If you're for the poor, you're for abortion?

I stopped my subscription to The Christian Century magazine years ago, when I was led out of my moderate liberalism. In the years that have passed I have rarely surveyed the periodical because I find it so predictable on just about every topic imaginable. But this article really stumped me. In his article, assistant editor, Steve Thorngate asserts that the Stupak Amendment to the House Health Care Bill is anti-poor.

Of course he uses all of the usual excuses for why the Left sees inequity in access to abortion:

But the status quo itself leaves a lot to be desired, and not just for abortion-rights hardliners. The Hyde Amendment offers antiabortion citizens the peace of knowing that while abortion may be legal, at least their taxes aren't paying for it. (No such comfort exists for those who oppose government spending in other areas.) In exchange for these clean hands, Americans get a system in which women who rely on the federal safety net for their health coverage don't have access to abortion, while women of greater means do.

Thorngate then goes on to make his closing argument (which I guess gives us the reason for the title of his article, "Pro-life, Anti-poor"). Here is his final gem:

Some people want to promote abortion access in the name of freedom; others want to restrict it in the name of morality. As is too often the case, the political sausage-making process is offering the least coherent sort of middle ground: restricting access to abortion specifically for poor people.

So here we have it: because our medical system allows abortion through paying for that procedure, not giving tax dollars to allow poor people to do away with their children while they are in the womb is being "anti-poor".

I am once again shown why leaving my previous years of actually admiring the writing in The Christian Century are gladly (and thankfully) left in the dust.

If this is thoughtful Christian writing, I want none of it. It's disgusting.

Announcing the Manhattan Declaration

I've signed and so should you, at least if you care about the future of the Christian witness in the public discourse of our nation:

The Manhattan Declaration

I find this effort to be extremely hopeful. Anytime we can get Orthodox, Roman Catholic and Evangelical Protestant leaders together to witness to God's vision for the human family and the value of human life is a great thing!

PC(USA) Bizarroworld: Claiming a relationship that does not exist.

Knowing that this post will probably get about a hundred remonstrances, I still have to ask: What kind of fantasy world is this pastor living in? I mean the GAPJC has ruled that such a thing does not even exist. So, is she a delusional dreamer or a resident of PC(USA) Bizarroworld?

Could it be that our system of church courts has fully allowed us to go down the rabbit hole into the alternate reality of PC(USA) Bizarrowrold so that happenings like these are now just an everyday part of our existence?

If that is so--female pastors marrying women and male pastors marrying men might just be the beginning of the newly discovered effects of tossing aside all of our history, past convictions and theology in the pursuit of accommodating and incorporating a few dying churches into our denomination for the long haul.

Well friends, we wanted diversity! Now we have it.

Welcome to PC(USA) Bizarroworld. We wanted it and now we've got it.

Reaction to the proposed Larges ordination: Whatever.

Perhaps it seems that my blogging has been markedly silent on the pressing issues of our day. It may also seem that I'm being fairly cautious when I approach the topic of the recent decision of San Francisco Presbytery to send Lisa Larges on to ordination or even to comment on the Stay of Enforcement that is in place to bar that ordination made possible by constitutionalists in that presbytery.

You're right! I have been pretty uninterested in such things as of late. So, is it malaise, fatigue or neglect? None of the above, I hope.

I'm just so dreadfully uninterested in all of this because it has all happened before. Way back to my time in Missionless Presbytery I was involved in helping a dear brother, Rev. George Stewart, in going all the way to the GAPJC in telling the presbytery that candidates for ordination cannot pick and choose what parts of our constitution they will be held to. Even though the person in question dropped out of the process before the GAPJC ruled, there is still the ruling from that court about just why it is that we even bother to have a constitution in the first place: so that we all play by the same rules.

And this Larges incident is just another attempt to go back to the same revisionist drawing board of revisiting the same topics ad nauseum until they get a favorable court for their cause. Taking a leaf from the notebook of Al Gore, they just keep trying to find a court that will give them the ruling they want. The only difference is, in the PC(USA), they'll find it.

So, I'm just bored by the whole thing.

Of course, I support the worthy work of Rev. Mary Holder Naegli and her friends in the church courts. Of course, I lament that tens of thousands of dollars need to be spent in defending our own church constitution from our own presbyteries. And, of course I lament that church tax money is being used in SF Presbytery to attempt to defend the indefensible (constitutionally speaking).

But we've done this all before. The majority of presbyteries won't approve this kind of alteration of Presbyterian belief and practice, so the revisionists try to push it through in friendly venues. And all the while, mission dollars are wasted, hours are misspent and the gospel gets muddied.

