That the foremost sufferers of our present deeds are those that are tempted with homosexual lust. For they need to be encouraged diligently with the assurance that their sin belongs to the old man that was crucified with Christ (Rom. 6:6), and that they are new creations (2 Cor. 5:17) who have been cleansed of their sin and who can and will finally overcome it (Rom. 6:12-14). And yet we set before them as leaders and models men who proudly claim their sin as an essential part of their identity, and who name themselves by it.

That a defective doctrine of sin makes impossible all right thinking and practice in ethical matters.
That all same sex attraction is a species of lust. “For all that is in the world—the desires of the flesh and the desires of the eyes and pride of life—is not from the Father but is from the world” (1 Jn. 2:16, emphasis mine). And again, scripture in speaking of such desire always portrays it as illicit and contrary to the right order of nature (Rom. 1:26-27), and as having the same effects of defilement of body and mind as other forms of sexual immorality (Rom. 1:24, 27; comp. 1 Cor. 6:18; 1 Pet. 2:11).
That sin consists not only in unlawful deeds of the body or tongue, but also in the principle of corruption that animates such deeds, and in various perversions of desire, thought, or will. For as our Lord says, “everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart” (Matt. 5:28).
That the teachings of those associated with Revoice imply that sin lies only in deeds and not in the corruption that issues forth as such deeds. Thus do they bring near Pelagianizing tendencies whose influence is apt to work corruption in other matters: for a little leaven leavens the whole lump.
That the teachings of those associated with Revoice have the practical effect of categorizing homosexual attraction differently than the right doctrine of the church. For we have ever held that it is a question of morality, of sin that needs to be repented and mortified; yet they often speak as though it is rather a burden to be borne, and thus conceive of it in therapeutic terms. In other cases they speak of it positively, as though it gives its bearers special grace that might be used to the benefit of others.
That it is well outside the bounds of propriety for members of the papal communion to be employed in conferences held at churches that are members of our denomination, or for their teaching to be permitted in other circumstances. A distinction is made here between Rome as she has been since the time of her depravity in the middle ages and the earlier church prior to her ‘Babylonian captivity.’
That the teachings of those associated with Revoice have brought near again the doctrine of concupiscence of the papal communion – which is no wonder, many of Revoice’s teachers being associated with that body. Having escaped from the errors and tyranny of Rome with such suffering and difficulty, are we content to again expose ourselves to its baleful influences?
That the Revoice position proceeds on the same assumption that was used to justify the recognition of so-called same sex marriage in society at large, viz., that sexual desires are the result of a largely immutable genetic or hereditary disposition (orientation).
That sexual orientation is a very recent and suspect concept, holding as it does that homosexual desires are exclusively a result of physical and psychological constitution, rather than being acts of the will or habits resulting from one’s behavior.
That sundry sins sometimes have a genetic or hereditary lineage, and that they are further propagated by example and environment; but these extravolitional factors do not comprise the whole body of sin, nor do they excuse it.
That all positive discussion of Revoice and the same-sex attraction controversy is an act of disobedience to our Lord. For he says in his word that “sexual immorality and all impurity or covetousness must not even be named among you, as is proper among saints” (Eph. 5:3); and yet we have discussed this matter openly and blithely before the whole world.
That to even have such a controversy is a loss for us and indicates how worldly we have become. For it should be unthinkable that such things would be contemplated or acted out in the church of God, and their first mention should have been censured in keeping with the urgency with which Scripture enjoins the suppression of destructive ideas (Deut. 13:6-8).
That we dishonor our brothers throughout the world in other bodies of the faith, for many of them suffer poverty or persecution at the hands of unbelievers, and yet while they languish we give ourselves to comfortable and orderly discussions of matters which ought not to be discussed at all.
