Thoughts?
Hmm. Some statements in the right direction…but I’m curious how the pastor on here view the overall helpfulness of the document.
————————
We deny that any supposed genetic link to homosexuality would make homosexual thoughts, desires and actions morally acceptable or normative. Gen. 3:1-7; Gen. 6:5; Ps. 51:5; Matt. 5:27,28; Mark 7:21-23; Rom. 3:9-18,23; 1 Cor. 6:9-10; James 1:14,15
We deny that Christians should identify themselves by any sin in general, or by sexual sins in particular, including identifying as a “gay Christian.” Eph. 5:3; 2 Tim. 2:19
We affirm that, while the term Same Sex Attraction (SSA) is often used by Christians to explain their struggle with homosexuality, the use of this term should be addressed within the Biblical categories of language that distinguish between temptation on the one hand and sinful thoughts, desires and actions on the other hand. Mark 7:21; Rom. 7:15; Rom. 13:14; 2 Cor. 10:13; Gal. 5:16,17; James 1:14,15
We affirm that any teaching that declares homosexual thoughts and desires are not sinful unless acted upon to be contrary to Scripture. Rom, 6:11,12; Rom. 7:5; Eph. 2:3; James 1:14,15; 1 Pet. 1:14; 1 Pet. 2:11
We deny that homosexual thoughts or desires are non-sinful impulses, sexual disabilities to be managed or indicative of a morally neutral sexual orientation. Mark 7:21; 1 Cor. 6:9-11,18
Thank God for their calling sin, sin and for using words like ‘rebellion,’ ‘corrupting,’ ‘temptation,’ and teaching men to reject identifying with their sin. That’s all through the document.
I do worry about how the document tries to fence off how you fight, with this:
“contend for the faith” without being contentious and “defend the faith” without being defensive
and the heinousness of the sin with this:
We deny that homosexual thoughts, desires and actions are the worst possible sins
I think this document could be helpful to Briarwood if their purpose is to fight for the souls of homosexuals and the same-sex tempted; they have just enough caveats in there though that this could be all show and any time a man begins to fight and causes any stink they could call him contentious and defensive and call the army back from him so that he falls in battle. I pray that Briarwood is not doing that; if they are really prepared to fight for souls may the Lord bless them in it!
5 Likes
I am glad they finally stepped up. Such a detailed document. Must have been weeks in preparation. Why is it coming out after GA? Why did these men not stand in the middle of the auditorium and cry out for repentance? Was this distributed at GA? ‘Oh, that’s not the presbyterian way’ Well that is the Bible’s way.
Missing from this document:
- Clarification that to be a Christian there must be affirming fruits.
- Clarification that a true believer will experience a change in life, and change in appetites, and change in desires. Guaranteed. No exceptions. If this isn’t happening, then it didn’t happen. Go back to your knees and repent. And if it did happen, go back to your knees too and repent, daily. It never stops for a believer, only non-believers give up trying to do it in their own power. That’s because they are goats, not sheep. No body can do it on their own.
- There is no affirmation that simply declaring oneself to be a Christian is insufficient. God saves men, and once saved the are changed. The Holy Spirit indwells them, and they begin the long hard road of sanctification and mortification of sin. [Eze 36:26.27] No repentance? No ongoing cry to God for deliverance from you sin? You are not a Christian. And brothers, be warned not to even eat with such that pretend to be believers.
- Missing any reference to Confessional Standards. Remember, we are body of believers centered around a common confession. No confession, no PCA, no confession, no basis for discipline. No discipline, no Church. No doubt some may argue that the this GA demonstrates that the PCA is in danger of being a No-Church. Elders, better step up and prove this potential to be in error.The sheep are watching. And the wolves are busy.
- Missing any reference to salvation being of God not of man’s decision. All those (sincere ones) that wish to be sodomites and Christian are operating under false assurance. Thank you Mr. Finney, sir, I don’t want anymore, please. Go back to Hell.
Sorry, but this may be a too-late-to-do-any-good puff piece in my view. The Church that could have stood in the gap last week, is off on the side dreaming about past glories and the bravery of fallen brothers. I hope someone will post a youtube video to prove me wrong. I will happily and publicly repent, and endure presbyterian lashes (if we even do that anymore) if that happens.
Go ahead, you can file charges against me now.
I read a blog on the Aquila Report that this document is presently under consideration by the PCA. On page 30 it appears to endorse the malakoi as catamite interpretation.
http://www.pcahistory.org/topicalresources/sexuality/RPCNA_Study.pdf
Yes, I believe that is overture 11 described here:
2 Likes
Quick question, if this issue is enough for a church to leave the PCA, is it enough for a sheep to leave a congregation. Asking for a friend. He’s been bringing these issues to his pastor who told him to read Scott Sauls recent blog on the Revoice controversy.
That’s a great question. Quite possibly. But you have to have somewhere else to go, and that’s often the rub.
Always is, and is the main reason I’m no longer in a covenantal/confessional church. But I do believe my John MacArthur styled church is a less risky option than most PCA churches. Interestingly a small group of confessional Christians have all landed here for the same reasons.
However, I was encouraged to read a devotional from TE Al Baker in Alabama that called for public repentance for sexual perversion within the PCA. My former elder shared it with me. Too bad absolutely no one in the PCA in Arizona is so bold.