I'm going to try to not spend too much time on it. Sooner or later, they will win and we will lose. What of it?

I'm going  to go about seeing to my own soul, my family's health and the well being of the congregation God has given me. All of my spare time after that is being given to the formation of the Biblical Presbyterian Network. It's way past time to connect Presbyterians in the faith once delivered for the sake of Gospel.

As the denomination crumbles we don't have to. Actually, we can prosper as the institution fades, so let's do so. At least it will be far more fun!

Baxter Brings It!

Richard Baxter always knew how to hit us right where we need to be hit:

Directions for Hating Sin

Richard Baxter (1615-1691)

Direct. I. Labour to know God, and to be affected with his attributes, and always to live as in his sight.—No man can know sin perfectly, because no man can know God perfectly. You can no further know what sin is than you know what God is, whom you sin against; for the formal malignity of sin is relative, as it is against the will and attributes of God. The godly have some knowledge of the malignity of sin, because they have some knowledge of God that is wronged by it. The wicked have no practical, prevalent knowledge of the malignity of sin, because they have no such knowledge of God. They that fear God will fear sinning; they that in their hearts are bold irreverently with God, will, in heart and life, be bold with sin: the atheist, who thinks there is no God thinks there is no sin against him. Nothing in world will tell us so plainly and powerfully of the evil of sin, as the knowledge of the greatness, wisdom goodness, holiness, authority, justice, truth, &c. of God. The sense of his presence, therefore, will revive our sense of sin's malignity.

Direct. II. Consider well of the office, the bloodshed, and the holy life of Christ.—His office is to expiate sin, and to destroy it. His blood was shed for it: his life condemned it. Love Christ, and you will hate that which caused his death. Love him, and you will love to be made like him, and hate that which is so contrary to Christ. These two great lights will show the odiousness of darkness.

Direct. III. Think well both how holy the office and work of the Holy Ghost is, and how great a mercy it is to us.—Shall God himself, the heavenly light, come down into a sinful heart, to illuminate and purify it? And yet shall I keep my darkness and defilement, in opposition to such wonderful mercy? Though all sin against the Holy Ghost be not the unpardonable blasphemy, yet all is aggravated hereby.

Direct. IV. Know and consider the wonderful love and mercy of God, and think what he has done for you; and you will hate sin, and be ashamed of it. It is an aggravation which makes sin odious even to common reason and ingenuity, that we should offend a God of infinite goodness, who has filled up our lives with mercy. It will grieve you if you have wronged an extraordinary friend: his love and kindness will come into your thoughts, and make you angry with your own unkindness. Here look over the catalogue of God's mercies to you, for soul and body. And here observe that Satan, in hiding the love of God from you, and tempting you under the pretence of humility to deny his greatest, special mercy, seeks to destroy your repentance and humiliation, also, by hiding the greatest aggravation of your sin.

Direct. V. Think what the soul of man is made for, and should be used to, even to love, obey, and glorify our Maker; and then you will see what sin is, which disables and perverts it.—How excellent, and high, and holy a work are we created for and called to! And should we defile the temple of God? And serve the devil in filthiness and folly, when we should receive, and serve, and magnify our Creator?

Direct. VI. Think well what pure and sweet delights a holy soul may enjoy from God, in his holy service; and then you will see what sin is, which robs him of these delights, and prefers fleshly lusts before them.—O how happily might we perform every duty, and how fruitfully might we serve our Lord, and what delight should we find in his love and acceptation, and the foresight of everlasting blessedness, if it were not for sin; which brings down the soul from the doors of heaven, to wallow with swine in a beloved dunghill!

Direct. VII. Bethink you what a life it is which you must live for ever, if you live in heaven; and what a life the holy ones there now live; and then think whether sin, which is so contrary to it, be not a vile and hateful thing.—Either you would live in heaven, or not. If not, you are not those I speak to. If you would, you know that there is no sinning; no worldly mind, no pride, no passion, no fleshly lust or pleasures there. Oh, did you but see and hear one hour, how those blessed spirits are taken up in loving and magnifying the glorious God in purity and holiness, and how far they are from sin, it would make you loathe sin ever after, and look on sinners as on men in bedlam wallowing naked in their dung. Especially, to think that you hope yourselves to live for ever like those holy spirits; and therefore sin does ill beseem you.

Direct. VIII. Look but to the state and torment of the damned, and think well of the difference betwixt angels and devils, and you may know what sin is.—Angels are pure; devils are polluted: holiness and sin do make the difference. Sin dwells in hell, and holiness in heaven. Remember that every temptation is from the devil, to make you like himself; as every holy motion is from Christ, to mike you like himself. Remember when you sin, that you are learning and imitating of the devil, and are so far like him, John 8:44. And the end of all is, that you may feel his pains. If hell-fire be not good, then sin is not good.

Direct. IX. Look always on sin as one that is ready to die, and consider how all men judge of it at the last.—What do men in heaven say of it? And what do men in hell say of it? And what do men at death say of it? And what do converted souls, or awakened consciences, say of it? Is it then followed with delight and fearlessness as it is now? Is it then applauded? Will any of them speak well of it? Nay, all the world speaks evil of sin in the general now, even when they love and commit the several acts. Will you sin when you are dying?

Direct. X. Look always on sin and judgment together.—Remember that you must answer for it before God, and angels, and all the world; and you will the better know it.

Direct. XI. Look now but upon sickness, poverty, shame, despair, death, and rottenness in the grave, and it may a little help you to know what sin is. These are things within your sight or feeling; you need not faith to tell you of them. And by such effects you might have some little knowledge of the cause.

Direct. XII. Look but upon some eminent, holy persons upon earth, and upon the mad, profane, malignant world; and the difference may tell you in part what sin is.—Is there not an amiableness in a holy, blameless person, that lives in love to God and man, and in the joyful hopes of life eternal? Is not a beastly drunkard or whoremonger, and a raging swearer, and a malicious persecutor, a very deformed, loathsome creature? Is not the mad, confused, ignorant, ungodly state of the world a very pitiful sight? What then is the sin that all this consists in?

Though the principal part of the cure is in turning the will to the hatred of sin, and is done by this discovery of its malignity; yet I shall add a few more directions for the executive part, supposing that what is said already has had its effect.

Direct. I. When you have found out your disease and danger, give up yourselves to Christ as the Saviour and Physician of souls, and to the Holy Ghost as your Sanctifier, remembering that he is sufficient and willing to do the work which he has undertaken.—It is not you that are to be saviours and sanctifiers of yourselves (unless as you work under Christ). But he that has undertaken it, takes it for his glory to perform it.

Direct. II. Yet must you be willing and obedient in applying the remedies prescribed you by Christ, and observing his directions in order to your cure. And you must not be tender, and coy, and fine, and say his is too bitter, and that is too sharp; but trust his love, and skill, and care, and take it as he prescribes it, or gives it you, without any more ado. Say not, It is grievous, and I cannot take it: for he commands you nothing but what is safe, and wholesome, and necessary, and if you cannot take it, must try whether you can bear your sickness, and death, and the fire of hell! Are humiliation, confession, restitution, mortification, and holy diligence worse than hell?

Direct. III. See that you take not part with sin, and wrangle not, or strive not against your Physician, or any that would do you good.—Excusing sin, and heading for and extenuating it, and striving against the Spirit and conscience, and wrangling against ministers and godly friends, and hating reproof, are not the means to be cured and sanctified.

Direct. IV. See that malignity in every one of your particular sins, which you can see and say is in sin in general.—It is a gross deceit of yourselves, if you will speak a great deal of the evil of sin, and see none of this malignity in your pride, and your worldliness, and your passion and peevishness, and our malice and uncharitableness, and your lying, backbiting, slandering, or sinning against conscience for worldly commodity or safety. What self-contradiction is it for a man in prayer to aggravate sin, and when he is reproved for it, to justify or excuse it! This is like him that will speak against treason, and the enemies of the king, but because the traitors are his friends and kindred, will protect or hide them, and take their parts.

Direct. V. Keep as far as you can from those temptations which feed and strengthen the, sins which you would overcome.—Lay siege to your sins, and starve them out, by keeping away the food and fuel which is their maintenance and life.

Direct. VI. Live in the exercise of those graces and duties which are contrary to the sins which you are most in danger of.—For grace and duty are contrary to sin, and kill it, and cure us of it, as the fire cures us of cold, or health of sickness.

Direct. VII. Hearken not to weakening unbelief and distrust, and cast not away the comforts of God, which are your cordials and strength.—It is not a frightful, dejected, despairing frame of mind, that is fittest to resist sin; but it is the encouraging sense of the love of God, and thankful sense of grace received (with a cautious fear).

Direct. VIII. Be always suspicious of carnal self-love, and watch against it.—For that is the burrow or fortress of sin, and the common patron of it; ready to draw you to it, and ready to justify it. We are very prone to be partial in our own cause; as the case of Judah with Tamar, and David when Nathan reproved him in a parable, show. our own passions, our own pride, our own censures, or backbitings, or injurious dealings, our own neglects of duty, seem small, excusable, if not justifiable things to us; whereas we could easily see the faultiness of all these in another, especially in an enemy: when yet we should be best acquainted with ourselves, and we should most love ourselves, and therefore hate our own sins most.

Direct. IX. Bestow your first and chiefest labour to kill sin at the root; to cleanse the heart, which is the fountain; for out of the heart come the evils of the life.—Know which are the master-roots; and bend your greatest care and industry to mortify those: and they are especially these that follow; 1. Ignorance. 2. Unbelief. 3. Inconsiderateness. 4. Selfishness and pride. 5. Fleshliness, in pleasing a brutish appetite, lust, or fantasy. 6. Senseless hard-heartedness and sleepiness in sin.

Direct. X. Account the world and all its pleasures, wealth, and honours, no better than indeed they are, and then Satan will find no bait to catch you. Esteem all as dung with Paul, Phil. 3:8; and no man will sin and sell his soul, for that which he accounts but as dung.

Direct. XI. Keep up above in a heavenly conversation, and then your souls will be always in the light, and as in the sight of God, and taken up with those businesses and delights which put them out of relish with the baits of sin.

Direct. XII. Let christian watchfulness be your daily work; and cherish a preserving, though not a distracting and discouraging fear.

Direct. XIII. Take heed of the first approaches and beginnings of sin. Oh how great a matter does a little of this fire kindle! And if you fall, rise quickly by sound repentance, whatever it may cost you.

Direct. XIV. Make God's word your only rule and labour diligently to understand it.

Direct. XV. And in doubtful cases, do not easily depart from the unanimous judgment of the generality of the most wise and godly of all ages.

Direct. XVI. In doubtful cases be not passionate or rash, but proceed deliberately, and prove things well, before you fasten on them.

Direct. XVII. Be acquainted with your bodily temperature, and what sin it most inclines you to, and what sin also your calling or living situation leave you most open to, that there your watch may be the stricter.

Direct. XVIII. Keep in a life of holy order, such as God has appointed you to walk in. For there is no preservation for stragglers that keep not rank and file, but forsake the order which God commands them.—And this order lies principally in these points: 1. That you keep in union with the universal church. Separate not from Christ's body upon any pretence whatever. With the church as regenerate, hold spiritual communion, in faith, love, and holiness with the church as congregate and visible, hold outward communion, in profession and worship. 2. If you are not teachers, live under your particular, faithful pastors, as obedient disciples of Christ. 3. Let the most godly, if possible, be your familiars. 4. Be laborious in an outward calling.

Direct. XIX. Turn all God's providences, whether of prosperity or adversity, against your sins.—If he gives you health and wealth, remember he thereby obliges you to obedience, and calls for special service from you. If he afflict you, remember that it is sin that he is offended at, and searches after; and therefore take it as his medicine, and see that you hinder not, but help on its work, that it may purge away your sin.

Direct. XX. Wait patiently on Christ till he has finished the cure, which will not be till this trying life be finished.—Persevere in attendance on his Spirit and means; for he will come in season, and will not tarry. "Then shall we know, if we follow on to know the Lord: his going forth is prepared as the morning, and he shall come unto us as the rain: as the latter and former rain upon the earth," Hos. 6:3. Though you have oft said, "There is no healing," Jer. 14:19; "He will heal your backslidings, and love you freely," Hos. 14:4. "Unto you that fear his name, shall the Sun of righteousness arise, with healing in his wings," Mal. 4:2: " and blessed are all they that wait for him," Isa. 30:18.

Thus I have given such directions as may help for humiliation under sin, or hatred of it, and deliverance from it.

Friday Discussion: Luther on anger.

“I have no better remedy than anger. If I want to write, pray, preach well, then I must be angry. Then my entire blood supply refreshes itself, my mind is made keen, and all temptations depart.”
–Martin Luther, What Luther Says: An Anthology, Vol. 1, comp. Ewald M. Plass (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1959), entry no. 74, 27.

So, was Luther wrong? I really don't know. I want him to be right, because that is often the way I feel.

Please keep the discussion civil among the brethren! Tell us your thoughts.

Classical Presbyterian Wednesday: Hodge on Regeneration

Regeneration Necessary to Perceive the Beauty and Excellency of Divine Things
by Charles Hodge

The following excerpts are from an essay written by Charles Hodge entitled "Regeneration and The New Divinity Trend" taken from the Princeton Review: First Series, published in New York by Wiley and Putnam in 1846. It was written in review of "Regeneration and the Manner of Its Occurrence, A Sermon from John 5:24". Preached at the Opening of the Synod of New York, in the Rutgers Street Church, on Oct 20 1829, by Samuel H. Cox, D.D., Pastor of the Laight Street Presbyterian Church. Hodge takes on some common philosophic arguments against the doctrine of monergistic regeneration. He successfully refutes the synergistic teaching that the natural man's decision to trust Christ must come from an indifferent moral disposition, as often claimed. Hodge shows that the only reasonable explanation for holy decisions is that they must spring from holy first causes and inclinations. The ideas in the following excerpts of Hodge's fine essay must be mastered by anyone who intends on teaching a gospel that is faithful to the Scripture. The essay is not a biblical exposition (that is done elsewhere), but rather, a response to philosophical opposition to the truth of the Spirit's monergistic work of grace in the soul of the elect.
   
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


...[Jonathan] Edwards not only admits that moral principles and habits may and must exist in the soul prior (in the order of nature) to moral action, but his whole system of practical theology, as it seems to us, rests on this foundation. The great fundamental principle of his work on the affections is this: All gracious or spiritual affections presuppose and arise from spiritual views of divine truth. These views the natural man neither has, nor can have, while he remains such. Hence arises the necessity of such a change of being wrought in the state of the soul that it can perceive the beauty and excellence of divine things. This change consists in imparting to the soul what he calls 'a new sense' or a new taste, or relish, or principle, adapted to the perception and love of spiritual excellence.

...After having stated that the exercises of the true Christian are specifically different from those of unsanctified men, he infers that if the exercises are different, the principle whence they proceed must be different, or there must be, 'as it were, a new spiritual sense, or a principle of a new kind of perception of spiritual sensation.' And he hence explains why it is that 'the work of the Spirit of God in regeneration is often in Scripture compared to giving a new sense, giving eyes to see and ears to hear, unstopping the ears of the deaf and opening the eyes of them that were born blind, and turning them from darkness to light....'

...[The question is] why does one man see and feel a beauty in certain objects when others do not? Is there is no difference between the clown and the most refined votary in the arts, but in their acts? Is any man satisfied by being told that one loves them, and the other does not; that it is in vain to ask why; the fact is enough, and the fact is all; there is no difference in the state of their minds antecedent to their acts; there can be no such thing as a principle of taste of sense of beauty, distinct from the actual love of beauty?

We are disposed to think that no man can believe this: that the constitution of our nature forces us to admit that if one man, under all circumstances and at all times, manifests its quick sensibility to natural beauty, and another does not, there is some difference between the two besides their acts; that there is some reason why, when standing before the same picture, one is filled with pleasure and the other is utterly insensible. We cannot help believing that one has taste (a quality, principle, 'or inward sense') which the other does not possess. It matters not what it may be called. It is the ground or reason of the diversity of their exercises which lies back of the exercises themselves, and must be assumed to account for the difference of their nature.

Now, there is moral as well as natural beauty, and it is no more unintelligible that there should be a 'sense', or taste, for the one than for the other. The perfect character of God, when exhibited to different men, produces delight and desire in some, repugnance in others. We instinctively ask, why? Why do some perceive and delight in his moral beauty, while others do not? The answer, some love, and others do not, is no answer at all. It is merely saying the same thing in other words. There must be some reason why one perceives this kind of beauty, to which the others are blind; why one is filled with love the moment it is presented, and the other with repugnance. And this reason must lie back of the mere exercise of this affection, must be something besides the act itself and such as shall account for its nature.

It may be said, however, that the cases are not analogous: that the emotion excited by beauty is involuntary, while moral objects address themselves to the voluntary affections; and that it is admitted that there is not only 'something' back of each exercise of love, but we are told distinctly what it is, namely, the soul with its essential attributes, its ultimate or supreme choice, or dominant affection, and the object in view of the mind. Accordingly it is easily accounted for that when the character of God is presented, one man is filled with love, another with repugnance. The reason of the difference in these acts does indeed lie back of the acts themselves; for it is found in the ultimate of supreme choice of the different individuals.

But how is this to be accounted for? If there is no necessity for accounting for the particular character of the first or ultimate choice (if so it must needs be called), there is no need of accounting for the others. The difficulty is not at all met by this statement. It is only pushed back from the secondary and subordinate to the primary and dominant preference. There it returns. The question still is, why does the soul of one man make this supreme choice of God, or in other words, love him, while another sets his affection on the world? There is precisely the same necessity for assuming some ground or reason for the nature of the first choice, as for any acts subordinate and subsequent to it.

Let us suppose two individuals called into existence, in the full maturity of their faculties; each has a soul with the same constitutional powers, or essential attributes; the one is filled with delight the moment the character of God is presented, and the other is not; or the one loves his Maker as soon as the idea of His excellence is presented, the other does not. According to this theory, there is no reason for the difference. There is nothing back of the first act of choice that is not common to both.

If instead of two individuals, we suppose two millions, one portion having their affections spontaneously called forth on their first view of their Maker, the other unaffected; we have only a greater number of effects without a cause, but the case is the same. It will not do to answer that the choice is made under the influence of the desire of happiness, for this being common to all, is no reason for the difference or the result, which is the very thing to be accounted for. To say that the choice is made under the influence of the desire of happiness is only to say that when the character of God is presented it gives pleasure. But the same character is presented in both cases, the same desire exists in both, yet in one it gives pleasure, is an object of desire; in the other not.

This is the fact which is left entirely unaccounted for on the theory in question, and for which the mind as instinctively seeks a cause, as it does for any other effect. To account for the difference from the nature of agency is to assume the liberty of indifference. For if the choice be made prior to the rising of desire towards the object, then it is made in indifference and is of no moral character. If the desire rises, it is love; which is the very thing to be accounted for. We are at a loss to see how this theory is to be reconciled with the Calvinists' doctrine on the will, which is not peculiar to Edwards, but constituted the great dividing line between Calvinists and Arminians from the beginning.

We feel, therefore, a necessity for assuming that there is 'something' back of the first moral act besides the soul and its essential attributes, which will account for the nature of that act, which constitutes the reason why, in the case supposed, the soul of the one individual rose immediately to God, and the other did not; and the 'something' assumed in this case is no more indefinite and indefinable than the constitutional propensity to live in society, to love our children, or the mental quality called taste, all which are assumed from a necessity not more imperious then that which requires a holy principle to account for the delight experienced in view of the character of God. And if our Maker can endow us not only with the general susceptibility of love, but also with a specific disposition to love our children; if He can give us a discernment and susceptibility of natural beauty, he may give us a taste for spiritual loveliness. And if that taste, by reason of sin, is vitiated and perverted, he may restore it by the influences of his Spirit in regeneration. Neither, therefore, the objection, that what is not an act must be an essential attribute; nor the unintelligible nature of a 'principle of nature' is, in our view, any valid objection to the common doctrine on regeneration.

There is [another] objection, however, to this doctrine, and that is that it renders the sinner excusable, because it makes regeneration to consist in something else than the sinner's own act. This objection, as it seems to us, can only be valid on one or the other of two grounds; the first is that the common doctrine supposed sin to be a physical defect, and regeneration a physical change; and the second is that man is responsible solely for his acts, or that there can be no moral principle anterior to moral action. With regard to the first, it is enough to say that no physical change, according to the constant declaration of Calvinistic writers, is held to take place in regeneration, and that no such change is implied in the production of a holy principle ...

The second ground is inconsistent with the common notions of men on the nature of virtue, and if true would render the commencement of holiness or regeneration impossible. It is according to the universal feeling and judgement of men that the moral character of an act depends upon the motive with which it is done. This is so obviously true that Reid and Stewart, and almost all other advocates of the liberty of indifference, readily admit it. And so do the advocates of the theory on which this objection is founded, with regard to all moral acts excepting the first. All acts of choice, to be holy, must proceed from a holy motive, excepting the first holy choice which constitutes regeneration: that may be made from the mere desire of happiness or self-love.

We confess that this strikes us as very much like a relinquishment of the whole system. For how is it conceivable that anything should be essential to the very nature of one act as holy, that is not necessary to another? Is not this saying that that on which the very nature of a thing depends may be absent, and yet the thing remain the same? Is it not saying that that which makes an act what it is and gives it its character, may be wanting or altered, and yet the character of he act be unaffected?

It is the motive which gives the moral character to the act. If the motive is good, the act is good; if the motive is bad, the act is bad; if the motive is indifferent, so is the act. The act has no character apart from the motive This, it seems, is admitted with regard to all moral acts excepting the first. But the first act of a holy kind is an act of obedience, as well as all subsequent acts of the same kind. How then is it conceivable that the first act of obedience performed from the mere desire or self-love can be holy, when no other act of the same kind and performed from the same motive, either is or can be? How does its being first alter it very nature? It is still nothing more than as act done for self-gratification, and cannot be a holy act.

It is said we must admit this, from the necessity of the case, or acknowledge that there can be holiness before moral action. We prefer admitting the latter and believing that 'God created man upright', and not that he made himself so. That there was a disposition, or relish, or taste for holiness, before there was any holy act, which to us is far more reasonable then that an act is holy because the first of a series, which, if performed from the same motive at a different point of the line, would have a different character.

...By the power of the Holy Spirit the truth may be so clearly presented and so effectually applied as to produce that change which is called regeneration; that is, as to call into existence a taste for holiness, so that it is chosen for its own sake, and not merely as a means of happiness.