That we dishonor our forefathers by acting contrary to them and dishonoring the heritage that they have bequeathed to us. We are surrounded by a great cloud of witnesses (Heb. 12:1); and who can maintain that those witnesses would discuss these matters as we now do? Can we imagine Moses or Peter or John Knox or Daniel Baker regarding it as an imperative of justice and ministerial effectiveness to plead the case of immorality as is now done?
That we ill serve the world that we ought to labor to save when we engage in such matters. For the world needs to be told to flee the wrath that is to come, not to see and hear that the Presbyterian Church in America is proud to have same sex-attracted ministers in her midst.
That the foremost sufferers of our present deeds are those that are tempted with homosexual lust. For they need to be encouraged diligently with the assurance that their sin belongs to the old man that was crucified with Christ (Rom. 6:6), and that they are new creations (2 Cor. 5:17) who have been cleansed of their sin and who can and will finally overcome it (Rom. 6:12-14). And yet we set before them as leaders and models men who proudly claim their sin as an essential part of their identity, and who name themselves by it. Paul says that “those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires” (Gal. 5:24), and that former homosexuals were among the saints in Corinth that “were washed . . . were sanctified . . . were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ” (1 Cor. 6:ll) – and yet we would hang the moniker ‘same-sex’ about the necks of the tempted or permit them to hang it upon themselves, thus constituting them a separate class of believers.
That the reasons put forward for the propriety of having publicly identified same-sex attracted ministers are self-refuting. For it is intimated that this is an important measure to reach the lost, especially those that struggle with homosexual lust, and yet our previous position, in which something like the Revoice conference would have been unthinkable, did not dissuade many of these same agitators from joining us in past years.
That the scriptural injunction about quarrels about words does not mean that the language we use is a matter of indifference, or that we may use any words we please. Paul’s prohibition in 1 Timothy 6:4 and 2 Timothy 2:14 is upon petty or needless controversies of no real consequence that are engaged (as among the ancients) rather for the amusement of the disputants than for the benefit of their audience. Paul’s ban prohibits the church from becoming the Areopagus (Acts 17:21); it does not condemn the necessity of controversies – as of the Orthodox against the Arians, the Reformers against Rome, or the Fundamentalists against the Modernists – which seek to preserve the true meaning of terms of great consequence, the mis-definition of which are matters of spiritual life and death.
That it is seldom wise and sometimes sinful to use terms taken from unbelieving society at large.
That it is not right to use the contemporary terms of our opponents (and in some cases, persecutors) in our contemporary discussions of sexual ethics. “For the sons of this world are more shrewd in dealing with their own generation than the sons of light” (Lk. 16:8), and they have deliberately chosen terms such as gay, same-sex, and Side B because they portray homosexuality as at least morally neutral, and often as positively wholesome and good.
That God in his word only denominates this sin with terms of strong, unambiguous denunciation (as “dishonorable” and “shameless,” Rom. 1:26-27), ever regarding it as contrary to the proper course of nature.
That it is proper for the church to use the terms of Scripture and of traditional Christian moral teaching rather than those of the world. For he who controls the terms that are used and defines their meanings determines how such matters are conceived, and thus controls the debate.
That it is the purpose of language to illumine, not obscure, and that any language which tends to minimize, hide, or deny the egregious nature of anything to do with homosexual sin is not appropriate for use by the church or her ministers. For such euphemisms are a form of dishonest speech, and as such have more to do with the kingdom of Satan than that of God.
That much of the language which has been used hithertofore has been worldly and euphemistic, and taken from hostile, unbelieving sources.
That the use of such improper language ought to be repented forthwith for the sake of all parties.
That unbelieving homosexuals are those who are most ill-served by the use of euphemistic language that obscures the nature and severity of their sin. For one cannot repent unless he realizes his behavior is sinful, and this process includes a proper understanding of how severe his sin is and of how urgently repentance is needed.

