# Covenant Responds to Revoice



## Hamalas (Mar 8, 2019)

I'm glad to see this:

Reactions: Edifying 2


----------



## SeanPatrickCornell (Mar 8, 2019)

Can you give a brief summary? (Not able to watch a 5 min video quite yet).

Reactions: Funny 2


----------



## Edward (Mar 8, 2019)

SeanPatrickCornell said:


> Can you give a brief summary?



Covenant Seminary is an innocent victim and we should quit sinning against them. Other than that, it seemed to me to be carefully worded orthodoxy.

I'd have a bit more sympathy if they had posted this 7 months ago. It shouldn't have taken them this long to figure out what should be said.

Maybe other folks will be more open to them playing the victim card at this point.

Edited to add: 

And no one from the Seminary will be speaking at the conference in 2019.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## Scott Bushey (Mar 8, 2019)

Edward said:


> if they had posted this 7 months ago. It shouldn't have taken them this long to figure out what should be said



Agreed.


----------



## JTB.SDG (Mar 8, 2019)

SeanPatrickCornell said:


> Can you give a brief summary? (Not able to watch a 5 min video quite yet).


Mark Dalby clarifies that Covenant had no official role in the conference, tells us that as a result of what happened at the conference they will not have any faculty speaking at the next one, and gently also calls out those who have been jumping to conclusions about their role in the conference; I might add, rightfully so.


----------



## JTB.SDG (Mar 8, 2019)

Edward said:


> Covenant Seminary is an innocent victim and we should quit sinning against them. Other than that, it seemed to me to be carefully worded orthodoxy.
> 
> I'd have a bit more sympathy if they had posted this 7 months ago. It shouldn't have taken them this long to figure out what should be said.
> 
> ...


I'm glad they posted it; I think it's helpful.


----------



## Bill Duncan (Mar 9, 2019)

And in June men may support this overture to fix the problem once and for all.

https://www.theaquilareport.com/nor...release-covenant-seminary-from-pca-oversight/

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Scott Bushey (Mar 9, 2019)

Bill Duncan said:


> And in June men may support this overture to fix the problem once and for all.



u mean like the FV problem they fixed?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Bill Duncan (Mar 9, 2019)

Scott Bushey said:


> u mean like the FV problem they fixed?


No, simply the need to condemn nor defend an agency of the denomination. It makes whatever is coming out of Covenant, good or bad, a nonissue for the members in the PCA. The PCA did not learn from Princeton. Regardless of what you think of Kuyper he was spot on this issue.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Edward (Mar 9, 2019)

Bill Duncan said:


> And in June men may support this overture to fix the problem once and for all.



Highly unlikely. This is probably designed to head that off. And that effort doesn't appear to be going anywhere - only one Presbytery has sent it up at this point. The only question is whether the committees will substitute something watered down, or whether they'll send it to defeat. 

On the other hand, four presbyteries think money needs to be spent on a study as to whether domestic abuse should be condemned. I would expect a feminist statement to come out of that effort, even if some of the proponents are well intentioned . And there are also three or four presbyteries supporting the efforts to put women into leadership.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## ZackF (Mar 9, 2019)

Edward said:


> Highly unlikely. This is probably designed to head that off. And that effort doesn't appear to be going anywhere - only one Presbytery has sent it up at this point. The only question is whether the committees will substitute something watered down, or whether they'll send it to defeat.
> 
> On the other hand, four presbyteries think money needs to be spent on a study as to whether domestic abuse should be condemned. I would expect a feminist statement to come out of that effort, even if some of the proponents are well intentioned . And there are also three or four presbyteries supporting the efforts to put women into leadership.



Condemning domestic abuse requires a study?

Reactions: Like 5


----------



## Bill Duncan (Mar 9, 2019)

Edward said:


> Highly unlikely. This is probably designed to head that off. And that effort doesn't appear to be going anywhere - only one Presbytery has sent it up at this point. The only question is whether the committees will substitute something watered down, or whether they'll send it to defeat.
> 
> On the other hand, four presbyteries think money needs to be spent on a study as to whether domestic abuse should be condemned. I would expect a feminist statement to come out of that effort, even if some of the proponents are well intentioned . And there are also three or four presbyteries supporting the efforts to put women into leadership.


Thanks for this information. Personally, I've done all I can do to from the position I am currently in, by asking my Elders to work from the narrow court upward, but to no avail. I'm pretty much toast. I must now rely on my Ebenezer.

There are faithful men who see the issues in the PCA as small things, compared to what they dealt with 50 years ago. They are satisfied to wait it out. I covet their resolve.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Bill Duncan (Mar 9, 2019)

ZackF said:


> Condemning domestic abuse requires a study?


If you want an interesting comparison look at what the study committees of the various NAPARC denominations are focused on and you see a vivid picture of their respective views of the nature of the church.


----------



## J.L. Allen (Mar 9, 2019)

Bill Duncan said:


> If you want an interesting comparison look at what the study committees of the various NAPARC denominations are focused on and you see a vivid picture of their respective views of the nature of the church.


How so?


----------



## Edward (Mar 9, 2019)

Bill Duncan said:


> There are faithful men who see the issues in the PCA as small things, compared to what they dealt with 50 years ago.



They can't see that these are the exact issues they dealt with 50 years ago?


----------



## Bill Duncan (Mar 9, 2019)

I won't try to speak for them as some of them are very wise and I trust their judgment, especially those who were founding members of the PCA, and I could not do them justice. I strongly recommend anyone interested to listen to Dr. Joseph Pipa, one who I would categorize this way, in this GPTS Podcast. I know everyone doesn't have a stake in this controversy, and trust me I have made this my mission over the last two years so I do. If you want a well done and fair treatment, take the time here.

https://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=219192345513012


----------



## Bill Duncan (Mar 9, 2019)

Johnathan Lee Allen said:


> How so?


I suppose this is a bit of a rabbit trail, but for instance, OPC is studying whether to update language in the WCF, RPCNA is studying to clarify matters of divorce and offerings as a regulative principle of worship. These things seem to be more practical and with tangible results. There is absolutely nothing tangible about the PCA Racial and Ethnic Reconciliation study. Kind of like the US Senate hearings that only cause tempers to flare and have no helpful outcome.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## A.Joseph (Mar 9, 2019)

He seemed a little defensive.... like he begrudgingly had to do this cause of all the outside pressure....

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Bill Duncan (Mar 9, 2019)

Do you mean how he referred to his position at GPTS as it relates to the PCA?


----------



## A.Joseph (Mar 9, 2019)

I didn’t watch the whole thing yet but he was talking about slanderous attacks.... but most of the outspoken are the concerned.... the true militant.... we see outside sources at work and/or working their way in

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## JTB.SDG (Mar 9, 2019)

A.Joseph said:


> I didn’t watch the whole thing yet but he was talking about slanderous attacks.... but most of the outspoken are the concerned.... the true militant.... we see outside sources at work and/or working their way in


I think that's probably true.

But the whole point was who we are bringing those concerns to (first). If I believe my brother sins against me, I probably shouldn't go blogging about it before I have a sit down with the man himself. Though the former is much easier.

It's easier to gossip or slander an organization than a person. It's also easy to start spreading stuff you hear without fact checking. Concerns should be dealt with in the proper and biblical way. Right? I'm glad someone wrote up something about CTS to take to GA. If there are concerns, that's the proper way to do it.

Reactions: Like 2 | Amen 1


----------



## A.Joseph (Mar 9, 2019)

JTB.SDG said:


> I think that's probably true.
> 
> But the whole point was who we are bringing those concerns to (first). If I believe my brother sins against me, I probably shouldn't go blogging about it before I have a sit down with the man himself. Though the former is much easier.
> 
> It's easier to gossip or slander an organization than a person. It's also easy to start spreading stuff you hear without fact checking. Concerns should be dealt with in the proper and biblical way. Right? I'm glad someone wrote up something about CTS to take to GA. If there are concerns, that's the proper way to do it.


Sure, of course..... I don’t disagree with what you are saying. I hope all concerns are legit and delt with accordingly and appropriately..... with no secret or personal agendas at play....

But if these surveys are a true indicator somebody is dropping the ball somewhere along the lines.... http://www.pewforum.org/religious-l...-denomination/presbyterian-church-in-america/

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Edward (Mar 9, 2019)

JTB.SDG said:


> But the whole point was who we are bringing those concerns to (first). If I believe my brother sins against me, I probably shouldn't go blogging about it before I have a sit down with the man himself.



So you are saying that he should have made clear whether he had gone first privately to those against whom he is making his accusations?

Reactions: Like 1 | Amen 1


----------



## Pergamum (Mar 10, 2019)

A very off-putting video.

The guy stays silent on the conference for months prior and refuses to condemn it, and then condemns his critics afterward.

They send a speaker there from the seminary to participate in the conference. Often participation implies endorsement. Participation by a seminary faculty often means legitimacy for the conference.

I am glad the speaker sent from Covenant defended traditional sexual ethics. But sometimes participation in a conference means endorsement, unless the institution is clear about the purpose for their participation. But we see that Dr. Dalbey refused to criticize it at all beforehand.

Dr Dalby spends more time on the video lecturing and rebuking those that had qualms, instead of condemning homosexuality.

The guy comes off as a jerk in the video and I sure wouldn't want to send anyone to his seminary. 

And didn't Rejoice take place at a PCA church? And isn't Covenant Seminary the official seminary of the PCA? If so...why no loud condemnations of this church by Covenant Seminary beforehand, or even now?...the only thing we get is annoying nagging rebukes about those of us troubled by Covenant's silence.

For months and months prior to the conference, Covenant’s president, "Mark Dalby, said publicly that the criticisms of Revoice were baseless because Revoice hadn’t been held yet." 

That is one of the stupidest things I've ever heard. What the conference was about, what the speakers believed, and the topics to be covered and the opinions held were largely known beforehand. 

Does Dr Dalby lack enough discernment to know the general tenor of what this conference would be about? Surely he is not that dumb.

The video states that Covenant will no longer send speakers to the next Revoice Conference. Is this an admission that their participation was unwise at the last one? If this an admission of guilt? And if so, why the lecturing of us for saying the same thing? If they had not sent a speaker this year, they would not have gotten much of the criticism that they received.

All that time leading up to the conference...and yet Covenant refused to condemn the conference....yet here this guy now in the video...criticizing people who were troubled by his silence.

Here is a good summary of discussions as the Revoice Conference neared: https://warhornmedia.com/2018/06/18...ys-pca-general-assembly-statement-on-revoice/

"Dr. Dalbey lamented over the conference being judged before it was held and the content was known. This defense reminds me of Nancy Pelosi’s infamous statement that the Affordable Care Act had to be passed in order to know what was in it. Revoice has published extensive descriptions of many of their presentations; the main speakers’ views are extensively published and known internationally; and the pastor of the host church gave a lengthy explanation and defense of the conference.

It takes very little discernment to get a clear impression of what the thrust of the Revoice devoicing will be.

[Dalbey's words]
"...I am deeply troubled with the attacks and judgments that have been made against Covenant Seminary around the Revoice conference. Much of what is being said is untrue about us, unfair toward us, and very unloving toward us."

As I said to the CTS staff member who told me I was not demonstrating the love of Christ in my warnings and _tone_ regarding the Revoice conference, it is necessary work for pastors to be watchmen (read Ezekiel 33). To refuse to sound the alarm when wolves are attempting to attack the sheep is to be both negligent and unloving. To remain silent or ambivalent, or to say “let’s just wait and see,” is to give a more honored place to collegiality than love for the sheep and faithfulness to God."


Did I miss it somewhere? Was there ever any clear denunciation of this Revoice Conference by Covenant Seminary? If only Dr. Dalbey had rebuked Revoice even half as much as he does his critics in the video above. 

I have officially lost respect. I don't trust this guy. I like my preachers to speak plainly, and this guy does not speak plainly.

Dr Dalby further says the following and NEEDS TO REPENT FROM IT: "The temptation toward homosexual sin is not sin. Attraction to the same sex must be mortified by the means of grace and the support of the people of God, so it does not as James say, “conceive and give birth to sin.”

Again, he says that same-sex attraction is not sin and that it must be mortified so as not to lead to sin. Dr Dalby is unfit to teach on this topic.


Every unnatural desire is sin. An unnatural tempation is a sin. People are pushing to excuse a same-sex attraction as not being sinful, but we'd never say the same thing about having an attraction to children. Nobody says a pedophiliac-attraction or a beastiality-attraction is not sin. It is a sign of a disordered desire, a result of a sinful disposition. But the homosexual lobby is pretty strong and so many churches are trying to throw as many scraps to them as they can and to meet them halfway.


"Revoice attempts to remove homosexual desires from the realm of sin and Dr. Dalbey is careful to allow this. This is the space the gay Christian movement is seeking to claim and it will lead many to live as effeminate men and butch women, renouncing their God-given sex. Dr. Dalbey continues:


We affirm brothers and sisters who are walking in this way, whose struggle is same-sex temptation. As well as those whose temptation is heterosexual, and nonsexual temptations, including the stirring up of discord in the Body of Christ."


Notice that clever manuever. Same-sex attraction is only as bad as stirring up discord. And then he accues many of doing this same thing in his pedantic little video. An unnatural desire is thus equated with making a beef about Covenant's participation in a pro-homo conference.


He then says, "What people choose to call themselves who struggle with same sex attraction I think is a matter of significant wisdom in figuring out, but not necessarily something for condemnation if their commitment is no behavior, no lust, and mortifying the desire to not be tempted."


But aren't words important? Should we really be okay with people calling themselves gay Christians? The sloppy language being used opens up an opportunity for people to preserve a homosexual identity. Another phrase being used that Dr Dalbey did not object to was that some people consisted of beign a "sexual minority" - which puts homosexuals into the same category as a civil rights issue. 


Again, Dr Dalby is unfit for leadership on this issue and needs to repent.


His position is to bend over backwards so as not to offend the homosexuals and to throw conservative Christians troubled by his wishy-washyness under the bus.


https://warhornmedia.com/2018/06/13...logical-seminarys-committee-of-commissioners/


https://warhornmedia.com/2019/01/15/covenant-theological-seminary-and-the-decline-of-the-pca/


More troubling news from faculty associated with Covenant:

https://world.wng.org/2019/02/strained_voices


http://tennesseestar.com/2017/08/30...nference-featuring-leftist-teachings-on-race/


I would urge all faithful believers to avoid Covenant and to pressure them to walk back their progress towards the Cultural Left.

Reactions: Like 6 | Amen 4


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Mar 10, 2019)

JTB.SDG said:


> But the whole point was who we are bringing those concerns to (first). If I believe my brother sins against me, I probably shouldn't go blogging about it before I have a sit down with the man himself. Though the former is much easier.



Matthew 18 is talking about sins that are of a private and personal nature, not the public conduct of seminaries or ecclesiastical bodies. I have noticed that clericalists like to erroneously appeal to Matthew 18 so that their public conduct cannot be publicly scrutinised. No, if they do something in public that scandalises the gospel and brings true religion into disrepute, then they may expect the rest of us to call them out on it.

Reactions: Like 8 | Amen 1


----------



## JTB.SDG (Mar 10, 2019)

Reformed Covenanter said:


> Matthew 18 is talking about sins that are of a private and personal nature, not the public conduct of seminaries or ecclesiastical bodies. I have noticed that clericalists like to erroneously appeal to Matthew 18 so that their public conduct cannot be publicly scrutinised. No, if they do something in public that scandalises the gospel and brings true religion into disrepute, then they may expect the rest of us to call them out on it.


Need to give this more thought; chewing on it.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Mar 10, 2019)

Reformed Covenanter said:


> Matthew 18 is talking about sins that are of a private and personal nature, not the public conduct of seminaries or ecclesiastical bodies. I have noticed that clericalists like to erroneously appeal to Matthew 18 so that their public conduct cannot be publicly scrutinised. No, if they do something in public that scandalises the gospel and brings true religion into disrepute, then they may expect the rest of us to call them out on it.





JTB.SDG said:


> Need to give this more thought; chewing on it.



I thought I had posted something on this here on PB regarding this same controversy but maybe it was just Facebook. Year ago on FB I posted:
The view that Matthew 18:15ff concerns private offenses, and not public notorious offenses, is not just the view of a few though notable Presbyterians, but is clearly the understanding of whole national churches i.e. the Presbyterian Church of Scotland, as is clear from Walter Stewart's Collections, which functioned as a sort of BOCO from 1709 in both Scotland and the colonies.

https://archive.org/stream/collectionsobserv00steu...

The section noted is, for those familiar with it, very much drawing on James Durham's Concerning Scandal, one of the most influential works on the subject in Presbyterian literature.

Durham: "When an offense is to be accounted public

An offense then that is to be accounted public, that is, which is so in respect of its notoriety or publicness and such as is not the object of private admonition, but whereof a church judicatory is immediately to take notice, may be considered in respect of its first instant, or in respect of some following circumstance; for what is required in the nature of the sin itself, has been spoken to already. (1) It is public in the first respect, [1] when it is done before so many as probably cannot be satisfied with private admonition, so that thereby there is a hazard to many to be scandalized.

[2] It is public when it seems to be done with contempt and an high hand, as if a person were owning the same. Thus a scandal that has fewer witnesses, may be accounted public, when another, it may be, actually known to as many, is not to be accounted such, because in this case there is no access to private admonition, the person being like a swine, ready to turn on the admonisher. Thus suppose Absalom’s incest had not been actually known to many, yet the very circumstances of his doing it openly, and purposely that it might be known, made it of a public nature. Thus sometimes it is more necessary to take notice of an offense committed in a public place, though it may be few know the same, than of a thing done more privately, because as to them it might have been public to many, and it shows an humor and corruption that is beyond private admonition, when a thing is so circumstantiated.

[3] Sometimes offenses will have an horror, and an indignation wakened against them, even in respect of such circumstances as to be drunk, lascivious, and such like, are offenses, but to be so in a market place or in public streets, even supposing it to be in a day when few do actually see it, wakens an indignation in the hearts of sober men, as being an affront to religion and order, and inconsistent with Christianity and civility, much more than if it had been in a private place, or privately; for that is before the Sun to do so, as Zimrie’s act was, which provoked Phinehas’s zeal.

[4] An offense is public when it is generally accounted to be a certain truth and not a suspicion only, as being a thing in its evidence known to so many (beside what is reported to others) that it cannot be supposed that an ingenuous mind can have access to deny or shift the same, without some indignation in the hearts of those that know it.

[5] Sometimes an offense is to be accounted public when though it may be many are not witnesses thereof, yet when many are in hazard to be infected thereby; as suppose those witnesses to be such as cannot rest quiet in a private satisfaction, but they have either spread it, or are in hazard to spread it, and it may be long afterwards they make it a ground of reproach. In this case it becomes a scandal not only to the first witnesses, but also to those to whom it is reported. So that although it was not at first public, yet it becomes so by the rumor thereof. This infectiousness may also proceed from the time wherein it is committed, the person who committed it, the nature of the fact that is committed (which may more readily ensnare others than facts of some other nature), from those also before whom it was committed. Therefore in such cases it is necessary that public notice be taken thereof.

(2) Therefore, in the second place, we said that some offenses not very public in respect of the fact, yet may by some concurring circumstances be such as the bringing of them in public may be necessary for the edifying of the church at such a time, then that way is to be taken. As suppose [1], that such a sin is in some places scarcely counted a sin; or [2], if it be secretly and frequently in use among others; or [3], if the person found guilty is generally suspected of loose and untender walking in such things, although particulars are not public; or [4], if they be, under false pretexts of tenderness, ready to seduce others to something sinful, or in the like cases. In which, though the fact is not so public, yet the scandal, or hazard, and the benefit of a rebuke are public, and therefore that way is to be followed, because they are necessary for the edifying of the church, which is the end wherefore public rebukes are appointed.

See James Durham, Concerning Scandal (Naphtali Press, 1990), 93-95.


One can also show from the Minutes of the Westminster Assembly and from their debate papers over church polity (The Grand Debate) that the assembly believed Matthew 18 concerned private offenses that would possibly proceed to public censor. Gillespie answering the Erastian argument, “Christ would not have sent his disciples for private injuryes to civill court….” Van Dixhoorn, Minutes, II.525. The assembly as a whole answering the congregationalist minority can be inferred to say so in their reproving an inadequate method of argument from Matthew 18 concerning subordination of assemblies. "Our brethren should have shown what method, terms, bounds, or subordinations of proceedings, Christ had prescribed to the church when offenses are public and openly scandalous, as well as when private and known but to a single brother.” The Westminster Assembly’s Grand Debate (Naphtali Press, 2014), 231.