It is evident, therefore, that the theory which denies the possibility of moral distinctions being carried back of acts of choice forces its advocates to adopt the opinion that the first holy act is specifically different from all the others... for the difficulty still remains, why the character of God should appear desirable to one being and not to another, if both are called into existence in puris naturalibus (with purely natural qualities).

[Edwards's replies]

        "...It is agreeable to the sense of the minds of men in all ages, not only that the fruit of effect of a good choice is virtuous, but the good choice itself from which that effect proceeds; yea, and not only so, but also the antecedent good disposition, temper or affection of the mind from whence proceeds that good choice, is virtuous. This is the general notion, not that principles derive their goodness from actions, but that actions derive their goodness from the principles whence they proceed; and so the act of choosing that which is good is no further virtuous than it proceeds from a good principle or virtuous disposition of mind; which supposes that a virtuous disposition of mind may be before a virtuous act of choice; and that therefore it is not necessary that there should first be thought, reflection, and choice before there can be any virtuous disposition. If the choice be first, before the existence of a good disposition of heart, what signifies that choice? There can, according to our natural notions, be no virtue in a choice which proceeds from no virtuous principle but from mere self-love, ambition, or some animal appetite." - 140 Jonathan Edwards, Works, vol 1 (Edinburgh, Banner of Truth, 1974), p. 177.

Thievery in the church, wolves in the fold.

I will state this principle plainly: Those pastors who reside within the Presbyterian Church (USA) and who refuse to preach the gospel of Jesus Christ are thieves of the worst sort. The property of our churches was given for the purpose of the Kingdom of Christ, for the proclamation of the gospel that Jesus brought to us as declared in Scripture.

To accuse those pastors, elders and deacons who continue to be faithful in their discharging of their duty to preach, teach and live out this gospel of being as being thieves is the worst sort of arrogance and vanity.

Further, to declare that there is a multiplicity of ways that one can understand the gospel itself is worse than mere dereliction of duty, it is sinful error. There has only ever been one gospel, one message of salvation to sinners.

Now, it must be said that the style of presentation of this gospel is not relevant to this truth. I've heard the gospel in worship with rock bands, pipe organs, pianos or no musical instruments at all. I've heard the gospel in a variety of situations and in Spanish, Korean, Chinese and many other languages, in churches ornate or simple and in fields, forests and by lakes and streams. Method of presentation and the style should not concern us, as long as it does not violate the principles that God's Word gives as to content and substance. (So, yes, the clown eucharist is just plain wrong.)

We who live and perform our ministries in the PC(USA) have a solemn obligation: But not toward past generations, rather we have an obligation toward the faithful proclamation of the gospel that saved them, because this is the same gospel that saved us.

Jesus warned us:
“Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves. You will recognize them by their fruits. Are grapes gathered from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? So, every healthy tree bears good fruit, but the diseased tree bears bad fruit. 18 A healthy tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a diseased tree bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.Thus you will recognize them by their fruits."
Matthew 7:15-20

The recognition of these wolves is not only in the content of their message (as it will not be the biblical gospel) but it will also be in the disciples they produce. They will not last. They will not hold true to Jesus when the persecution comes and in fact, they  might just persecute the disciples of Jesus themselves from within the flock:

“Behold, I am sending you out as sheep in the midst of wolves, so be wise as serpents and innocent as doves.Beware of men, for they will deliver you over to courts and flog you in their synagogues, and you will be dragged before governors and kings for my sake, to bear witness before them and the Gentiles. When they deliver you over, do not be anxious how you are to speak or what you are to say, for what you are to say will be given to you in that hour. For it is not you who speak, but the Spirit of your Father speaking through you.Brother will deliver brother over to death, and the father his child, and children will rise against parents and have them put to death, and you will be hated by all for my name's sake. But the one who endures to the end will be saved."
Matthew 10:16-22

So, I think it safe to say, based upon holy Scripture, that the wolves are also thieves when they are within the flock. There is no other way into the Kingdom than by the life, death and resurrection of Jesus:

"Truly, truly, I say to you, he who does not enter the sheepfold by the door but climbs in by another way, that man is a thief and a robber. But he who enters by the door is the shepherd of the sheep. To him the gatekeeper opens. The sheep hear his voice, and he calls his own sheep by name and leads them out.When he has brought out all his own, he goes before them, and the sheep follow him, for they know his voice. A stranger they will not follow, but they will flee from him, for they do not know the voice of strangers.” This figure of speech Jesus used with them, but they did not understand what he was saying to them. So Jesus again said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, I am the door of the sheep. All who came before me are thieves and robbers, but the sheep did not listen to them. I am the door. If anyone enters by me, he will be saved and will go in and out and find pasture. The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy. I came that they may have life and have it abundantly."
John 10:1-9

So, who are the thieves in this picture? Who are the wolves who prey upon the weak? Those who do not proclaim the same Good News that has always saved God's people--the Gospel of Jesus Christ that is told in the Bible, the whole counsel of God.

No wolf or thief can compete with that. For in the end, God wins every time.

Happy Reformation Day from the Biblical Presbyterian Network!

Our Witness to the Essentials of Our Faith:
We the members and congregations of the Biblical Presbyterian Network joyfully and publicly proclaim ourselves to be adherents of the Reformed faith that is contained in the Bible. We believe that our faith is best summarized by the historic Reformed creeds. While we maintain the right to differ with these confessional systems on minor points of application and interpretation, we covenant together to hold ourselves accountable to the essentials of the Reformed faith contained in these confessions. For the benefit of our witness to the church and our denomination, we summarize our essential beliefs in the following way:

Ø      Biblical Authority—We affirm the complete truthfulness of the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments in all that they teach and we affirm their full authority for the church in all matters.

Ø      The Faith of the Universal Church—We affirm the ecumenical creeds of the church, such as the Nicene Creed and Apostles’ Creed that fix us into the universal, catholic church of which our Reformed churches are a part.

Ø      The Five Solas of the Reformation—Scripture Alone, Grace Alone, Faith Alone, Christ Alone and To God Alone be the Glory shape our understanding of the gospel.

Ø      The Essential Doctrines of Reformed Faith—Salvation is wholly of God and is purely grace from first to last, without any merit in us. We affirm that God is completely sovereign and preserves all his elect in faith throughout this life and eternally. We profess that the cross is God’s final answer for human sin as a substitutionary atonement for his people. We affirm the biblical system of polity: With godly, qualified men and women cooperating as pastors, elders and deacons for the government of the church according to the Word of God.

Ø      The Marks of the True Church—These are the sound preaching of the Word, the right use of the sacraments. We affirm Baptism for believers and their children, the Lord’s Supper for all trust in Christ alone for their salvation and proper church discipline.

Ø      The Call to Christian Living—We are called to a lifestyle that seeks consistent fidelity to the teachings of Jesus, including ongoing repentance, reliance upon his grace for our sanctification, humility, simplicity, peaceableness. We further affirm a biblical structure for the human family as Jesus taught, with the sole expression of sexuality being reserved for a lifelong marriage between one man and one woman.

Our Covenant Together: With the essentials of our faith confessed in the above statement, we the members of the Biblical Presbyterian Network covenant together, in the grace of our sovereign God, to hold ourselves accountable to the following principles:

Ø      We will not stand alone. We covenant to work alongside each other and to labor alongside our fellow Christians who hold to the biblical faith in our effort to confront fallen culture and equip struggling churches.

Ø      We are fallible and admit to this openly and without reservation. We will work for our sanctification and ongoing growth in the ways of Jesus. We do not profess to be perfected or to be without sin but we confess ourselves to be saved sinners, with nothing good in us but that which God’s saving grace has bestowed upon us.

Ø      We will speak the truth from Scripture and the confessions, no matter the consequences.

Ø      We will seek to live a lifestyle that is rooted in gospel simplicity and that shows where our true treasure lies, being willing to joyfully “let goods and kindred go, this mortal life also” when our witness demands it.

Ø      In all our dealings with each other and the world around us, we covenant with each other to hold each other accountable to act with integrity, honesty and "to render no one evil for evil and do what is honorable in the sight of all. (Romans 12:17)

Revenge! The lawsuit lovin' Louisville office is ba-ack!

Just when we thought that maybe, just maybe the new regime in Louisville might be bringing some sunshine back into our national offices, we hear the reporting that more and more lawyers are getting rich off of our denominational obsession with property.

But who is reporting on this story? The Presbyterian Outlook? PNS? Yeah, right. Only silence reigns from them on these abuses. Only Parker Williamson at the Layman is willing to go to the depths of reporting this vile phase in our denominational life. And the news is that Louisville's own staffers have fingerprints all over the hubristic action of PSL in spending a quarter of a million dollars to sue a church with about 20 worshipers.

Now we are left to wonder: When this coincides with the action of Heartlessland Presbytery in recent days, how far do the machinations of Louisville go? How deep is the rabbit hole?

Go the The Layman Online and look up the two stories of Heartlessland Presbytery trying to seize the property of an EPC congregation and the other story of how the Synod of the Sun's obsession with revenge has bankrupted the Presbytery of South Louisiana, as Ahab sunk the Peaquod in his quest to kill the White Whale.

Why is it we are dying again?