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

It’s no surprise the lingo of “boot camp” spread into evangelicalism through Acts 29’s church planter gatherings. The atmosphere of “telling it like it is,” being “confronted by the truth” and “doing whatever it takes for the kingdom” had massive appeal to a generation of young men who came from homes where fathers were hooked on porn before the sons discovered it themselves, where the meaning of manhood and the pathway toward character development was left undefined.

In a radio interview a couple years ago, long after the implosion of Mars Hill Church and his departure from Seattle, Mark Driscoll attributed the resurgence of Reformed theology among evangelicals to “father wounds.”

That whole Young, Restless Reformed—God is father but he’s distant, he’s mean, he’s cruel, he’s non-relational, he’s far away. That’s their view of their earthly father. So, then they pick dead mentors: Spurgeon, Calvin, Luther. These are little boys with father wounds who are looking for spiritual fathers, so they pick dead guys who are not actually going to get to know them or correct them. And then they join networks run by other young men so that they can all be brothers. There’s no fathers. And they love, love, love Jesus because they love the story where the son is the hero because they’re the sons with father wounds.

I was surprised by this interview, primarily because Mark went on to repudiate Calvinism after painting Reformed theology with a broad brush. But also because, while making a valid point about how father wounds can influence one’s theology, Mark didn’t address the ways his ministry benefited from the phenomenon of absentee and passive fathers. It would be much easier to connect fatherlessness to Driscoll-fanhood than to make the case that all Reformed theology is really about a distant, angry, “non-relational” God.
Mark’s persona—the dude who, unlike your wimpy father, will get in your face and tell you the truth—was compelling to younger men confused about the meaning and purpose of manhood. That’s why the infamous “How dare you!” sermon took off. More on that in a moment.
Fatherhood and Reformed Theology
First, let’s acknowledge the kernel of truth in Mark’s assessment (if you can look past his caricature of Reformed theology): one reason for the recent rise of Reformed theology can be attributed to a hunger for healthy, assertive, promise-keeping, full-of-character fathers who reflect the fatherhood of God.
Collin Hansen touched on this desire in his 2008 book Young, Restless, and Reformed, when he described younger Calvinists referring to John Piper as a father figure. One young lady talked about Piper as being like “a dad” to her, although they’d never met.
At the time, I wrote about the strangeness of that phenomenon and the implications for a new generation’s vision of God’s fatherhood. What does it say about God as Father if young people think “father” is the appropriate term for a prominent preacher with whom they have no relationship? This is how I put it then:

Fathers image God. To reach for descriptions of spiritual fatherhood in relation to a powerful preacher, disconnected from a young person relationally, demonstrates a skewed vision of who God is: far off, transcendent, distant, thundering. If fatherhood can take place without ever meeting, then something has gone sideways regarding a more balanced view of fatherhood, one that includes transcendent authority combined with relational immanence, expressed most clearly in God’s gracious condescension to us in Christ.

Read More

MacArthur redefines fiducia by turning the volitional component of justifying faith into something other than child like receiving and resting in Christ for salvation. For MacArthur fiducia is not the disposition of trust in Christ (or to believe into Christ) but rather the work of bringing our righteous to Christ in deeds of forsaking, commitment and surrender.

In this post I addressed the aberrant view that justifying faith is assent alone apart from trusting in Christ. Therein I made a passing reference to another extreme view of faith – the “Lordship Salvation” gospel whose advocates not only define justifying faith without reference to the Reformed view of trust, but also add forsaking oneself, commitment of life and surrender to justifying faith, which in turn eclipses the gospel by confusing how one might appropriate Christ as he is freely offered in the gospel.
It is notable that John MacArthur, the most significant proponent of this view, does not subscribe to historical Reformed theology. In that respect, MacArthur is unchecked with respect to confessional theology in the Reformed tradition. Aside from having a baptistic ecclesiology and a dispensational view of the covenants, MacArthur has gotten the doctrines of justification and justifying faith wrong. I address those errors here.
Saving Faith According to John MacArthur:
Forsaking oneself for Christ’s sake is not an optional step of discipleship subsequent to conversion; it is the sine qua non of saving faith. (The Gospel According to Jesus, p. 142)
By “saving faith” MacArthur means justifying faith. We may infer this because he is speaking of the faith that is tied to conversion. Accordingly, sanctifying or persevering faith is not in view. What is also noteworthy is MacArthur cites “forsaking oneself” as an essential element of justifying faith, which is radically different than how the Reformed tradition defines justifying faith:
Justifying faith is a saving grace wrought in the heart of a sinner by the Spirit and word of God, whereby he, being convinced of his sin and misery, and of the disability in himself and all other creatures to recover him out of his lost condition, not only assenteth to the truth of the promise of the gospel, but receiveth and resteth upon Christ and his righteousness, therein held forth, for pardon of sin, and for the accepting and accounting of his person righteous in the sight of God for salvation. Westminster Larger Catechism, #72 What is justifying faith?
The most significant Confession in the history of the Protestant tradition defines the faith that justifies differently than MacArthur. At the heart of justifying faith is receiving and resting upon Christ, which is absent in MacArthur’s ordo salutis. Worse more, to add forsaking one’s life to the simplicity of faith is another gospel because it adds works to justifying faith. But not only does MacArthur add forsaking one’s life to faith, he also asserts that personal commitment is essential to justifying faith.
Commitment is the disputed element of faith around which the lordship controversy swirls. No-lordship theology denies that believing in Christ involves any element of personal commitment to Him. (Faith Works, The Gospel According To The Apostles, p. 43-44)
MacArthur contends that justifying faith, the faith that appropriates the benefits of Christ, entails “forsaking oneself” and “commitment.” It is not MacArthur but the Westminster Shorter Catechism that has it right when it states:
Faith in Jesus Christ is a saving grace, whereby we receive and rest upon him alone for salvation, he is offered in the gospel.” (Westminster Shorter Catechism, #86 What is faith in Jesus Christ?)
It escapes MacArthur that personal commitment and forsaking one’s life are works of righteousness, which if done in faith are fruits of sanctification and not elements (or principal acts) of justifying faith. MacArthur seems to miss that justifying faith is merely an instrument by which the unrighteous lay hold of Christ’s righteousness. (Westminster Shorter Catechism #73)
Read More
Related Posts: