It’s not my fault Aimee Byrd wants to be taken seriously and other responses to those calculating ways to silence the very few of us willing to criticize the new feminism being promoted in NAPARC… / April 21, 2020 by Shane D. Anderson

A public statement first posted in our discussion group: Genevan Commons.

An important announcement related to the spais, permission granted to share elsewhere:

As we all know, and have always known, the things said here in Genevan Commons are monitored by Aimee Byrd, Rachel Green Miller, people connected to R. Scott Clark’s twitter gang/sect/group, and others who believe we ought not be allowed a private discussion group in which their public “ministries” are critiqued. A number of us have been subject to false accusations, and it’s been said over and over on twitter that there are screenshots that prove me and others here: “nasty” “vile” “jerk” “slanderers” “dirty-mind” etc.

Against this backdrop, Mrs. Byrd has been laboring in her own session and in the OPC to develop some way to bring charges against me and others for opposing her. To do this, they have assembled (dissembled?) snippets of this and that for years. And now, she has accomplished the removal of one of her own elders without proper discipline procedures for not adequately supporting her.

On Good Friday, members of Mrs. Byrd’s church began receiving a mailed document in which the session presented its written case against Genevan Commons to its congregation as part of its work to divest the elder who displeased Mrs. Byrd by his membership in Genevan Commons. I was unaware of any of this when it was happening, but now that they have made their intentions public, I would like to ask you all to please pray for our brother and his family and his church. He has filed a complaint against this action and more complaints are likely.

As part of the accusations, all their factual errors and embarrassing details of Mrs. Byrd’s influence over them notwithstanding, they have announced that they are in fact pursuing ecclesiastical actions against me and others in Genevan Commons. They have been being advised on these matters by OPC insiders who serve on denominational committees. Mrs. Byrd, Todd Pruitt, and others have publicly called for discipline against us.

Despite Pruitt, Byrd, Green Miller and others accusing me publicly and privately, for years, of slander, perversion, being a jerk, having a dirty mind, saying horrible things, etc, their evidence of this is nothing. You know, as they are fond of noting about Mrs. Byrd, I also am “a member in good standing.” I hold to the Westminster Standards of the OPC without exception. And I am actually an elder in Christ’s church. None of this sort of thing matters in a victim culture: as long as Byrd and Green Miller can present themselves as aggrieved minorities, victims of an oppressive system, they are allowed to say anything they want about anyone they want, demonizing all opposition. They have in fact been rewarded for it.

Despite personal, multiple requests for evidence of the things they have accused me of, they would never provide it to me so I could respond or others could examine the claimed evidence. They have not allowed me the decency of explaining, defending, or repenting of things I’ve supposedly said. They instead have continued these public and private attacks on me while formulating an ecclesiastical attack plan in the background, monitoring my posts and comments, threatening me that they are doing such, publicly hoping I will fall into disrepute, and coordinating with various people throughout the OPC. The only things I’ve ever been provided are “concerns” that I said her agenda is evil, ungodly, feminstic, etc. Yes, I have. And, yes, I will. If I will be brought up on charges for that, so be it. #ReformedDowngrade anyone? #RememberTheCRCNA anyone?

It has not been enough for Mrs. Byrd to publicly attack CBMW, John Piper, John Macarthur, Doug Wilson, and many others with her public “ministry” of criticizing the church of our Lord Jesus Christ. It is not enough that no one in the history of our Bible-believing Reformed churches ever advocated for her teachings without leaving for churches consumed by rank liberalism. It is not enough that she is supported by the biggest institutions and names in the Reformed world. She apparently will not allow people to oppose her. And men are lining up to support her.

It only takes a casual acquaintance with her writing to understand why men do this: her agenda is deeply rooted in feeling offended at how men treat her.

She admits over and over in writing and interview that her impetus for writing has often been situations in which she feels offended as a woman, slighted, or personally neglected. When I think about that, I’m sorry that she has felt that way, as those sorts of feelings are uncomfortable and unpleasant and when they arise from some real situation and are fueled by self-pity often lead to false judgements and sinful actions. And I am even more sorry that her husband, elders, the ministers and elders who lead the publishers who publish her and the ones who lead ACE, Trueman, Pruitt, and others have not realized that rather than helping her, they have extended her ego into the arena of public conflict. And I am even more sorry for the churches of our Lord Jesus who must now be disturbed further by her feelings and teachings. (For some critiques, see below.)

She has promoted herself as a public critic of mainstream conservative Christian teachings and practices, she has frequently mocked her critics on MOS and Twitter, she has at times attacked the most steadfast ministers of our current age, and she has openly said she is presenting a new way of thinking through gender issues, one that has benefited greatly from egalitarian exegesis. It is because of that, and her unwillingness to change course, that I became a public critic of her work and those who promote it.

I will confess that I, at times, lack a temperance in speech.

I have not ever claimed to be the best spokesman against this feminist cause—there are others who are clearer, less offensive, less uncouth. I completely understand that I do not appeal to people who don’t understand the issues yet, prefer genteel teas together, or have yet to become as zealous as they ought to have been in the first place to defend our churches. I don’t need nor am I requesting public affirmation of everything I have ever said. Those qualifications notwithstanding, in relation to her errors and its consequences in our lives my speech is not intemperate. I believe it is commensurate with the sadness it will bring to our congregations and the dishonor it brings on God’s Word. Yet those contemplating how they may silence me are particularly offended at certain things—things that I believe I ought to say more plainly and repeatedly as to encourage others to say the same, but with their own voices and styles.

Let me once again publicly state for the record:

1. I think her agenda, as expressed in her books and on social media, is actually stupid—not her, not her emotions or feelings, not anything like that. Her agenda is stupid. A bad, dumb plan. It lacks a reasonable natural and biblical foundation, a faithful method of theological reasoning, and a wise and wholesome practical end. How could I possibly justify calling it stupid? Well, I’ll say it a different way: I think it is actually really stupid to encourage men and women who aren’t married to each other to have “intimate spiritual friendships” and spend time alone together. Foolish. Really dumb. Lots of other hurt-words. How can I say this more winsomely—it’s crazy! Cookoo! Really, really stupid to go on long walks with your intimate spiritual friend of the opposite sex while your spouse is at home. Really stupid to be alone with her in a car driving her to her hotel late at night. Really stupid. Stupid in real life, not in the world of Twitter grievances, used to manipulate masses—stupid in the real world where sexual sin destroys lives and draws the soul from God.

2. I think her teaching is ungodly: it does not arise from unreserved faith in God’s Word, but from dissatisfaction with her experiences. It relies on exegesis that does not start with the principle “thus says the Lord” but with “has God really said?” So, yes, I’ve used the word ungodly to describe her teaching. I really do think all of the slippery egalitarian exegetes sound ungodly, just like the devil: instead of reading a verse and thinking “how can I fully and completely believe and obey this?” They say “how can I shave down all the edges, pull all the teeth, and transform a passage that says ‘be silent’ to mean ‘we need more women’s voices?’” That’s ungodly, and I think it’s only right to call it such.

3. I think her aims and methods are very similar to what we see among secular feminists and other Marxist-like aggrievement approaches. She has played the victim in her books, blogs, and social media interactions. She believes it to be real and actual suffering for people to say the things I’ve just said. This is a victim-culture technique, where the feelings of the aggrieved are used as justification for canceling the critics. #RememberTheCRCNA

4. I think her demand that no one have private groups in which they can talk about her public books and public teaching and public ecclesiastical support is ridiculous. Many people who are supporters of Aimee Byrd are members of private discussion groups. I am happy to be held accountable for what I say here in Genevan Commons or in other even less public settings. Surely, one should first ask if it is appropriate to share what I’ve said, if in private, giving me an opportunity to also engage, but however that goes, I am accountable and am fine being accountable. The idea that I’ve tried to create a place where we are unaccountable is foolish. Genevan Commons is a large transdenominational discussion group with many divergent opinions. We’ve sought to keep it an old, settled, happy Reformed group. In life many discussions are considered appropriately private, and yet the Christian ought to know he can be brought to account both by church discipline now and on the day of judgment before Christ. I have no problem with that, and they should stop pretending that I have some secret, hidden agenda or actions.

5. I think the idea that one cannot warn against public sin and error done by a member of an OPC church would disallow all Christian conversation about our church. No church is perfect, and we ought to be able to publicly discuss publicly promoted sins and errors, especially those sold for $$$, and being marketed by the largest and most well funded and protected parachurch ministries.

6. Commoners should all be aware that Aimee Byrd and those connected to her monitor people (particularly ministers) online to make sure that they don’t like the wrong tweets, use laugh emojis inappropriately, etc. Then they “advise” sessions and parachurch leaders to mark and oppose these opponents. This is a familiar and repeated reality. The National Partnership has done it for years in the PCA. Reformed parachurch organizations do it all the time. Numerous scandals prove it. It is a feature of the current Reformed world—the people on the inside use private means to control the public narrative.

You and I, if we don’t kiss the right rings, are not free to talk.

But the Word of God is not chained,

Shane

====================

A link to the document from Mrs. Byrd’s session: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1U6BKavPEgdED53eQuDK2YFTO8ltxi290

A link to critiques of Mrs. Byrd’s writings: http://www.thedailygenevan.com/blog/2019/8/15/Aimee_Byrd_Critiques

The Left Fears Homeschoolers / April 20, 2020 by J Landon Light

A response to: “The Risks of Homeschooling” by Erin O’Donnell
https://harvardmagazine.com/2020/05/right-now-risks-homeschooling#28127

In the age of Corona, the Leftist academics and state functionaries that set education policy are more afraid than ever of homeschoolers.

They are afraid that more people will discover that most homeschool families get better results academically in a half to a third of the instructional time and at a tenth of the cost that the modern public school spends per pupil. They are afraid that more people will discover that the old canard about socialization is 180 degrees opposite of the truth, and that today's public school environment is really the one that is, by and large, socially stunted and toxic. Most of all they are afraid that they will lose their near monopoly on access to your children's prime waking hours, and with it their ability to shape their values and beliefs to reflect their own, rather than yours.

Case in point, this hit piece in Harvard Magazine about Elizabeth Bartholet, who is organizing an invitation-only summit of homeschool opponents. An excerpt:

In a paper published recently in the Arizona Law Review, she notes that parents choose homeschooling for an array of reasons. Some find local schools lacking or want to protect their child from bullying. Others do it to give their children the flexibility to pursue sports or other activities at a high level. But surveys of homeschoolers show that a majority of such families (by some estimates, up to 90 percent) are driven by conservative Christian beliefs, and seek to remove their children from mainstream culture. Bartholet notes that some of these parents are “extreme religious ideologues” who question science and promote female subservience and white supremacy."

The practitioners of evangelical secularism understand that education is a battleground, and that families that homeschool tend to win the battles. They hate you, they hate your kids, and they want you gone, so they can have the kids for themselves.

Notice the bigoted image used: homeschooling is a prison, a prison defined by education and God’s Word in which a young girl suffers.

The Judicial Laws of Moses and General Equity / February 22, 2020 by Peter Bringe

To them also, as a body politic, he gave sundry judicial laws, which expired together with the state of that people, not obliging any other now, further than the general equity thereof may require.” (Westminster Confession of Faith, 19.4)

This has been a section of the Westminster Confession which has met with differing interpretations, especially in more recent decades. In particular, it has become central to the question of whether “theonomy” is within the boundaries of the Westminster standards. It also was a point of contention when in 2001 the 68th General Assembly of the OPC declared that “the use of women in military combat is both contrary to nature and inconsistent with the Word of God.”1 A protest to this action objected to this declaration in part because it argued “largely from Old Testament narrative and civil law,” citing 19.4 of the Westminster Confession as a reason why this biblical support was “highly dubious.”2 In my own experience, talking to people and reading books on the Westminster Confession, there is a bit of confusion as to the meaning of this paragraph about the judicial laws.

"Question. What is the main duty of the wife? Answer. Subjection, or submission to her husband, (Genesis 3: 16).

Question. What does this subjection consist of? Answer. In these two things: an acknowledgment of his superiority over her. In her respect to him, as her superior.

Question. How does it appear that her husband is her superior? Answer. God has given it to him, (Genesis 3: 16). Nature teaches it, in the weakness of all females, and so, inferior to the males, (1 Peter 3: 7). His titles imply superiority, as lord (1 Peter 3: 6), guide (Proverbs 2: 17), head (1 Corinthians 11: 3). He represents Christ, and she represents the church, (Ephesians 5: 23). Woman was made for the man, not the man for the woman, (Genesis 2: 18, 1 Corinthians 11: 8-9).

Question. What reason is there for this acknowledgement? Answer. Because man is the ground of all true subjection, and obedience, as to the ordinance of God.

Question. How is she supposed to respect him? Answer. In two things: reverence and obedience.

Question. What is her reverence to him? Answer. Inward, or outward.

Question. What is her inward reverence? Answer. A high esteem of him, for his place’ sake, as her lord and head, by the ordinance of God, which is called fear, (1 Peter 3: 2) and reverence, (Ephesians 5), a reverential fear.

Question. Where is this fear manifested? Answer. By her care to please him, (1 Corinthians 7: 34). By her joy in pleasing him, (Proverbs 31: 12). By her grief in offending him.

Question. How is her outward fear or reverence shown? Answer. By her behavior and speech."

- (Kindle Locations 1338-1373). Puritan Publications. Kindle Edition.

When Love Declines Into Partiality: Richard Baxter / October 14, 2019 by Shane D. Anderson

There are many schemes Satan, the world, and the flesh use to war against our progress in the life we have in Christ. One thing we need to guard ourselves against is declines in grace, or corruptions in what was once godly in our lives. Baxter warns against love for other Christians corrupting, declining, into partiality.

This can happen when our love for God’s people begins to narrow to be love for God’s people who are esteemed outwardly but not for spiritual reasons:

Many have honoured them that fear the Lord, who insensibly have declined to honour only those of them that were eminent in wealth and worldly honour, or that were esteemed for their parts or place by others, and little honoured the humble, poor, obscure christians, who were at least as good as they: forgetting that the "things that are highly esteemed among men, are abomination in the sight of God," Luke xvi. 15; and that God valueth not men by their places and dignities in the world, but by their graces and holiness of life.

This might look like thinking we love the church, when really we are loving people who are like us: the young couple with children, other singles, upwardly mobile people, socially astute and enjoyable people, etc. Baxter calls us to take note of who we love: do we value what God values? Is it graces and holiness that we are drawn to? Is it spiritual life we are seeking to know and foster in our brothers and sisters in our church, or are we drawn to outward, worldly things?

Yet, there is another way our love may corrupt or decline:

Abundance that at first did seem to love all christians, as such, as far as any thing of Christ appeared in them, have first fallen into some sect, and over-admiring their party, and have set light by others as good as them, and censured them as unsound, and then withdrawn their special love, and confined it to their party, or to some few; and yet thought that they loved the godly as much as ever, when it was degenerate into a factious love.

The Christian is called to receive other Christians in the Lord (Romans 15:7). Our union with Christ creates a union with each other (Romans 12:5). But there are those who “desire to be first” and draw people into their support or party. It may be around certain doctrinal distinctive or emphases, certain practices and methods, or ways of talking and acting (a style or brand). When those teachers have a particularly sectarian bent, they foster not only an undue admiration and loyalty to themselves as leaders and to their followers as the true and faithful servants, but they also foster an undeserved disdain for those who do not follow their sect, or even worse in their view, oppose it. Baxter’s insight is searching: could it be that my love for Christians is really love for my sect, my preferred type of Christian, a factious love? Is it the appearance of Christ in the brother or sister that I love, or is it the reflection of me in them that I love?

A third way that love may decline: when zeal for godliness in others morphs into a desire for their hurt or even damnation:

Are you zealous for God, and truth, and holiness, and against the errors and sins of others? Take heed lest you lose it, while you think it doth increase in you. Nothing is more apt to degenerate than zeal: in how many thousands hath it turned from an innocent, charitable, peaceable, tractable, healing, profitable, heavenly zeal, into a partial zeal for some party, or opinions of their own; and into a fierce, censorious, uncharitable, scandalous, turbulent, disobedient, unruly, hurting, and destroying zeal, ready to wish for fire from heaven, and kindling contention, confusion, and every evil work. Read well James iii.

My brothers and sisters, in the words of James “these things ought not be.” Let us be zealous for God: his name, his works, his word, his servants, his church. Be zealous that everyone who names the name of Christ would depart from iniquity. Be zealous that everyone who claims to know the Lord would know and love him in truth and be built up in the most holy faith. But may we turn from any enjoyment of other’s failures, pleasures in their mistakes, delight in uncovering dirt, zeal in stirring up controversy, nit-picky judgmentalism, and as Baxter says, every evil work.

A Prayer:

Holy Father,
To you who gives rain to the ungrateful and who is slow to anger,
who has chosen us in Christ not according to our merits but his mercies,
who has given us the Spirit of adoption that we would reflect your character:
we praise you and acknowledge you to be our great and faithful God.
Forgive us of not loving others as we ought,
and chiefly of not loving you and your kingdom as we ought.
Grant us, that being mindful of how we may fall from love into partiality, factiousness, and hatefulness,
we may instead be well pleasing to you, as your servants, loving your name and its service in the lives of others.
May we esteem others as more important than ourselves and so follow our Savior.
Bless us, and your whole church with us, that we may grow up into this holiness,
By the Spirit you have given,
To the praise and glory of Christ on the day of his coming in glory.
Amen.

From “A Christian Directory (complete - Volume 1, 2, 3 & 4 of 4): A SUM OF PRACTICAL THEOLOGY AND CASES OF CONSCIENCE by Richard Baxter” http://a.co/dr6a1rQ

Example Is More Effectual Than Precept: The Reformed Catholic Family, J. Merle D’Aubigne (free ebook) / October 1, 2019 by Shane D. Anderson

This is a powerful excerpt from a short book, “Family Worship” by the Swiss minister and historian, J. Merle D’Aubigne (1794–1872). This book is available at the link below for free from our friends at Chapel Library. The book explores the proper motives for family worship and provides sound guidance for the venerable practice:

Parents! If your children do not meet with a spirit of piety in your houses; if, on the contrary, your pride consists in surrounding them with external gifts, introducing them into worldly society, indulging all their whims, letting them follow their own course, you will see them grow vain, proud, idle, disobedient, impudent, and extravagant!
They will treat you with contempt; and the more your hearts are wrapped up in them, the less they will think of you. This is seen but too often to be the case. But ask yourselves if you are not responsible for their bad habits and practices; and your conscience will reply that you are; that you are now eating the bread of bitterness that you have prepared for yourself. May you learn thereby how great has been your sin against God in neglecting the means which were in your power for influencing their hearts. And may others take warning from your misfortune, and bring up their children in the Lord!
Nothing is more effectual in doing this than an example of domestic piety. Public worship is often too vague and general for children, and does not sufficiently interest them. As to the worship of the closet, they do not yet understand it. A lesson learned by rote, if unaccompanied by anything else, may lead them to look upon religion as a study like those of foreign languages or history. Here, as everywhere, and more than elsewhere, example is more effectual than precept.
They are not merely to be taught out of some elementary book that they must love God, but you must show them God is loved. If they observe that no worship is paid to that God of Whom they hear, the very best instruction will prove useless. But by means of family worship, these young plants will grow “like a tree planted by the rivers of water, that bringeth forth his fruit in his season; his leaf also shall not wither” (Psa 1:3). Your children may leave the parental roof, but they will remember in foreign lands the prayers of the parental roof, and those prayers will protect them.

Free ebook “Family Worship” from Chapel Library:

Free ebook link

Against Being Too Scrupulous: Richard Baxter / September 28, 2019 by Shane D. Anderson

Can a person seek to be obedient in all things in a way that actually ends up undermining obedience in all things?

Baxter says yes, and that being overly scrupulous about small practical details (what many call legalistic) is a particular way of tripping ourselves up as Christians.

I’m working back and forth through Baxter’s monumental “Christian Directory”, and found this advice quite helpful:

Another temptation to confound you in your religion, is, by filling your heads with practical scrupulosity; so that you cannot go on for doubting every step whether you go right; and when you should cheerfully serve your Master, you will do nothing but disquiet your minds with scruples, whether this or that be right or wrong.

Baxter seems to be referring to the sort of person who stumbles over every small detail in their obedience, not able to see that such a negative and worrisome focus on these small details is a hindrance to what God calls them to do. They are sidetracked from the more important “cheerful obedience” to which they are called by thinking of God’s Law as tedious and condemning, by fixating on this small gnat, that small splinter.

He then provides a remedy, obedience that pursues pleasing God while always resting in our free justification in Christ:

Your remedy here, is not by casting away all care of pleasing God, or fear of sinning, or by debauching conscience; but by a cheerful and quiet obedience to God, so far as you know his will, and an upright willingness and endeavour to understand it better; and a thankful receiving the gospel pardon for your failings and infirmities.
Be faithful in your obedience; but live still upon Christ, and think not of reaching to any such obedience, as shall set you above the need of his merits, and a daily pardon of your sins. Do the best you can to know the will of God and do it: but when you know the essentials of religion, and obey sincerely, let no remaining wants deprive you of the comfort of that so great a mercy, as proves your right to life eternal. In your seeking further for more knowledge and obedience, let your care be such as tendeth to your profiting, and furthering you to your end, and as doth not hinder your joy and thanks for what you have received: but that which destroyeth your joy and thankfulness, and doth but perplex you, and not further you in your way, is but hurtful scrupulosity, and to be laid by.
When you are right in the main, thank God for that, and be further solicitous so far as to help you on, but not to hinder you. If you send your servant on your message, you had rather he went on his way as well as he can, than stand scrupling every step whether he should set the right or left foot forward; and whether he should step so far, or so far at a time, &c.
Hindering scruples please not God.

The Reformed Catholic Family: Timeless Wisdom From A Westminster Divine / August 17, 2019 by Guest User

An Introduction To The Series on Building a Godly Home by William Gouge

By now I ought not to be surprised that an old Reformed churchman is a fountain of godly piety, encouragement, and conviction, but here I am again. William Gouge’s practical handbook on family life is a refreshing stream of water flowing from such a wellspring. Modernized in three volumes under the title Building a Godly Home, the book was originally released in a single volume as Domestical Duties, and it excellently presents the blessings we have in Christ, along with the duties we owe to Him and to one another in our homes. It’s just what you’d like to see from an honored member of the Westminster Assembly: warm, firm, attentive, fatherly, compassionate, biblical, and catholic. It’s a work worthy of rediscovery in all the churches of God.

To that end, I’ll be posting a series of excerpts from Building a Godly Home.

The first is the very opening lines of the book:

It has pleased God to call every one to two vocations. One vocation is general, in which certain common duties are to be performed by all men (as knowledge, faith, obedience, repentance, love, mercy, justice, truth, etc.). The other is particular, in which certain specific duties are required of individual people, according to those distinct places where divine providence has set them in the nation, church, and family.
Therefore God’s ministers ought to be careful in instructing God’s people in both kinds of duties; both those which concern their general calling and those which concern their particular calling. Accordingly Paul, who, like Moses, was faithful in all the house of God (Num. 12:7), after he had sufficiently instructed God’s church in the general duties that belong to all Christians, regardless of sex, state, degree, or condition (Eph. 4:1-5:21), proceeds to lay down certain particular duties, which apply to particular callings and conditions (Eph. 5:22-6:9). Among these particular duties, he notes those which God has established in a family.
With excellent skill he passes from those general duties to the particular ones, laying down a transition between the with these words, “ Submitting your selves one to another in the fear of God” (Eph. 5:21). The form and manner of setting down this verse, with the participle “submitting,” shows that it depends on that which was said before. Again, the fact that the word itself is the very same which is used in the following verse, shows that this verse contains the sum of that which follows, and connects the general to the particulars. This manner of passing from one point to another, by a perfect transition which looks both to that which is past and to that which is coming, is very elegant and frequently employed by our apostle.
Thereby he teaches us to pay attention to that which follows, while we do not forget that which is past. While we must give diligent attention to that which remains to be said, we must also retain that we have heard, and not let it slip. Otherwise, if (as one nail drives out another) one precept makes another be forgotten, it will be altogether in vain to add line to line, or precept to precept.
…
Let us not upon pretext of one duty, though it may seem to be the weightier, think to discard another, lest that fearful “woe” which Christ denounced against the scribes and Pharisees (Matt. 23:23) fall upon our heads. As God is careful to instruct us how to act both towards His own majesty and also towards one another, so in both let us seek His approval. Remember what Christ said to the Pharisees, “These ought ye to have done, and not leave the other undone” (Luke 11:42). The same Lord that requires praise to His own majesty instructs us in mutual service one to another. “What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder” (Matt. 19:6).

As was the case throughout, I was struck by how pointedly this speaks to our modern moment, which is to say: pitting duties one against another to avoid the ones we don’t like is a timeless temptation. One of the two broad classes of duties Gouge identifies here often cannibalizes the other. In teachings on the sexes, for instance, it’s not hard to find folks denying that there are manly duties distinct from womanly duties; all are simply to “be like Christ.”

But while all are to be like Christ with regard to our general duties, we must also render our due according to the particular callings to which we are called. Likewise, I see in young men (myself included) a tendency to use particular calls to defend the Faith as a cover to their lack of general, personal holiness. It is a deadly poison. Let us all endeavor to avoid the leaven of the Pharisees and not think to discard one duty on the pretext of another.

Counterpoint: Critiques Of Aimee Byrd’s Proposals (Updated: September 27, 2020) / August 15, 2019 by Shane D. Anderson

‪“A way-station to egalitarianism: A review essay of Aimee Byrd’s Recovering from Biblical Manhood” by Denny Burk‬

‪"But never mind the more charitable or cynical take. Either way, there’s a generation looking for a doorway, and Byrd provides it. Which means, she doesn’t really need to make good arguments. She doesn’t need to do careful exegesis. She can invoke whatever sources she wants. Why? Because she’s got a pre-made audience. This audience is ready to jump and is just looking for a reasonably intelligent pretext for doing so. It’s often this way in popular Christian books. They tap into something people are already feeling. This was true of Rob Bell’s material. It was true of Donald Miller’s Blue Like Jazz. To be sure, both writers are extremely gifted. But many gifted writers never get noticed. Which ones do? The ones that articulate what people are already feeling, so that they can identify with it. I don’t know how popular Byrd’s book will prove to be, but she’s sharp, and she’s tapping into something. Yet here’s the catch. The bad arguments, even when brilliantly presented and popular in their moment, don’t last. Where are Rob Bell and Donald Miller today? And their arguments? The world has moved on, and the only thing left behind are a vast number of sheep who were led astray a decade ago. Who knows how those sheep are faring in the faith today? I predict arguments like Byrd’s will prove over time to be a briefly held way-station on the movement from narrow complementarianism to egalitarianism. Readers who do not wish to take that journey should be cautious about Byrd’s book."

‪https://equip.sbts.edu/article/way-station-egalitarianism-review-essay-aimee-byrds-recovering-biblical-manhood-womanhoood

“Mrs. Byrd’s Yellow Wallpaper” by Bennie Castle

“Two examples will suffice to show how the feminist meta-narrative jaundices Mrs. Byrd’s reading of particular Biblical narratives; the story of Huldah and the rediscovery of the scroll in the temple in the days of Josiah (2 Kings 22:8-20, 2 Chronicles 34:14-32) and the story of Ruth. The reason I have chosen these narratives, and Mrs. Byrd’s handling of them, is because they highlight three major problems with Mrs. Byrd’s book as it relates to the doctrine of Scripture: Mrs. Byrd’s eisegesis of Scripture, the Confessional doctrine of canonization, and the Confessional doctrine of the Holy Spirit.”

https://calvinistruminant.wordpress.com/2020/05/22/mrs-byrds-yellow-wallpaper/

‪‪“Book Review: Recovering from Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (Byrd)” by Zachary Garris ‬ ‪

“Aimee Byrd’s Recovering from Biblical Manhood and Womanhood carries a provocative title aimed at the 1991 complementarian book, Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood. Yet Byrd’s is mostly an empty title, as she does not substantially interact with that book or other books by complementarians. Instead, she claims complementarians ignore discipleship. She then surveys biblical passages about women in the Bible (“gynocentric interruptions”) that do nothing to undermine complementarianism, all the while ignoring the most important passage on the subject (1 Timothy 2:8-15). Most of her criticism of complementarians centers around ESS.

Byrd’s book is filled with lots of quotations and citations that come across as an attempt to impress the reader, but few actually support her thesis or help to form a coherent argument. Sadly, she makes many egalitarian claims and cites egalitarian authors positively throughout the book. Yet when critics ask Byrd to answer questions about exactly what she believes about men and women, she takes offense and refuses to answer.

This book is published by Zondervan, so no one should have expected a defense of conservative gender roles. Yet being a member of a conservative Reformed denomination (OPC) and working for a conservative Reformed organization (Reformation21.org), this is a sad commentary on the state of Western Christianity. Despite her claim that only men can be pastors, Byrd consistently pushes her readers in the direction of feminism. I do not know how influential this book will be, but it is so poorly reasoned that it should not sway those seriously considering these issues. Regardless, Byrd’s book should serve as evidence of just how strong a foothold feminism and egalitarianism have inside the church, even “conservative” Reformed churches.“

https://knowingscripture.com/articles/book-review-recovering-from-biblical-manhood-and-womanhood-byrd‬

“Recovering from Aimee Byrd’s Promotional Video“ by Christian McShaffrey

https://www.fivesolas.church/recovering-from-aimee-byrds-promotional-video

“Some readers are probably old enough to remember the ‘discussions’ that began in the Christian Reformed Church in 1970. These discussions led to study committees ‘to help the churches make all possible use of women’s gifts’ and moved the CRC slowly-but-steadily toward women’s ordination and even a version of gender-based affirmative action in 2015.

It would be well worth your time to read the full chronology that is posted on the CRC’s website. You might also want to take mental note of some of the key words and phrases that were used during the CRC’s 45-year-long ‘discussion’; as they are the same words and phrases being used today in the PCA and, it would seem, soon enough in the OPC.