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 1


----------



## A.Joseph (Mar 10, 2019)

I agree with you about Dr. D,I just didn’t want to go too far with my criticism ...but I also think he comes off as a little effeminate..if he is a mild and meek person that is ok, but I’m always concerned about hidden agendas... so I am not trying to slander the man nor imply anything, it’s just a bit of a vibe


Pergamum said:


> A very off-putting video.
> 
> The guy stays silent on the conference for months prior and refuses to condemn it, and then condemns his critics afterward.
> 
> ...

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Edward (Mar 10, 2019)

NaphtaliPress said:


> I thought I had posted something on this here on PB regarding this same controversy



Was it perhaps posted in connection with the situation at Christ the King in Houston? I know there was some private scandal/public scandal discussion with regard to the now-former Elder.


----------



## A.Joseph (Mar 10, 2019)

This guy is a bad egg all the way around.....

“Although significant time was given to discussing Revoice in the Committee of Commissioners for Covenant Seminary at this year’s assembly, there was limited time for discussion of this policy change. President Dalbey justified the change by a simplistic explanation that all female professors would be exercising their authority under the authority of the Board of Trustees—all of whom were elders in the church—and that was the end of it. Teaching Elder Dr. Andrew Dionne had his hand in the air wanting to ask how Dalbey, Sklar, and their trustees squared this change with God’s prohibition of women teaching and exercising authority over men, but he didn’t get the chance to speak.”

https://warhornmedia.com/2018/06/20...ased-to-announce-introduction-of-women-profs/

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Mar 10, 2019)

Edward said:


> Was it perhaps posted in connection with the situation at Christ the King in Houston? I know there was some private scandal/public scandal discussion with regard to the now-former Elder.


Perhaps; I couldn't find if I did in any case, if I did. The above is what I would post on any similar type of lack of clarity w.r.t. Matthew 18 and public scandals.


----------



## A.Joseph (Mar 10, 2019)

From one of those links.... if this is true, this is purposeful deciet and they are engaging in stall tactics. They are willfully serving satan.... why is there even any doubt at this point?... this is past the point of discussion... it’s condemnation time. Shut it down before they do any more harm:


“We have a whole bookexposing the errors Covenant Seminary has been teaching and Revoice will be dispensing, as good students are wont to do after they leave seminary.







Godliness is not heterosexuality.
Homosexuality will not send you to Hell.
Spiritual friendships covenanted between gay men and women are great.
Celibate gay men are fine for churches to hire as youth pastors.
Homosexual orientation is a real deal, and for most people precludes marriage.
Telling gay men to act like men and helping them learn how is abusive and rarely works.
Effeminacy is no sin, but a perfectly acceptable lifestyle as long as it’s celibate.
Reparation therapy is every bit as bad as all people criminalizing it across the country say it is.
There’s nothing wrong with being married with children and announcing you like men as well as women; also that you like hanging with the LGBTQ community.
Need we go on? Honestly, it’s boring. There’s nothing new here, but President Dalbey says we have to wait and see. Check out the pic of the free book being given out to every commissioner at GA this year. There’s no need to wait and see.

Here is the real problem. We have a seminary and president who don’t understand homosexuality and effeminacy, yet they have taught these Revoice men and women everything they think and say about Scripture and homosexuality.

President Dalbey and his Vice President of Academics Jay Sklar have been weighed and found wanting, but they say they can’t be weighed yet because we haven’t heard what they’re going to say, and even then they can’t be found wanting because they are not the OFFICIAL sponsor of the conference.”




Pergamum said:


> A very off-putting video.
> 
> The guy stays silent on the conference for months prior and refuses to condemn it, and then condemns his critics afterward.
> 
> ...

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Bill Duncan (Mar 10, 2019)

Bill Duncan said:


> Do you really think that this study could have produced any finding that would have said anything other than it did? This was a conspiracy of the highest order. Elders in the PCA who sit home in June of every year, without valid reason, and fail to do their duty for their Church by attending General Assembly, should demit the office.



I quote myself here because this is the same issue as the "Slander of the PCA" thread. Covenant is an agency of the PCA insulated by multiple levels of protection, with the ability to influence men at the committee level. There are fine men and women employed there. To damage the reputation of the institution could cause people to loose positions, and could cause public scrutiny affecting the PCA as a Church. Certainly the temptation is to cover up, like a cat its scat, seems to be the preferred method of the prelates. The sexuality issue is the same as the race issue. Hot button topics that many do not really want to express their opinions nor take a stand.


----------



## A.Joseph (Mar 10, 2019)

I understand, but these guys at the top are banking on what you say as they recklessly bring it down and the denomination anyway , just more gradually, painfully and in the most God dishonoring way


Bill Duncan said:


> I quote myself here because this is the same issue as the "Slander of the PCA" thread. Covenant is an agency of the PCA insulated by multiple levels of protection, with the ability to influence men at the committee level. There are fine men and women employed there. To damage the reputation of the institution could cause people to loose positions, and could cause public scrutiny affecting the PCA as a Church. Certainly the temptation is to cover up, like a cat its scat, seems to be the preferred method of the prelates. The sexuality issue is the same as the race issue. Hot button topics that many do not really want to express their opinions nor take a stand.


----------



## Bill Duncan (Mar 10, 2019)

A.Joseph said:


> I understand, but these guys at the top are banking on what you say as they recklessly bring it down and the denomination anyway , just more gradually, painfully and in the most God dishonoring way


Can you expand what you mean by "banking on what you say".


----------



## Edward (Mar 10, 2019)

NaphtaliPress said:


> I couldn't find if I did in any case, if I did



I reviewed the thread of which I was thinking, and I was incorrect - the general discussion is there, and you were on the thread, but no posting like the one one you made here. My apologies if I sent you on a wild goose chase.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Mar 10, 2019)

No problem; I didn't go looking, so the chase was just yours in this case. But it is interesting that this is the go to line of response to criticism of public scandal, error, etc., i.e. basically attempts to shut down the public criticism. Now the manner, who, etc. are another matter. Personal attacks and typical social media trolling, mere partisan fervor (I'm of Paul, Apollos, Van Til, etc.) are certainly not right, but not because these things cannot be addressed publicly appropriate to one's place and station for some imagined rule violation of Matthew 18.


Edward said:


> I reviewed the thread of which I was thinking, and I was incorrect - the general discussion is there, and you were on the thread, but no posting like the one one you made here. My apologies if I sent you on a wild goose chase.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## A.Joseph (Mar 10, 2019)

Bill Duncan said:


> Can you expand what you mean by "banking on what you say".


“There are fine men and women employed there. To damage the reputation of the institution could cause people to loose positions, and could cause public scrutiny affecting the PCA as a Church. Certainly the temptation is to cover up, like a cat its scat, seems to be the preferred method of the prelates.“
The reputation IS being damaged....as they remain silent the ones doing the most damage are continuing and emboldened.... specifically the pres & vp of Covenant.... so by covering up, they allow the bleeding to continue and get worse.... how is this the way to go? Understand what I’m trying to say?

If it keeps getting worse it will come out anyway... when PCA becomes PCUSA

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## A.Joseph (Mar 10, 2019)

Bill Duncan said:


> Can you expand what you mean by "banking on what you say".


seems like you all should get behind the warhornmedia guys

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Bill Duncan (Mar 10, 2019)

Yes. We are in agreement. The contagion is unavoidable. It is the nature of the beast. This stuff is not new, but has been festering for years. This is why I advocate letting all, both the seminary and the college, go independent of the PCA. Thornwell and Machen both warned of creating offices in the church for which the Lord has not made allowance. The chickens are coming to roost.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Mar 10, 2019)

The PCA was not founded solidly. If it had been the intent of everyone to found an Old School Southern strict suscription continuing church, they would not have let fear or overreaction to how the progs took over things prevent setting up committees to manage and encourage catechism, sabbath observance, family, worship, which things certainly dominated concerns of the confessionalists in before the 1940s. We got one resoluton for sabbath observance in like 1973 but does anyone know or is there any accountability as far as teaching the reformed faith, catechizing, in the churches. Hence the eye opening poll noted at a link above.


Bill Duncan said:


> This stuff is not new, but has been festering for years.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## Bill Duncan (Mar 10, 2019)

A.Joseph said:


> seems like you all should get behind the warhornmedia guys


There is only so much I, as only an out of bounds RE can do. I have even lost my Church over this and other issues of apathy. I now wait on the Lord to provide me a new home. Hopefully an OPC mission work.

It is eerily quiet as we have been speaking of these things now for weeks. There are few PCA people weighing in here on PB. This is what I find. If it is not affecting the local church, no one cares. If a sodomite was nominated for office in their Church, then there would be all hands on deck. If we have Churches and pastors hosting conferences promoting sodomite rights, then we sit quietly and make it someone else's problem. The PCA is a group of independent churches, not ALL but MOST, who have representative government and call that Presbyterian.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## py3ak (Mar 10, 2019)

JTB.SDG said:


> Need to give this more thought; chewing on it.



It's good to keep in mind that Paul rebuked Peter publicly. Because Peter's sin was publicly visible and causing a severe problem, Paul dealt with it in plain sight as well. Also intriguing in that episode is that Paul didn't individually go after everyone who had been led astray, or even target the brethren from James directly, but instead focused on the most prominent capitulator.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## A.Joseph (Mar 10, 2019)

Bill Duncan said:


> There is only so much I, as only an out of bounds RE can do. I have even lost my Church over this and other issues of apathy. I now wait on the Lord to provide me a new home. Hopefully an OPC mission work.
> 
> It is eerily quiet as we have been speaking of these things now for weeks. There are few PCA people weighing in here on PB. This is what I find. If it is not affecting the local church, no one cares. If a sodomite was nominated for office in their Church, then there would be all hands on deck. If we have Churches and pastors hosting conferences promoting sodomite rights, then we sit quietly and make it someone else's problem. The PCA is a group of independent churches, not ALL but MOST, who have representative government and call that Presbyterian.





NaphtaliPress said:


> The PCA was not founded solidly. If it had been the intent of everyone to found an Old School Southern strict suscription continuing church, they would not have let fear or overreaction to how the progs took over things prevent setting up committees to manage and encourage catechism, sabbath observance, family, worship, which things certainly dominated concerns of the confessionalists in before the 1940s. We got one resoluton for sabbath observance in like 1973 but does anyone know or is there any accountability as far as teaching the reformed faith, catechizing, in the churches. Hence the eye opening poll noted at a link above.


I was just talking to one of our elders this evening and he said similar things.... so that helps explain things as far as the PCA is concerned


----------



## ZackF (Mar 10, 2019)

py3ak said:


> It's good to keep in mind that Paul rebuked Peter publicly. Because Peter's sin was publicly visible and causing a severe problem, Paul dealt with it in plain sight as well. Also intriguing in that episode is that Paul didn't individually go after everyone who had been led astray, or even target the brethren from James directly, but instead focused on the most prominent capitulator.



I think I agree with this.

Dalby's video probably should have been longer and more thorough. We all agree it should have came way sooner. I still stand with Ben and I welcome it. 

I liked how he talked about SS desires being sinful and not merely behaviors. Solid stuff there. I didn't find anything in that part suspect.

Regarding church discipline, Matthew 18 and so forth Dalby could be responding to behavior toward Covenant faculty not involved. People can downright nasty when it comes to these things and go after proxies privately rather than addressing someone directly involved.

I understand the issues of denominational integrity, seminary reputation, and am relieved Covenant is not sending speakers this year. However, I disagree that participation necessarily means agreement with the themes of the conference. To reduce the argument to lowest terms Man A can say to Man B, "I'm going to throw a conference on X. Some speakers will share views on X that you don't agree with nor does the greater conservative church. I want to be fair. Would you like 45 minutes to give a presentation?" Is Man B wrong to give an orthodox presentation?

Despite certain ties of social movements (LGBT activism and Wokism) to cultural Marxism, l wouldn't dare risk conflating race relations and LGBT. The world (and sinning churchmen) are 'jamming' the two together and I refuse to do so. Melanin count isn't sodomy nor lust.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Bill Duncan (Mar 10, 2019)

ZackF said:


> Despite certain ties of social movements (LGBT activism and Wokism) to cultural Marxism, l wouldn't dare risk conflating race relations and LGBT. The world (and sinning churchmen) are 'jamming' the two together and I refuse to do so. Melanin count isn't sodomy nor lust.


I'm not sure if you were referring to my equating the Ad Interim Committee on Race and Ethnic Reconciliation report and Revoice as a conflation but they are two sides of the same coin as evidenced by ground zero being in St. Louis. Here is a very obvious connection and I do not put words in anyone's mouth nor slander.
A. Mike Higgins is the dad of Michelle Higgins.
B. Mike Higgins is Dean of Students at Covenant Seminary.
C. Mike Higgins is Pastor of South City PCA
D.Michelle Higgins, MDiv Covenant Seminary is Worship Director, event coordinator, and youth ministry director at South City PCA
E. Michelle Higgins is a founding member of Faith for 
Justice, "A coalition of Christian activists pursuing a call to action in the public square."
F.Michelle Higgins schedules lesbian to speak to the congregation on the Lord's day at Faith for Justice event, Reclaim MLK

You may read between the lines, but I can draw a line.

Reactions: Like 3 | Funny 1


----------



## ZackF (Mar 10, 2019)

Bill Duncan said:


> I'm not sure if you were referring to my equating the Ad Interim Committee on Race and Ethnic Reconciliation report and Revoice as a conflation but they are two sides of the same coin as evidenced by ground zero being in St. Louis. Here is a very obvious connection and I do not put words in anyone's mouth nor slander.
> A. Mike Higgins is the dad of Michelle Higgins.
> B. Mike Higgins is Dean of Students at Covenant Seminary.
> C. Mike Higgins is Pastor of South City PCA
> ...


Exactly. Ms. Higgins is jamming the issues together with the blessing of her father. That is sad.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## JTB.SDG (Mar 10, 2019)

ZackF said:


> I think I agree with this.
> 
> Dalby's video probably should have been longer and more thorough. We all agree it should have came way sooner. I still stand with Ben and I welcome it.
> 
> ...



I agree with much of this. I also agree it should have come sooner. Also, though he may be correct in what he said about slander etc (I'm still chewing on it), regardless, the prevailing emphasis on his/their part should have been apologizing for any mixed signals they might have unintentionally sent or confusion they might have created by sending faculty there and waiting so long to address this in a formal manner. However, I am glad for the video and also welcome it.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Santiago (Mar 11, 2019)

Pergamum said:


> A very off-putting video.
> 
> The guy stays silent on the conference for months prior and refuses to condemn it, and then condemns his critics afterward.
> 
> ...


----------



## Smeagol (Mar 11, 2019)

Bill Duncan said:


> There are few PCA people weighing in here on PB. This is what I find. If it is not affecting the local church, no one cares.


I responded to this last night, but decided to delete and sleep on it. I will reply again below. Just know I am responding not in anger but in brotherly concern.

Bill,

Please know that a lack of participation in the brow beating of the PCA on PB should not be directly correlated with a lack of care from it's officers for the current health of the PCA locally or as a whole. Often there is much Godly wisdom in being silent on online forum rants and blog wars.

Typically what has been shown in scripture to be more effective for wolves attacking from within (and without for that matter) are things such as fervent prayer, fasting, direct loving rebuke (private and public), and faithful Lord's Day Preaching. I assure you these things are happening across the nation for the current PCA issues. Going on online forum and blog tangents is NOT a pre-requisite for caring about ones Church (either locally or nationally). I am glad the video came out (yes it should have been sooner) and further, I still support separation from Covenant for more reasons than just Revoice. I would really prefer seminary Reformation vs. separation.

*However*, to accuse many in the PCA (you said "no one cares" if it is not affecting the local church), simply because we don't all dog-pile in on this thread, crosses a line I hope you will consider retreating from.

Regardless of the the proper exegesis of Matthew 18, which I agree with @NaphtaliPress on, there are various other passages (1 Peter, Galatians, etc.) which encourage loving rebuke, done for the purpose of reconciliation and not destruction. The situation at Covenant is embarrassing and should weigh heavy on Christians who still view many of those involved as wayward sheep.

Yes public sin often requires public rebuke, BUT the rebuke should still be as direct as possible with the person, even if that means you "miss out" on being as public as possible. The point of adding more to the audience of the rebuke of a *Brother* is still reconciliation and not destruction . Even in @py3ak 's example (which was great!), Paul rebuked Peter publicly, BUT it was still *directly*. Paul did not go around from town to town publicly criticizing Peter or passing out "Wanted Heretic" posters (an equivalent of the modern logging in to PB or FB and start some indirect thread or YouTube video). *Paul spoke directly to Peter*. Paul desired true correction and reconciliation. Paul saw Peter as a brother in need of a strong loving rebuke.This is why Social Media can potentially be so harmful. From a Presbyterian perspective, the YouTube video response in many ways was not the most wise handling of the situation. Admittedly some form of apology for any caused embarrassment to the brethren would have been wise.

@JTB.SDG both Calvin and Matthew Henry have excellent commentary on Matthew 18. Ironically Calvin speaks a lot about the word "moderation" with regard to the topic of correcting a brother/sister in sin.

Reactions: Like 3 | Amen 1


----------



## Smeagol (Mar 11, 2019)

Santiago said:


> We all have our own weaknesses and those with SSA that is brought before the Lord and mortified is no more sinful than our attraction to a woman that is not our wife that we equally resist and refuse to entertain.



Santiago,

Actually your comment here (though you may not know it) is exactly part of the error being mixed into the Church by REVOICE. The very fact that we desire (attraction) something ungodly is sinful. In both cases you provide above, sin IS involved. The desire for something sinful is still SIN. Jesus though outwardly tempted, NEVER desired sin. Once you've have actually desired something in your heart, you are already beyond the line of outward temptation and no longer on morally neutral ground.

Westminster Chapter 6.5

_V. This corruption of nature, during this life, doth remain in those that are regenerated;a and although it be through Christ pardoned and mortified, yet both itself *and all the motions thereof** are truly and properly sin.*_

Also See:
*James 1:14-15 NKJV*
_14 But each one is tempted when he is drawn away by his own desires and enticed. 15 Then, when desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, brings forth death._

We are in a world of temptation as was Christ incarnate, but when the desire arrives sin is born. Distinctions on this topic are extremely important. Temptation does not equal a 1:1 with desire.

P.S. Your response to @Pergamum, was likely not read by most, as your response is merged with his post.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## SolamVeritatem (Mar 11, 2019)

Grant,

Thank you brother. Your post was very helpful. There is much godly wisdom there for those who are able to receive it. 

Though I would hold a bit different perspective on _some _of the areas you mentioned, I appreciate you bringing needed balance to this thread. 

Grace and Peace,

Craig

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Hamalas (Mar 11, 2019)

Grant Jones said:


> I responded to this last night, but decided to delete and sleep on it. I will reply again below. Just know I am responding not in anger but in brotherly concern.
> 
> Bill,
> 
> ...



This is the post I was about to write. Thanks for framing this so well and so graciously brother! (Incidentally, are you at Adam Parker's church? He and I are old friends from back in Kansas.)


----------



## SolamVeritatem (Mar 11, 2019)

Zack,

Upon further review, I express the same sentiments to you as I did to Grant...


----------



## Smeagol (Mar 11, 2019)

Hamalas said:


> This is the post I was about to write. Thanks for framing this so well and so graciously brother! (Incidentally, are you at Adam Parker's church? He and I are old friends from back in Kansas.)

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## Santiago (Mar 11, 2019)

Grant Jones said:


> Your above comments are troublesome and exactly part of the error being mixed into the Church by REVOICE. The very fact that we desire something ungodly is sinful. In both cases you provide above, sin IS involved. The desire for something sinful is still SIN. Jesus though outwardly tempted, NEVER desired sin. Once you've have actually desired something in your heart, you are already beyond the line of outward temptation and no longer on morally neutral ground.
> 
> Westminster Chapter 6.5
> 
> ...



Sorry about the misuse of the app- I’m new and still learning the mechanics. On deeper meditation, I do have to concede to your point and find the same language in the 1689 Baptist Confession (6.5)
“The corruption of nature, during this life, doth remain in those that are regenerated; and although it be through Christ pardoned and mortified, yet both itself, and the first motions thereof, are truly and properly sin. ( Romans 7:18,23; Ecclesiastes 7:20; 1 John 1:8; Romans 7:23-25; Galatians 5:17 )

We are all depraved, as the apostle Paul so clearly illustrated in Romans 7. There isn’t a moment that we are not harboring sin in some form. Which is why I agree that participation in a workshop that confirms or has a permissive attitude toward “alternate lifestyles” is dangerous. Perhaps there are some truths that need to be provided via teaspoons instead of shovels to avoid a sense of insurmountable condemnation by those who don’t have a relationship with Christ and have SSA. We rest in the knowledge that Christ is our righteousness and that we have forgiveness through faith in His perfect atonement and our repentance, which is made possible through the Holy Spirit. Those not there yet can’t grasp the hope and beauty that this truth contains. When reaching out to the lost we have to be careful not to shoot them in the head.

I guess the message should not be whether a leaning toward being attracted to the same sex without corresponding action (or nourished desire), or just the propensity to lean that way is sin, but that, in Christ, there is hope, forgiveness, reconciliation, and love when we live for Christ and not ourselves. 

We can’t sugarcoat sin, but Christ provided a great model of meeting people where they are at and leading them to Him via the Holy Spirit. But a workshop environment that strays from biblical truth is not the appropriate vehicle.

Lastly, we may be defining “desiring” a little differently, but I don’t think that’s necessarily relevant. 

Thank you for the gentle correction.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Smeagol (Mar 11, 2019)

Santiago said:


> Thank you for the gentle correction.



No Problem brother. Iron sharpens Iron, and I am often the one who finds myself quite dull. Honestly, REVOICE has at least still served 1 good purpose, which is exposing that there is a doctrine that needs some "dusting off", even within Orthodox Churches. The conversation of temptation/desire/sin will hopefully be re-clarified and confessionally restated from many pulpits as a result.


----------



## Hamalas (Mar 11, 2019)

Grant Jones said:


> View attachment 5972



The fact that you replied with a meme tells me all I need to know. (Tell Adam, "hello" from me!)

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Bill Duncan (Mar 11, 2019)

Grant Jones said:


> I responded to this last night, but decided to delete and sleep on it. I will reply again below. Just know I am responding not in anger but in brotherly concern.
> 
> Bill,
> 
> ...


Yes, you are correct in all you say as log as you are doing you own part to correct wrongs. Unless you detect no wrong and in such case you have every right to be silent. However you cannot apply any of this to me. With over 100 pages of communication, hours of conversation, and finally charging them with dereliction of their duty, my only option now is an appeal to presbytery. I have yet to do this for I am waiting on others who are working already at that level. Beginning with my session, to inspire their involvement in the system of polity by participation and representation in the broader courts of the PCA, I am in no way subject to any Matt. 18 violation. 
Though your advice is good, please don't apply it to me. I am simply trying to get the rest of those who are concerned about the direction of the PCA to get out of their comfort zones and speak out. Sometimes elders hide behind their vow to "study the peace and purity" of the church a a cover for being cowards. We should look to the prophets, not the nuns as our examples.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Smeagol (Mar 11, 2019)

Hamalas said:


> The fact that you replied with a meme tells me all I need to know. (Tell Adam, "hello" from me!)


I will. Sharing a Cigar with him this very afternoon.


----------



## Jack K (Mar 11, 2019)

We should remember that Presbyterian polity acts slowly, by design. We wish for everything to be done decently and in order, and order takes time. Also, especially where public correction of others who claim the name of Christ might be in order, the ninth commandment requires great care in what we say and how we say it. This cannot be rushed. Fairness to all takes careful research, not broad-brush statements, and is one reason for our typically long reports prepared by committees over the course of a year or (very often) more. The process can be frustrating, but there are good reasons for it.

Adding to this, the sad experiences of the past century have caused faithful Presbyterian institutions to be wary of top-down pronouncements. In both our denominations and our seminaries, we don't want the guy at the top making the rules or setting policies on his own, which is one way liberalism advanced so quickly. Rather, we want congregations, presbyteries, faculties, ruling elders, etc. to be our voice. The structure is such that denominational officials must be careful in how they speak until GA has spoken, and seminary officials must be careful in how they speak until the faculty has spoken. This grassroots consensus takes time, even where there may be broad agreement at the start, especially in an academic setting where concerns for academic freedom must be balanced with concerns for conformity. Remember that forced conformity has been used _against_ faithful men at least as much as it has been used by them, so there are reasons to be careful and not rush to demand conformity.

So, I'm not sure we should conclude that men ought to ignore Presbyterian polity and instead quickly issue their own condemnations via social media, or that the absence of such outbursts means the denomination or seminary is clearly headed in a bad direction. It might just mean we're being good Presbyterians.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Smeagol (Mar 11, 2019)

Bill Duncan said:


> Yes, you are correct in all you say as log as you are doing you own part to correct wrongs. Unless you detect no wrong and in such case you have every right to be silent. However you cannot apply any of this to me. With over 100 pages of communication, hours of conversation, and finally charging them with dereliction of their duty, my only option now is an appeal to presbytery. I have yet to do this for I am waiting on others who are working already at that level. Beginning with my session, to inspire their involvement in the system of polity by participation and representation in the broader courts of the PCA, I am in no way subject to any Matt. 18 violation.
> Though your advice is good, please don't apply it to me. I am simply trying to get the rest of those who are concerned about the direction of the PCA to get out of their comfort zones and speak out. Sometimes elders hide behind their vow to "study the peace and purity" of the church a a cover for being cowards. We should look to the prophets, not the nuns as our examples.


Bill,

I do not question your resolve or loving concern for the PCA dear brother. Rather, I took issue with finding a correlation between silence on PB (an online forum) and "if it's not affecting the local church, no one cares" as being too blanketed. Further I was reminding that lack of prayer, fasting, faithful preaching, and Church discipline on this issue are FAR more concerning than lack of participation on forums and blog wars. Actions are slowly but surely being taken. As a former Baptist, I have found I want things to move faster, but have learned that Presbyterianism often moves at a different rate (which I am thankful for). Online forum participation is not a valid proof for any side of this argument (thankfully you and I are on the same side). I do not feel you have violated Matthew 18 and I hope my responses have not implied such.


----------



## SolamVeritatem (Mar 11, 2019)

Bill Duncan said:


> And in June men may support this overture to fix the problem once and for all.
> 
> https://www.theaquilareport.com/nor...release-covenant-seminary-from-pca-oversight/


Bill,

Honest question, meant to be sincere in every respect. 

In reading the overture, I don't necessarily see it presented as a "problem" that is in need of correcting. Instead, there is much mention about questions of whether specialized oversight is "deserved" by seminaries, boards, CTS being capable of meeting it's operating expenses, academic freedom, and the seminary maturing to the "point where they do not wish to be excusively under oversight by ordained officers" and so on. 

If the intent was to construct an overture outlining significant problems with the denominational seminary and the desire for it to be released from PCA oversight for such reasons, why not mention that? 

If the overall intent of this overture was to alert the assembly of the need for correction, rebuke (and possibly charges to be addressed/adjudicated in the courts of the church?) with regard to CTS, it certainly isn't clear to the average reader from what is written. 

