to the present reality, and encourage some ways to move forward.
What Is Good Faith Subscription?
The term “Good Faith Subscription” does not appear anywhere in the PCA’s Book of Church Order (BCO). However, it is the label given to what is codified and described in BCO 21-4.e:
While our Constitution does not require the candidate’s affirmation of every statement and/or proposition of doctrine in our Confession of Faith and Catechisms, it is the right and responsibility of the Presbytery to determine if the candidate is out of accord with any of the fundamentals of these doctrinal standards and, as a consequence, may not be able in good faith sincerely to receive and adopt the Confession of Faith and Catechisms of this Church as containing the system of doctrine taught in the Holy Scriptures (cf. BCO 21-5, Q.2; 24-6, Q.2).
This section gives clarity about one part of the PCA’s relationship with the Westminster Standards. It outlines step one in understanding the PCA’s view on subscription: a candidate may disagree with parts of the Westminster Standards. This reality is understood and practiced within the PCA. By way of example, the Candidates & Credentials Committee of the Savannah River Presbytery (on which I serve) has received stated differences from candidates ranging from the omission of Aramaic as one of the languages of the Old Testament autographs (Westminster Confession of Faith 1-8), to issues surrounding the Bible’s account of creation (WCF 4-1), psalmody (WCF 21-5), images of Jesus (WCF 21-1), the keeping of the Lord’s Day (WCF 21-8), and others. The disagreement in the PCA, for the most part, is not about a man’s right to state a difference. It is rather about the degree to which such differences are acceptable.
The BCO does not permit a “carte blanche” holding of differences. Stating a difference subjects the candidate to the scrutiny of his particular presbytery. The Presbytery must examine the difference and make a decision regarding whether it is compatible with the Standards (BCO 21-4.f):
Therefore, in examining a candidate for ordination, the Presbytery shall…require the candidate to state the specific instances in which he may differ with the Confession of Faith and Catechisms in any of their statements and/or propositions. The court may grant an exception to any difference of doctrine only if in the court’s judgment the candidate’s declared difference is not out of accord with any fundamental of our system of doctrine because the difference is neither hostile to the system nor strikes at the vitals of religion.
This paragraph provides step two in understanding the PCA’s view of on subscription. Our constitution in BCO 21-4.f makes it clear that one thing Good Faith Subscription does not mean is that all differences are de facto permissible. The presbytery is not obligated to “grant an exception.” The Presbytery grants an exception only when it judges a candidate’s stated difference as neither undermining the system of doctrine presented in the Westminster Standards nor denying the essence of the Christian religion. There are several implications of this mandated scrutiny.
Good Faith Subscription—Implications
First, a generic sincerity of position and a heartfelt love for God in Christ on the part of the candidate is not adequate in and of itself to grant an exception. In other words, a candidate does not need to deny a fundamental doctrine of the Christian Faith (e.g., the Trinity or the Incarnation) in order to be barred from ordained ministry in the PCA. A denial of any doctrine expressed in the Westminster Standards of the PCA – even when such a matter is not shared by other Christians – is important and must be examined (and granted) before a man takes up a particular call in the PCA. It is at this point that the PCA’s troubles start.
Read More
Related Posts:

Satan comes against us like a roaring lion who seems ready to swallow us alive (1 Peter 5:8). But he has no more power over us than he has been given, and God’s grace is sufficient for us in the midst of our failure, just as it was for David. God is able to enhance His own glory and our good even through our greatest sins, which He uses to humble us and make us more grateful for the gospel. That is good news for great sinners like us.

At first sight, David’s census, which is recorded for us in 2 Samuel 24 and in 1 Chronicles 21, provides one of the more obvious “contradictions” in the Bible. According to 2 Samuel 24:1, “Again the anger of the Lord was kindled against Israel, and he incited David against them, saying, ‘Go, number Israel and Judah.’ ” However, 1 Chronicles 21:1 says, “Then Satan stood against Israel and incited David to number Israel.” So was it the Lord or Satan who was responsible for inciting David into this sin?
The first point to notice is that the Chronicler uses Samuel-Kings as his basic source material for Israel’s history, and in many places quotes it verbatim. In other places, he adds material from other sources that is not found in Samuel-Kings, while in yet others he reshapes the material in Samuel-Kings to bring out points he was particularly keen to emphasize for the sake of his particular audience.
In Samuel-Kings, the focus of the story is on the exile as the culminating judgment to the sin of multiple generations of Israelites, answering the question of the exiles, “Was the Lord not powerful enough to protect us against the Babylonian gods?” But that answer created a new concern among the exiles—that the Lord was unfairly judging one generation for the sins of previous generations: “The fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the children’s teeth are set on edge” (Jer. 31:29; Ezek. 18:2). To the contrary, the Chronicler was keen to highlight how on many occasions the Lord consistently judged sin and blessed faithfulness at the time it occurred. These two perspectives are complementary: the Lord in His patience waits long to judge His people, but His judgment never falls upon an innocent generation, because each generation is weighed down by their own sins (see Ezek. 18). Any generation can humble themselves, repent, turn to the Lord, and receive favor from Him (2 Chron. 7:14).
In one sense, David himself was responsible for numbering the people. That was not merely unwise but sinful, since the primary reason in ancient times to undertake a census was to establish the size of army a ruler could depend on in a conflict.
Read More
Related Posts: