Covenant Responds to Revoice

[NaphtaliPress]

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]

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.”

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.

 

[Bill Duncan]

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]

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

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]

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]

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]

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.

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.

 

[A.Joseph]

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

 

[A.Joseph]

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

seems like you all should get behind the warhornmedia guys

 

[Bill Duncan]

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.

 

[NaphtaliPress]

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.

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

 

[Bill Duncan]

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.

 

[py3ak]

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.

 

[A.Joseph]

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.

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]

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.

 

[Bill Duncan]

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.

 

[ZackF]

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.

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

 

[JTB.SDG]

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.

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.

 

[Santiago]

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.
——————————————————

To confuse temptation with actual sin is dangerous. Sin is a chosen action. It is giving consent to our temptation, which gives birth to sin (James 1:13-15). As Martin Luther so famously said, “You cannot keep birds from flying over your head but you can keep them from building a nest in your hair.”

To say that we are sinning when we experience an ungodly desire is not biblical. Jesus was tempted but was without sin. It is what we do with our temptations that either draws us closer to God or drives us further away. 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.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Grant]

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.

 

[Grant]

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.

 

[SolamVeritatem]

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

 

[Hamalas]

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.

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.

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]

Zack,

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

 

[Grant]

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.)

 

[Santiago]

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

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 at 1:1 with desire.

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

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

 

[Grant]

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]

View attachment 5972

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

 

[Bill Duncan]

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.

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.

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.

 

[Grant]

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.