On “A Christian Defense of Real Marriage”

The Christian Post article is here. 

In the view of mainstream culture today, there is no such thing as a principled case for the Christian view of marriage that limits it to one man and one woman. Opposition to same-sex marriage, in this view, can only spring from bigotry, hate, or fear.  

It can also spring from recognition that the defenders of traditional marriage do so on shaky biblical grounds, insofar as their defense of the traditional view of marriage proceeds from poor biblical hermeneutics & unsound reasoning principles.   For example, Robert Gagnon writes:

By “against nature” Paul meant that the evidence from the material structures of creation—here the complementary embodied character of maleness and femaleness—gives clear evidence of God’s will for human sexual pairing. Some have argued that this could not have been what Paul intended by his nature argument, despite Paul’s clear statement in Rom 1:19-20 that such matters are “transparent” and have been so “ever since the creation of the world . . . being mentally apprehended by means of the things made.”

http://robgagnon.net/HowBadIsHomosexualPractice.htm

 Contrast this with Romans 1:19 - 21:  

For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.

According to Robert Gagnon, whom the author of the CP article later quotes favorably, Romans 1:19 - 20 teaches that God has established the material structures of the creation, in this case the twoness of the sexes, for us to use a roadmap to His moral will concerning human sexual ethics.   The text of Romans 1:19 - 21 clearly states that the purpose of the material structures of the creation is to testify to His attributes & authority — not our own — as the epistemic foundation for all ethics, in this case worship & sexual ethics.  

There are, however, good reasons that Christians embrace a biblical view of marriage, and we’ll explore the most important one in this article, followed by a critique of a common argument justifying same-sex relations. Though critics may not recognize the Old and New Testaments as authoritative texts, the following will show that orthodox Christians base their viewpoint on reasons grounded in what they believe to be God’s revelation, rather than visceral emotional reactions. 

The default position of this blog & of Philadelphia Apostolic Presbyterian’s elders, deacons, & all our members is Reforned Theology that recognizes that the Bible is without error in everything that it affirms, & is an infallible refuge & epistemic warrant for all areas of life in general, insofar as it serves as a compiled instance of God’s own testimony about His existence, attributes, & authority, and the objectively true state of affairs relative to all areas of faith & practice. 

To understand God’s intention and design for marriage, we have to go back to the very first marriage — that of Adam and Eve in the garden. That Adam and Eve’s marriage is prototypical for humanity is clear because the author infers from it this universal principle: “That is why a man leaves his father and mother and is united to his wife, and they become one flesh” (Gen. 2:24).[1] When asked about his view of marriage, Jesus likewise cited the creation account and specifically Genesis 2:24 (Matt. 19:3-4).

Actually, Jesus was not asked a question about marriage in general in Matthew 19; nor was He answering a question about whether or not marriage is a heteronormative affair.   He was asked a question about divorce.   Neither did He argue solely from Genesis.  Rather, He refers to God’s decretal will concerning the covenantal nature of marriage first, & He then alludes to the moral will of God expressed in Deuteronomy 24, Jeremiah 3, Malachi 2, & other texts concerning covenant faithfulness vs. faithlessness and divorce.     

In doing so, He models sound reasoning processes & principles for us.  As we shall see, a great deal of the author’s argument relies on using God’s decretal will (the state of nature) as a moral roadmap for the justification of sexual ethics just like Robert Gagnon, Andrew Rodriguez, Greg Koukl, & many others, which is precisely what Romans 1:19 - 21 precludes. 

Given that Adam and Eve’s marriage serves as a model for all humanity, important implications follow. In Genesis 2, Adam is presented with a multitude of animals, which he gives names to, but even among all of these living creatures “no suitable helper was found” for him (Gen. 2:20). God recognizes Adam’s need for a companion, and declares, “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him” (Gen. 2:18).[2]The suitable helper that God creates to be Adam’s wife is the woman Eve. Adam immediately recognizes that this is the partner he’s been missing, and exclaims, “This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh” (Gen. 2:23) — or as John Goldingay paraphrases, “This is it! She is so different from the animals! This is a person suitable for me!” Goldingay goes on to observe that this interaction “explains the natural attraction of man and woman for each other. In the woman he marries, a man finds a missing part of himself, something that complements him.”[3]

What is it about animals that makes them unsuitable for romantic partners?  Animals are an altogether different order of being that, at Vox Kephale, are not able to articulate their thoughts & feelings to us when it comes to matters touching on complex reasoning & other skills needed at the upper end of God’s command to be fruitful, multiply, & exercise dominion, & are not presented as co-equal partners with people in the exercise of that dominion,  nor are they capable of sexual or nonsexual reproduction with us.  They make wonderful guardians of our children, but they cannot produce children with us. They also seem to reflexively look to us to help & assist them from time to time.  They are paracletes, not partners. 

If another man would have been a suitable partner for Adam, God would have created a second man to be his lifelong companion.

That’s a nonsequitur.  Besides, after the expulsion from Eden, there’s nothing to tell us that Adam didn’t put Eve away & wander off with someone else with or without God’s approval. 

But God recognized that Adam not only needed fellowship, but someone whose insights, gifts, and dispositions were different from his own. Thus, together, men and women comprise the image of God in humanity — neither is replaceable or dispensable (Gen. 1:27). 

The text actually indicates that each of them embodied the image of God in humanity individually, not just together. 1 Peter 3 informs men & women that God thinks of us co-equal partners — not as female subordinate & male ruler.   Romans 1:19 - 21 also teaches that we are all residents of God’s temple & part of it.  Consequently, we serve as an instance of God’s expression of His image & authority both individually & corporately.This is also true of Adam and Eve’s sexual complementarity. In order to “be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it,” God designed Adam and Eve with the capacity to come together as “one flesh” and produce offspring (Gen. 2:24).

The text of Genesis doesn’t command people to be fruitful & multiply or else be in sin.  After all in 1 Corinthians, Paul commends singleness.  Moreover, if sexual reproduction is what the text envisions as the - not merely a - means of fulfilling the Edenic/Creation Covenant’s charge to be fruitful & multiply, then that also means that infertile heterosexuals fail to satisfy its demands. On that view adoption won’t suffice either, yet the Bible includes a robust doctrine of human adoption.   This is the sort of thinking that lays behind the notion that because gay men are unable to reproduce with one another they ought to be precluded from adopting and/or fostering children.  

As Robert Gagnon notes,

In the creation story, intercourse between a man and a woman is justified on the grounds that woman was formed from man. Marriage in general and sexual intercourse in particular is thus evaluated as an attachment of two complementary beings into “one flesh,” a reunion with one’s sexual “other.” No such justification is, or can be, provided for same-sex unions.[4]

Frankly, God doesn’t justify heterosexual unions in the basis of the ability of a husband & wife to hypothetically or really and truly reproduce.  This bears repeating: According to Robert Gagnon, whom the author of the CP article quotes favorably, Romans 1:19 - 20 teaches that God has established the material structures of the creation, in this case the twoness of the sexes, for us to use a roadmap to His moral will concerning human sexual ethics.   The text of Romans 1:19 - 21 clearly states that the purpose of the material structures of the creation is to testify to His attributes & authority — not our own — as the epistemic foundation for all ethics, in this case worship & sexual ethics.

Moreover, Mr. Gagnon has a bad habit of running to Genesis when discussing Romans 1.  At no point does Romans 1 refer to Genesis and its testimony about the material structures of the creation as a sufficient epistemic warrant for worship & sexual or ethics. He admits as much when he writes that it is basically lurking in the background.  Romans 1:18 - 32 is an inerrant & infallible commentary on Leviticus 18 that follows the same outline as Leviticus 18, which is also the outline of a suzerain covenant.  

https://thepropheticpresbyterian.blogspot.com/2024/03/romans-118-32-leviticus-18.html

Why do those who defend the traditional view on this issue, who the author says do so on the basis of sound reasoning & biblical hermeneutics consistently fail to live up to that standard?   

Mr. Reese is correct in noting that he & his chorus of advocates do so on the basis of what they believe the Bible to teach — just like countless others have done about any number of issues from the dawn of time itself.  

https://thepropheticpresbyterian.blogspot.com/2024/03/favorite-fallacies-homosexuality.html

This is born out of the fact that same-sex sexual activity is proscribed in both the Old and New Testaments.[5]

Only if the pertinent texts are studied, exegeted/exposited, & understood (and applied) incorrectly. 

Because of God’s distinct design for marriage from the very beginning, the vast majority of Christians have recognized that marriage is defined by the union of one man and one woman.[6] As A. T. B. McGowan elaborates,

It has always been the conviction of the Christian church in all its branches, based upon Holy Scripture, that sexual relationships outside of that between husband and wife are contrary to God’s intention. This is not just the view of a few ultra-conservative theologians but has been the historic conviction of the church for two thousand years and remains the moral conviction of the vast majority of the world’s Christians today. It is also a view shared with the other Abrahamic faiths.[7]

Ecclesiastical Tradition is only as valid as the biblical exegesis/ exposition, understanding (& application) that underwrites it.   What the majority of the Church thinks at any given time may or may not be correct, especially when we consider what Hebrews 5 states about the relationship between our moral problems and our understanding of sound doctrine. 

 About this we have much to say, and it is hard to explain, since you have become dull of hearing. For though by this time you ought to be teachers, you need someone to teach you again the basic principles of the oracles of God. You need milk, not solid food, for everyone who lives on milk is unskilled in the word of righteousness, since he is a child. But solid food is for the mature, for those who have their powers of discernment trained by constant practice to distinguish good from evil.

To paraphrase John Piper, if you are having problems understanding what the Bible teaches about any number of doctrinal propositions, and, I would add that if this proves to be a chronic problem, it may well be due to any number of moral problems you cherish. Moral problems are known to make us ignorant & keep us ignorant over time.   

The Church has wrestled with need for moral reform within its scholarly wing & its ecclesiastical hierarchy (as well as its overall membership) all along.   Show me a biblical scholar (who ought to know better) that remonstrates with what this blog says about homosexuality and how we as a church reason from the Scriptures, & I will show you a man or woman with one or more moral problems that get in the way.  Incidentally, that’s frequently true of those at that level who remonstrate with the Doctrines of Grace. 

Same-sex unions, on the other hand, fall short of God’s design by negating the psychological and sexual complementarity God established with the first man and woman.

If that is true, then it doesn’t matter how much two men or two women love God & neighbor.  On that view whether or not they are in sin has nothing to do with the internal volitional mechanism by which we make moral decisions.   On that view God condemns & commends based on the sex/gender of the two people involved.  

Does this extend to other areas of life?  Of course it does!  If David Baker asks if he should bake the cake (and in some cases now refuse to use the slur “Alphabet people”) men like Michael Brown, Robert Gagnon, & others reply with Situational Ethics.  

Their  answer is “No,” based on the fact that the homosexual couple is obviously in sin & the cake proves it, and, to read Justin Peters & others when they write or speak about it, the transgender person or homosexual is presumptively unregenerate. Ergo, paracleting them is enabling them & collaborating with the Encroaching Homosexual Menace.  

The Informal Ecclesiastical Hierarchy in the Church moved quickly to put down Sinclair Ferguson when he dared to suggest Grandma should consider attending the wedding.   Justin Peters came right out and said the Orlando 49 went to hell the night they were murdered because they were homosexual and besides (real) Christians just plain don’t go to such places.   Yes, Mr. Reese, bigotry has historically underwritten the traditional view on this subject & recent history is proof enough of it in our time. 

 https://thepropheticpresbyterian.blogspot.com/2024/03/love-thy-neighbor.html?m=1

Many believe that since they have a seemingly natural, inborn attraction to the same sex, this must be the way God made them. To think otherwise would be to imply that God had made a mistake in creating them the way they are. While this sounds like a compelling point at first glance, it makes the crucial but misguided assumption that our natural desires are inherently good and God-given.

This is true, insofar as God’s existence, attributes, & authority serves as the only truly non-arbitrary epistemic warrant for our beliefs.  Our intuitions alone don’t suffice.  Ergo, it is not true insofar as the Bible teaches we are create in God’s image, & that God’s infinite & unchangeable attributes are rightly summarized as love & light incarnate.  

Human beings are created to love God & enjoy Him forever.  Mathew 22 summarizes the First & Second Table of the Law as “Love God perfectly & exhaustively with no shadow or turning first & foremost, & love your neighbor before yourself.”  All else hangs on this.  Romans 13 teaches us that perfect love fulfills the Law.   I Corinthians informs us: 

If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal. And if I have prophetic powers, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. If I give away all I have, and if I deliver up my body to be burned, but have not love, I gain nothing.

Love is patient and kind; love does not envy or boast; it is not arrogant or rude. It does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful; it does not rejoice at wrongdoing, but rejoices with the truth. Love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.

Love never ends.

From the statement about [the] psychological fact ‘I have an impulse to do so and so’ we cannot by any ingenuity derive the practical principle ‘I ought to obey this impulse’ ... Telling us to obey Instinct is like telling us to obey ‘people’. People say different things: so do instincts. Our instincts are at war.[8]

Yes, insofar as it’s true that drawing moral conclusions from our intuitions is not how God intends for us to reason.  No, insofar as we can rightly deduce from the way the Bible defines sin to the manner in which our internal volitional mechanism operates.  Out of our own attributes, we love “who, what, when, where, how, & why.”  Love is a reflexive activity, & hate centers on placing ourselves ahead of all else.  The more you do that, the more evil your thoughts, words, & deeds become.   

Because of Adam and Eve’s rebellion in the garden that resulted in the fall (Genesis 3), every aspect of human existence has been corrupted by sin, including our sexuality (Romans 1:24-27; 5:12, 18-19; 7:18). Thus McGowan writes, “the sexuality of each one of us has been damaged by our inherited fallenness, in different ways and in different measures. For some of us that will mean that they experience same-sex attraction, some will experience gender confusion, others will be sexually attracted to children, yet others will only be sexually satisfied with multiple partners and so on.”[9]

True! However, at issue is the epistemic basis of our reasoning.   The traditional view on homosexuality centers on the suppression of God’s image & authority in favor of deriving our worship & sexual ethics from our own image & authority (the material structures of the created order), and serves as an outworking of a quasi-materialistic worldview in which we can deduce moral standards from the material world, in this case the twoness of the sexes.  

Every human being is made in God’s image and thus has incalculable value and worth. All of us are also loved by God without measure. But because of the fall and our resulting sinful nature, all of our desires have to be evaluated in light of God’s will for us revealed in Scripture. We can’t simply follow our hearts because our hearts can easily deceive us. As the prophet Jeremiah wrote, “The heart is deceitful above all things and beyond cure. Who can understand it?” (Jer. 17:9; cf. Prov. 14:12; Eccles. 9:3; Mark 7:21-22).

On the face of it, this is true.  However, the traditional view asserts that the degree of love for God & neighbor that two homosexuals profess to have isn’t real or valid. Just read the title of the article we are critiquing.  What matters, according to the article, is the identity their sex / romantic partner or partners.   On that view, sin is defined by the identity of Jared Moore’s lust, not by a failure to love God exhaustively & perfectly.   That’s the gospel of works righteousness writ large. 

Nothing said here is meant to diminish the great anguish many Christians and non-Christians experience as they grapple with same-sex attraction.[10] For those who do, individual believers and the Church should come alongside them as friends, listeners, counselors, and mentors. Through love, encouragement, support, and wise counsel, same-sex attracted Christians can live joyful, godly lives as followers of Jesus Christ.[11]

Though well meaning this is misguided.  How can such counseling not ultimately serve as a species of spiritual & emotional abuse, given that it turns on a false, error ridden, philosophically arbitrary, & theologically unbiblical premise?  

The truth of the matter is that the history of Christianity is littered with the results of the traditional view on this matter.  We should remember that Christians have a checkered history with respect to these issues.  In the 80’s, Tom, Carol, Ted, and Alice were swinging while Jerry Falwell pointed fingers at gay men with respect to HIV/AIDS.   In the 90’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” was controversial while Christians were openly lying about the efficacy of latex condoms and instituting purity culture and abstinence only sex education programs that excluded gay people from discussions except to send the message that that sort of behavior kills and is otherwise unacceptable. 

In the 2000’s the BSA decided to allow openly gay students into its ranks.  Christians in the churches, while saying that gays need Jesus and that the BSA chapters they sponsored were part of their outreach ministries, cut ties with the BSA and decided to do their own thing in order to exclude gays, thus sending the message “No Jesus for you!” to gays.  That happened concurrently with the standing in line at Chick Fil’A to oppose the gay agenda.   Did anyone who bought Combo 1 for Christ buy one for their gay friend?  

About a decade ago in ATL, a group of local mean girls banded together and falsely accused the ATL Eagle of allowing drug sales on premises and turning their speakers onto the neighborhood illegally.   A paddy wagon appeared on a week night and violated the rights of staff & patrons alike in a raid of the bar that turned up no evidence whatsoever of the Women’s Temperance Union’s allegations. 

In NC, when the GOP took over the General Assembly, they decided not to honor a gentlemen’s agreement between the GA & LGBT lobbyists in which they had agreed that in exchange for continued funding of NC ADAP, they would do their best to keep the marriage issue out of NC.   After saber rattling by some Republican legislators who wanted to severely curtail or end ADAP, the LGBTQ community retaliated, and that act went all the way to SCOTUS, and now gay marriage is legal, so that in NC, Conservative Ideologues helped build the monster they feared (Rev. 17).  

TN in recent history targeted drag queens in the public square and censured African-American legislators in the State House for being agitators while cutting the Nashville Metro area government in half for brazenly political reasons - and all of this while their legislature was reliving another cycle of sexual harassment by one or more legislators.  

In FL it is now forbidden to allow matters touching on these issues into an American or British literature class for high school juniors and seniors unless reading material that touches on these issues is mandatory.  In addition, if an employer uses Matthew 5:41 as the basis for a continuing education module that touches on race relations and an employee feels guilty, that is now an actionable offense, regardless of whether or not CRT is involved. 

We live in the age of dutiful culture warriors whose first impulse with respect to Target and now Chick Fil-A and the production staff of Chosen is to take up arms instead of repenting for their role in continuing the cycle of mutual oppression.  Their response is to point fingers and take up arms instead of paracleting their enemies.

“We live in evil times.” (Cardinal Borusa, Gallifreyan Senator)

God bless us all each & every one.  Go & sin no more. 

Can Evangelicals Be / Vote For Democrats?

Let’s take a look.  

The Bible says we Evangelicals should have a life that is worthy of the good news (Philippians 1:27). That includes a vote that is worthy of the good news. Meaning, we cannot vote for Kamala Harris.    

Therefore, if you vote for Kamala Harris, you are not an Evangelical.  

By way of reply, that’s a viciously circular argument insofar as it assumes what it needs to prove, namely that the Bible defines “Evangelical” someone whose life is worthy of the good news,” that voting Republican &/or otherwise supporting the Republican National Agenda adorns the Body of Christ, & that what the Bible, correctly exegeted, exposited, understood, & applied is congruent with American Conservatism. One wonders if Mr. Sey understands the term “Evangelical,” & how close he is to, like Greg Locke, & Landon Schott, coming to denying the sum & substance of the Gospel.    

The term “Evangelical,” isn’t a term that automatically attaches to “American Conservatism,” insofar at its root, it takes its definition from Isaiah 52 & Romans 10. 

And how are they to preach unless they are sent? As it is written, “How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the good news!” 

The good news that Paul has in mind is the gospel that God alone saves & that God via His goodness & grace frees us from our works righteousness.  At its very root lays an everlasting promise which carries a strong eschatological meaning & message — namely, God will free us from sin, death, demonic oppression, &, one day, from other forms of oppression like the warmongering, gluttony, sorcery, & systemic inquity that accrues to us both as individuals & in aggregate.  

In terms of Historical Theology, the term “Evangelical” refers to theology that most Protestants would consider acceptable as a credible profession of faith. For example, the 6 membership vows common to Westminster Confession Presbyterian churches + the theology contained a historic confession, like the First London Baptist Confession, or the 3 Forms of Unity, or the 2nd London Baptist Confession, or the Savoy Declaration, or the Philadelphia Confession are all good examples of the sort of theological confession that forms part of a credible profession of faith.   

In terms of Political Philosophy that has wed itself to theological Evangelicals (and, for many Evangelicals, vice versa), the term “Evangelical” is routinely defined in a manner that is congruent with the world’s ideas about the politics of people who are theological Evangelicals. For example, the term “Evangelical,” regardless of whether or not the allegation is true, is viewed as a predominantly White leaning theopolitical lobby/wing of the GOP & other small political sects & parachurch organizations.   

Sey believes that it is morally impossible to be a Theological Evangelical without being a Theopolitical Evangelical who affirms Sey’s  personal beliefs about abortion & any number of other issues. With that in mind, I can’t help but read the Westminster Confession of Faith (about 95 % of which I myself & the members of Philadelphia APC agree) & notice that the Heads of Doctrine that might attach to Sey’s pet sociopolitical issues are several headers below at least 19 to 20 higher order doctrines & about 3 Heads of Doctrine within the Confession do attach to the topics that drive Sey’s adherence to his peculiar sociopolitical beliefs. 

He’s doing what Finney (whom he quotes approvingly) did, namely going for the absolute lowest common denominator with respect to what constitutes a Theological Evangelical — and he does this in reductionistic fashion.  Finney’s Systematic Theology begins with Moral Government & drones on for several lectures before we see much of substance relative to doctrines that Charles Hodge & others considered of greater importance in a Systematic Theology.  

Don’t get me wrong , it’s not that Hodge & John L. Dagg didn’t believe Moral Government wasn’t important; rather they understood that a sound theological foundation is more fit to sustain Moral Government in the long run than a codified ethics textbook that veers into the major heads of doctrine second.    It’s also true that in the Judgment, the Bible depicts the Lord drawing distinctions between people based upon their ethics, but that doesn’t mean that He does so on the basis of works righteousness, ergo we shouldn’t either.   Whether or not someone is a “Bible believing” Christian is not a matter of their sociopolitical beliefs, it’s a matter of both what one believes & how one behaves — especially when it comes to beliefs & behaviors that are result of a deep seated penchant for works righteousness when it comes to both individual & corporate justification, sanctification, & glorification. 

Yes, you can be a Theological Evangelical & vote for Mrs. Harris, & to allege otherwise heads into the territory occupied by Greg Locke, Landon Schott, & the members of Reformation Charlotte who question if someone who votes Democrat is regenerate. On their view, if someone affirmed 95 % or more of the WCF, but disagreed with American Conservatism on social justice issues, abortion, &/of homosexuality, they are not Evangelicals —&— they are probably unregenerate. That’s right up there with Justin Peters assertions that homosexuality is a de facto sign of reprobation.    

As to abortion, as a reminder God doesn’t condemn & commend us without regard to our motives & purposes. I Samuel 15 clearly teaches that God commanded the deaths of infants, thereby proving that the early terming a pregnancy & an infant’s life is not murder regardless of motive & purpose.      

As to abortion, the Theopolitical response by a great many American Conservatives in the churches  was to seek to dismantle Roe v Wade, then, as an attempt to outlaw abortion altogether, let the states handle it.  Did anybody consult with the Lord & His Narrow Way on that particular strategem?  

How would that work in the Bible? Where does the Bible throw these issues to the 12 Tribes of Israel as a “tribal rights” issue? Nowhere!    

Abortion is a systemic social evil that, from a theologically conservative POV, should fall into the same category as divorce and slavery. In the Bible, laws regulating such evils were national, not just tribal.  Therefore, we shouldn’t regulate these issues via the States, while excluding the Federal Government; nor should we make a habit out of either excluding the Federal Government (as if many a supremacy clause did not exist), or allowing the States to dictate public policy to the Federal Government.   The Bible presents a largely top-down model for law making.   The Realm is a Constitutional Monarchy with an empowered God & Governor at its head.

In the Bible systemic issues arise out of economic conditions as well as other causes like warmongering and the loss of a society’s philosophical and theological underpinnings. How does the Bible deal with systemic problems, particularly during declension in both religious institutions and society as a whole?    

For example, according to Matthew 19, divorce is a concession to human hard heartedness.  The Penteteuch and the rest of the Bible regulate it tightly. In addition, chattel slavery was regulated regulated into indentured servitude. Also, the New Testament states slaves should seek their freedom in an orderly manner if possible. (Philemon, 1 Corinthians).    

Abortion should be regulated away just like debtors prisons and chattel slavery - but not made illegal. Abortion for any reason whatsoever isn’t biblical. However the Bible never says the early termination of a pregnancy is always murder. In 1 Samuel 15, Samuel commands the death of infants in war, & the Bible doesn’t state that the death of infants is always a capital crime like murder. It teaches that morality runs through motives, not just purposes & goals.  Neither does the Bible teach we should oppress women.    

Abortion laws must take all of this into account and carefully regulate abortion without criminalizing women and mansplaining abortion and Women’s Health. We should also work to make adoption more affordable.    

How does the Bible regulate systemic social evils like abortion? By making them universally illegal from the start, or does it do so by way of regulation of evils (like indentured servitude and divorce), while society grows up?    

It is well past time for Theopolitical Evangelicals take a long look in the mirror.  Mr: Sey’s article made it to the Christian Post.  You, the readers of The Prophetic Presbyterian & History Narrow Way ought to take a look at what goes on at the CP. 

Paul wrote the Corinthian church a letter exhorting them to deal with sexual immorality in their church, & their response was to point fingers at each other & the world around them. Every week, CP publishes a casualty list that runs through the moral failings of one or more theologically Evangelical public figures. In addition, the SBC is self-destructing, & Dark Providence is all around us. 

The American Church is falling apart from the inside out, & it’s being systematically dumbed down by political idolatry & bad theology — and sociopolitical liberals are not all to blame.    We can do better as a nation & people. It’s time we stop accusing each other based on our political ideas. It’s time to open up the Bible & understand it correctly, & that means getting rid of the sloganeering that indexes theological truth & accuracy & assumes that American Conservatism is the way to go.      If that means we wind up voting for Democrats, then sobeit. 

God bless us all, each & every one. Now go & sin no more.  

Covenant Theology In Outline Form (Part 3)

Continuing from Part 2

John 7:53 - 8:11 

Preamble 

Historical Prologue 

General Stipulations

Specific Stipulations 

Renewal, Document Clause 

Witnesses 

Preamble/Shema

• They went each to his own house, but Jesus went to the Mount of Olives. 

Yeshua is also a cipher for God atop His holy mountain (Sinai)

Historical Prologue 

• We enter text into a specific time & place,  both on Earth & in Heaven this the sort of thing Yeshua did.   

Early in the morning he came again to the temple. All the people came to him, and he sat down and taught them. 

• As the sun continued to rise over the new covenant administration, Yeshua, now in heaven & the literal theanthropic Redeemer-Mediator, continued His 3fold ministry of Prophet, Priest, & King.

The scribes and the Pharisees brought a woman who had been caught in adultery, and placing her in the midst they said to him, “Teacher, this woman has been caught in the act of adultery. Now in the Law, Moses commanded us to stone such women. So what do you say?” This they said to test him, that they might have some charge to bring against him. 

General Stipulations & Specific Stipulations 

Jesus bent down and wrote with his finger on the ground. 

• He, the God-Man, spoke & wrote Scripture.  

Renewal

And as they continued to ask him, he stood up and said to them, “Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her.”  

• The Lord presents them with a moral dilemma, a morals test of sorts. Covenant renewal involves a morals test, & moral tests challenge us.  Will we rise to that challenge or shrink back? 

Document Clause

And once more he bent down and wrote on the ground. 

• The Lord continues writing Scripture. 

Witnesses

But when they heard it, they went away one by one, beginning with the older ones, and Jesus was left alone with the woman standing before him. 

Then He tood up and said to her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?” She said, “No one, Lord.” And Jesus said, “Neither do I condemn you; go, and from now on sin no more.” ]]

• A public challenge was issued that the woman’s accusers realized they could not answer. 

To Part 4…