T4G - The Together For The Gospel Statement

Thanks, Tim, for keeping us up to date.

I would have to question, however, the production of many modern confessions, as if the church were in need of re-confessing (formally) what she ought to already believe. I am no anti-confessionalist, but think the Westminster Confession of Faith, the early church’s ecumenical creeds from antiquity, the Three Forms of Unity…Well, these are landmarks. In the case of the WCF especially, they are thorough. At bottom, I have to wonder what purpose is served in the production of yet another confession? Solomon had it right when he wrote that “of the writing of many books there is no end….” which is meaningless.

Another note, I take particular issue with the end of Article VII: “We further affirm that Jesus Christ is Lord over His church, and that Christ will reign over the entire cosmos in fulfillment of the Father’s gracious purpose.” The problem: Christ [already/present tense/past tense/not just future tense but that too] reigns over the entire cosmos.

Sounds a bit too Dispensational for my taste. Not very ecumenical, either. I doubt Sproul would have silently and without pause consented to this comment.

As I read Psalm 110 and the number of times it’s mentioned in the NT by Paul especially, but Hebrews as well, as being fulfilled (i.e.—it’s a coronation Psalm that sees Christ as seated in power, reigning currently)—I have to say this business of “Christ WILL reign over the entire cosmos” as fallacious. Hebrews emphatically tells us, as does the Resurrection itself, that Jesus DOES reign (and always has!).

Again, to my earlier point: what’s the purpose in making a new confession every time we hold another conference? What exactly is wrong with those we have?

Thanks again, Tim. Despite my comments, I would’ve loved to attend.

Praising King Jesus, James H (not a Dispensational fan by any stretch)

Bryan Peters:

I don’t think that the T4G group excluded the complementarian/egalitarian feminists from the “camp.”

God did that.

1 Tim 2:11-15, in which Paul describes the Genesis creation account of the sexes as “prescriptive” vs. merely “descriptive,” despite what our ears are itching to hear. Hear, then, the word of the Lord,

“Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.”

Not once in all the lists of the priestly office, nor of the offices of elders or bishops or church leaders in other words, not once does Paul or any Biblical author list the qualifications as “wife of one husband,” or “make sure she raises her children well, heeding Proverbs 31” etc.

From what commandment (please don’t tell me about Deborah, etc.—these are historical narratives, not statues/imperatives) in the Word are we told that we are to be like the world, think like the world, and blur the distinction of the roles of the sexes?

Brother, there is no biblical verse that would make Paul’s clear teaching irrelevant.

This is one part where I see the good in confessing what the church must stand to defend—the church’s battle front has changed because of the affront of Satan (which began in the garden).

James H (father of 3 daughters, not one an egalitarian feminist, and 2 sons—taught to defend and nurture their sisters and treat them as the weaker vessels)

Re: Puckett and Joshua Hastey:

First-Puckett. When the apostle Paul, or the Lord of glory Himself, or the prophets, etc., came across as polemic or harsh in their condemnation of falsehood, were they not contending for the Truth? Were they not fighting the good fight? At bottom, the men of this conference are in the same vein, standing on the same truth. Contending for the faith. At bottom, I would agree this must have been an inspiring conference. However, if what they have taught or written is to be blindly accepted as a Roman Catholic would hold to the dogma of “implicit faith” (what the church says, I believe), then they have ceased to be Protestant Christians. I don’t contend with what they wrote for ‘personal gain’. I contend with what they wrote because I love the Lord and His Word, and see no reason that this statement ought to exist. We have the Word, we have great confessions already, there is no need for endless production of endless confessions.

Joshua—

I applaud your desire for the unity of the church. In your circumstances, I would hope that you are salt that is NOT losing its saltiness, and that you beware of the leavening (false teaching) that would leaven the whole lump. Jesus believed and taught unity (viz. John 17), but contended for the Truth (Matt. 23, John 6). Merely being in a situation where there are few others who hold the line does not preclude you from standing on the whole counsel of God.

Which brings me to the egalitarian debate. We stand on the whole counsel of God. 1 Tim. 2 tells us plainly that women are precluded from church office, from holding leadership positions. Do I hold a low view of women? No. But to say that this is a secondary issue is to say that what Paul taught on this issue is “secondary.” What is at bottom is this: did God say it or not? If He did mention role distinctions, then how dare any of us call it “secondary”?

“Man shall not live on bread alone but on every word that proceeds from the mouth of God.”

One last thing: I must admit that this conference sounds like it was a blessing. I don’t want to detract from that at all. However, “if salt loses its saltiness, it is good for nothing” except to be thrown out, and trampled under foot. We must not “for the sake of unity” drop our guard and merely accept what is taught (whether or not we are fans of the teachers). The Bereans wouldn’t do that with Paul! Let’s not do that here.

Contending for the Truth, James H

Bryan P:

Thanks for the food for thought re: Al Mohler’s distinctions. I have heard many times an issue of this sort (role distinction between the sexes, for instance) be called “second-rung” or the like, only to find it is a way to avoid speaking further on the matter. Again, this is an issue that is addressed in the canon of God’s Word. The words are God’s, not mine. Al Mohler has to contend with God on this issue—my question is again: does God clearly delineate who is and is not to be ordained, or does God simply say “Don’t worry about it” ?

Joshua:

The answer is no. I could NOT fellowship with one who would call God a liar on this very clear teaching. As a matter of fact, coming out of a CRC (Christian Reformed Church) body, I have to say that I do have a personal stake in this argument. The CRC has shown, along with other denominations, that one of the first orders of attack on the Truth are the issues of gender roles, and the issue of homosexuality. At bottom, history of the CRC (as well as the Word of God) show that to give in to the world on the question of orthopraxy at any point is a sublte way for Satan to repeat, “Hath God really said…?”

It is an age-old debate. I ask: has God really said that a woman may minister in church office? Has God clearly marked this out?

At bottom: what does the Word teach, and clearly so?

To give in on this issue would be to say, “You know, I doubt that God’s Word is clear [despite clear verses on the subject], and we are free to make our own way, to move the ancient landmarks that our Father has laid as we see fit, and to be swept away with every unsound teaching that blows our way. Come, let us be double-minded, and together we can live as we please.”

No, friend, unless the person were to show me how misinterpreting and twisting Paul’s words is not to their destruction (as Peter contends!), unless I were given clear teaching from the Scripture (and not Gallup polls), I will stand with Luther—whose conscience was held captive by the Word of God alone.

Sola Scriptura James H

Ellen:

Aha! again, Aha! Sorry, I just read that phrase in Psalms recently (to which my children laughed aloud). Just wanted to throw it in.

No, the egalitarian issue is NOT a “salvation” issue. I do not contend that. My argument regarding the gender/sex distinction issue is really this: to take a position on this (or any) issue that the Bible speaks clearly on, and then to disagree with what the Bible clearly says, is a dangerous issue.

I went to a church that battled this issue for years. The presupposition that was driving the members of the CRC church I attended was simply this: “Hath God said?” In other words, did Paul really discount women from church office?

Those in the CRC that know the history (synod 1995 especially) of this doctrine of egalitarian feminism (in the CRC) know the battle lines. It always boils down to Satan’s question in the garden of Eden:

Hath God said….?

The presupposition of “YES, God DID say that, but that was ‘once upon a time’ and doesn’t take into account our ‘post-Enlightenment’ era…NOW we see in different light—NOW we see that we CAN safely go where God once had forbidden us to go. Now we know that the sign that God wrote ‘this bridge is out, turn back or drop off the cliff!’ is no longer binding.”

That is what and why I could NOT fellowship with those who would refuse to take Paul at his word.

To see the black and white ink inspired by God staring you in the face telling you “do not tread here” and then to say “Oh, right. But what do YOU know about it, Paul?!” as we stride along into the forbidden is EXACTLY what got our race into this mess in the first place.

Again: this isn’t a salvation issue, but Paul spelled it out in clear terms. Why fellowship, and how could we fellowship, with those who debate the inspired Word? What hath light to do with darkness? If we are people of the Word, if we are Christians, then we ought to be people who lift up every “jot and tittle”—everything that proceeds from God’s mouth. We are not free to “edit” the Word, or to say, “It’s all about justification, the rest you can toss out the door.”

I don’t think you’re saying that, but to be sure, where else does the argument lead? If we question Paul here, why can’t we simply re-invent everything except the salvation question? And what’s more: WHY did God save us in the first place? According to Exodus, it was so we would serve God. According to Ephesians (ch. 1 and 2) it is to walk in the good works that God prepared in advance for us. In other words, we are saved to obey God. We are saved unto obedience—if we walk in the darkness after salvation, then the truth is not in us (see i John 1-2).

We are either people of the Word or people of the world. It is ours to submit to the authority of life—the Author of Life Himself.

As Jesus put it, “If you love me, obey my commandments.” (circa John 15)

Anything less and we might as well quit calling ourselves “Christian.” We are merely unregenerate heathens, kindling for the fire.

“So whether in eating or drinking…do all for the glory of God.” James H

Re: #53, Ellen’s statement:

“Debate whether the Word is right? or debate what the Word says?

I’m not talking about egalitarianism, but if we don’t debate/discuss, then how are we to be sharpened?

Had I not been willing to debate (contend for what I thought was right at the time), I’d still be an Arminian.”

Well-said. What I meant, for clarification, is this: God says, clearly, “ABC.” Those who would say, “No, God said -A, -B, -C. We deny ABC applies,” in other words, are those with whom I could not fellowship.

In looking back over the article in general, I admit that these men (all of whom sound the clarion call for Truth) and this document, fraught with imperfection though it may be, is a blessing insofar as so many errors of our time are stood against. In the general, I rejoice that these men are sounding the call to stand for truth. The thrust of the document is praiseworthy: postmodernism, egalitarian feminism, emergent church-ism (?!), the debate over the inerrancy of the Word (although they need to be more precise on “which” word—i.e.: does the “Message” pass the bar?)…

Having said that, I still take issue with Article #7 and the Dispensationalism of “Jesus will rule over the cosmos” when Jesus DOES rule (Ephesians 2, Hebrews, etc.). And I would still doubt that this document was ultimately necessary when in fact these issues are not new.

Ever since the inception of the race, we struggled with “did God say…?” and with the curse of women attempting to usurp authority of their husbands and men in general, among other things. I understand the conference to be a blessing, but does this “confession” really need to be our new standard? How many “confessions” does the church need?

I suppose I could argue that this confession would be a benefit in homeschooling my children—after all, I could use it as a “map” for the attacks that Satan is making in our current day on the Truth.

(Great! Now I’m Schizophrenic!)

Blessings to y’all, may the church stand together for the Gospel of our Lord Jesus, James H

Ochuk, Brian, others:

Re: the “tone” of my posting. Forgive me if I sound heated and if you think I’m trying to use a line of argumentation that would from a salvation stance exclude the egalitarian.

First: Heaven will be filled with sinners saved by grace. As sinners, we will all be under the effects of sin on our mind (I can’t spell that term…”nouetic”?). Being such, we will all have a certain amount of error in our thinking. Yes, even Baptists will be in Heaven, though they may be wrong on the meaning and mode of Baptism. (I throw that in because I’m not Baptist, but herein is another issue where we may disagree.)

Ochuk: this is NOT a salvation issue. I was trying to point out the presupposition with which I disagree, which I have stated a number of times. Please tell me if Paul’s word is unclear. If so, then I will shut my mouth like Job before the Lord. I am not trying to make this a “you must have proper sex distinctions or else die like Nadab and Abihu” argument. If that is what you heard, forgive me.

At bottom, we are fraught with error, and it IS the effect of sin, and there ARE parallels in the arguments over egalitarian feminism and the worldview of Satan which is to doubt God’s Word. Having said that, I must admit NOONE will get to heaven because they know everything perfectly. We will all enter despite our disobedience in one area or another. We are saved because of what Jesus did—that which we could not do. HE lived in obedience perfectly. Can a feminist receive such grace?

Of course. It is not a “salvation issue.” It IS an issue of studying God’s Word more thoroughly.

Brian: Forgive me. I wish I could take you out for coffee and chat for an hour or two—I promise I wouldn’t bite your head off. I wholly believe that the egalitarian issue is one arising out of a sinful age. I wholly believe it’s black and white from Paul’s writing. It isn’t settled because “God said it, I believe it,” rather, “God said it.” It’s settled whether you or I believe.

As for the tenure of the T4G conference: remember that they too addressed the issue, having sided with the Scriptures and not the feminists. I spent 2 years at a church trying to listen and hear the arguments of those wanting to include women in ministry. What I saw and heard made me realize that this is a “first-order” issue—the moral decline of many reformed churches began in the 20th cent. with egalitarian feminism, homosexuality, and on to doubting the veracity of the Word. If I come off sounding strong, it is because I have seen the detriment of this error, and the cloudy thinking it introduces.

My desire is not to “call down judgments of God,” but to point out the holy calling of His church. We are His people. We are not free to doubt what He has said. May we unite in Truth, and together fight error.

—James H