Grace and Peace,

Craig


----------



## Bill Duncan (Mar 11, 2019)

Silence on PB was not intended to be a knock at the concern of PCA men as a whole. Understand that I have surveyed folks in other churches than mine and many just see this as someone else's problem. Presbyterianism is a ground up system. Men must be vocal to their local Session. I would like someone to tell me what they are doing, besides reading blogs and waiting on the results of GA to fallout. Its too late at that point. We are not in the study committee, sit on our hands, kick the can down the road phase. Two churches in our neighboring Presbytery have left the PCA this year. We are not down to years but rather months to act. If the Judicial committee does not discipline the culprits on Revoice several churches I know are walking.

Blog wars and forums are the periodicals and journals of yesteryear. The writers are agents and second causes of God's decretive will. The Ninety-five Theses were publicly posted, to the Glory of God. Read what was written by Thornwell Breceknridge in the journals of the time and what I have said is child's play. 
As to lack of use of the means of Grace, why are we to do them if none know what they do them for. There are congregations in the PCA that have been purposely kept in the dark by Sessions not willing to take a stand. Put wheels on your prayers, don't let go and let God.

I think we need to hire Pergamum as a consultant!

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## Bill Duncan (Mar 11, 2019)

SolamVeritatem said:


> Bill,
> 
> Honest question, meant to be sincere in every respect.
> 
> ...


Yes, I think it was some reverse psychology there. Catch more flies with honey.. I guess. that's why I would be a bad overture author.


----------



## TheOldCourse (Mar 11, 2019)

Bill Duncan said:


> Yes. We are in agreement. The contagion is unavoidable. It is the nature of the beast. This stuff is not new, but has been festering for years. This is why I advocate letting all, both the seminary and the college, go independent of the PCA. Thornwell and Machen both warned of creating offices in the church for which the Lord has not made allowance. The chickens are coming to roost.



I suppose that depends on your view of the teaching office. I would argue that the training of ministers in an inherently ecclesiastic action and as such ought to be under the oversight of the church. Cutting Covenant loose may be excising a tumor now, but it got to this point because the church failed in its duty to guard the institution and its students from false teachers. But then again, I'm a four-office guy so I believe that the Lord did make allowances for such institutions. Union went from Dabney to liberals in about a generation and it was independent so independency doesn't prevent decline, but I guess it's easier as a church to wash your hands of it when it does happen.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## JTB.SDG (Mar 11, 2019)

Grant Jones said:


> Yes public sin often requires public rebuke, BUT the rebuke should still be as direct as possible with the person. . .Even in @py3ak 's example (which was great!), Paul rebuked Peter publicly, BUT it was still *directly*. Paul did not go around from town to town publicly criticizing Peter or passing out "Wanted Heretic" posters (an equivalent of the modern logging in to PB or FB and start some indirect thread or YouTube video). *Paul spoke directly to Peter*.


I think another appropriate example of dealing with public concerns relating to an institution is Joshua 22, where the 2 1/2 tribes build the alter. The 9 1/2 tribes still bring their concerns directly to those they saw as obviously guilty. In fact, they're so convinced the 2 1/2 tribes had sinned that the purpose of the delegation isn't to "fact check" at all, it's just to give them a chance to repent. But as they meet with them face to face, they realize it was a misunderstanding. I believe it's a wonderful study. They stood for truth. Yes, Amen. But they did it in the right way.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Smeagol (Mar 12, 2019)

Bill Duncan said:


> Silence on PB was not intended to be a knock at the concern of PCA men as a whole. Understand that I have surveyed folks in other churches than mine and many just see this as someone else's problem. Presbyterianism is a ground up system. Men must be vocal to their local Session. I would like someone to tell me what they are doing, besides reading blogs and waiting on the results of GA to fallout. Its too late at that point. We are not in the study committee, sit on our hands, kick the can down the road phase. Two churches in our neighboring Presbytery have left the PCA this year. We are not down to years but rather months to act. If the Judicial committee does not discipline the culprits on Revoice several churches I know are walking.
> 
> Blog wars and forums are the periodicals and journals of yesteryear. The writers are agents and second causes of God's decretive will. The Ninety-five Theses were publicly posted, to the Glory of God. Read what was written by Thornwell Breceknridge in the journals of the time and what I have said is child's play.
> As to lack of use of the means of Grace, why are we to do them if none know what they do them for. There are congregations in the PCA that have been purposely kept in the dark by Sessions not willing to take a stand. Put wheels on your prayers, don't let go and let God.
> ...


So Bill ( on a lighter note), are you saying you feel many are doing this:




And they should be doing this:




P.S. This is my youngest, her name is Snoozilla.

Reactions: Funny 4


----------



## Bill Duncan (Mar 12, 2019)

Grant Jones said:


> So Bill ( on a lighter note), are you saying you feel many are doing this:
> View attachment 5979
> 
> And they should be doing this:
> ...


You got me. 20 years PCA. First Picture is me first ten years. Second is me second ten years. Cute kids.

Reactions: Like 1 | Funny 1


----------



## Tom Hart (Mar 13, 2019)

Grant Jones said:


> This is my youngest, her name is Snoozilla.



Interesting choice of name. She might have trouble when she goes to school.

Anyway, she takes after her father (minus the pipe).

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Pergamum (Mar 13, 2019)

Bill Duncan said:


> Yes, I think it was some reverse psychology there. Catch more flies with honey.. I guess. that's why I would be a bad overture author.


You kill the most flies with a nuclear bomb!

Reactions: Amen 1


----------



## Silas22 (Mar 13, 2019)

Covenant responds to MLK event.


----------



## Edward (Mar 13, 2019)

Silas22 said:


> Covenant responds to MLK event.



I see he's using the 'victim card' there, as well. 

So we are to go to him, ask, and listen. (around the 4:25 mark). Nothing about anyone at the seminary going, and asking, and listening to the concerns that have been raised. 

I'm thinking about drafting up an email to him in my usual diplomatic style.


----------



## Bill Duncan (Mar 13, 2019)

Edward said:


> I see he's using the 'victim card' there, as well.
> 
> So we are to go to him, ask, and listen. (around the 4:25 mark). Nothing about anyone at the seminary going, and asking, and listening to the concerns that have been raised.
> 
> I'm thinking about drafting up an email to him in my usual diplomatic style.


Edward, 
I'm curios, as we are both PCA men, what has your Session done on this and other issues. Is it a topic of conversation in and with the Church?


----------



## ZackF (Mar 13, 2019)

Edward said:


> I see he's using the 'victim card' there, as well.
> 
> So we are to go to him, ask, and listen. (around the 4:25 mark). Nothing about anyone at the seminary going, and asking, and listening to the concerns that have been raised.
> 
> I'm thinking about drafting up an email to him in my usual diplomatic style.


Snail mail would probably be more effective.


----------



## Edward (Mar 13, 2019)

ZackF said:


> Snail mail would probably be more effective.



Given the two expressions posted from Youtube on this thread, I doubt anything would be effective. It seemed clear from the second video that he's willing to teach, but not willing to dialogue.


----------