Aimee is probably not seeking to be ordained as the OPC’s first woman minister, but that is where these ‘discussions’ tend to lead and my prediction is that the OPC will probably follow the well-worn path of progressivism to final perdition. That is, unless the teachers of the church are men enough to say, ‘No thank you’ to Aimee’s invitation to come into their churches and initiate this discussion.

I sincerely hope that I am wrong about this prediction, but history suggests otherwise. There are several historical charts available which demonstrate the Presbyterian propensity (necessity?) to divide every 50 years or so to maintain biblical fidelity.”

“Does Anyone Need to Recover from Biblical Manhood and Womanhood? A Review Article of Aimee Byrd’s 𝘙𝘦𝘤𝘰𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘧𝘳𝘰𝘮 𝘉𝘪𝘣𝘭𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘭 𝘔𝘢𝘯𝘩𝘰𝘰𝘥 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘞𝘰𝘮𝘢𝘯𝘩𝘰𝘰𝘥” May 4, 2020 By Andrew David Naselli

“Here’s what I’ve argued:

Summary: The gist of Byrd’s book is that biblical manhood and womanhood—especially as John Piper and Wayne Grudem teach it—uses traditional patriarchal structures to oppress women.
Context: On the spectrum of views on men and women, Byrd’s position overlaps partly with the far left side of narrow complementarianism and partly with egalitarianism.
Evaluation: Byrd’s book is misleading because she misrepresents complementarianism, and it is misguided because she shows faulty judgment or reasoning.”

https://cbmw.org/2020/05/04/does-anyone-need-to-recover-from-biblical-manhood-and-womanhood-a-review-article-of-aimee-byrds-recovering-from-biblical-manhood-and-womanhood/

“Book Review: Why Can’t We Be Friends, Part II- What Exactly Is She Proposing?” by Peter Jones:

“Once we understand her proposal we see what a fundamental, sea change Mrs. Byrd is recommending. She is upending 2000 years of church teaching and practice as well as the teaching and practice of most human societies, on how men and women should interact.”

https://singingandslaying.com/2018/08/21/book-review-wcwbf-part-ii-what-exactly-is-she-proposing/

“A Sexual Or Asexual Public Square” by David Talcott via First Things:

“A Complementarianism that is so thin that it limits itself to a single point circumscribed within two narrow spheres does not do justice to the fact that “from the beginning God made them male and female.” This mysterious and unique human partnership of male and female extends to every part of our lives; it is not limited to small cloisters.”

https://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2015/09/a-sexual-or-asexual-public-square

“A Few Brass Tacks On ‘Christian Teaching’” by E. J. Hutchinson

“Have our natures been warped and deformed by sin? Of course; and even when renewed they continue to show its effects. But they have not been obliterated by sin. Our condition, then, makes all the more needful, first, a greater attentiveness to our irreducible and indestructible and natures and, second, a renewed vigor in Christian reflection upon those natures, precisely because human beings are otherwise prone to attempt the impossible: to reduce and destroy our natures.”

https://calvinistinternational.com/2016/09/15/men-women-nature-christian-teaching-two-responses-aimee-byrd/

“A General Response To Aimee Byrd” by Alastair Roberts via The Calvinist International

“By far the most significant point of difference between us, presuming that we are not speaking past each other, concerns the relationship between our natures and God’s moral command. I see a very close bond between nature and virtue. Virtue is the realization of the appropriate telos of our nature and is about us attaining to the full stature of what we are. It isn’t merely about obeying external commands. Virtue is seen when man is fully, truly, and gloriously man and woman is fully, truly, and gloriously woman.”

https://calvinistinternational.com/2016/09/15/men-women-nature-christian-teaching-two-responses-aimee-byrd/

“Can’t Men And Women Be Friends?” by Winfred Brisley via The Gospel Coalition

“While Byrd offers a thoughtful consideration of biblical siblingship and rightly draws out heart issues, on this point I fear she goes too far. Though our sanctification enables us to avoid sin, so long as we remain in our fallen state, the possibility of any particular type of sin won’t be removed. It’s certainly possible to go so far in trying to avoid sexual sin that we become pharisaical, potentially hurting others as well as ourselves. But it’s also possible to be overly optimistic about the likelihood of refraining from sin, particularly when placing ourselves in precarious situation”

https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/reviews/why-cant-friends/

Doug Wilson’s helpful series through her book:

https://dougwils.com/books-and-culture/s7-engaging-the-culture/when-aimee-met-harry-and-sally.html

https://dougwils.com/books-and-culture/s7-engaging-the-culture/stereotypes-or-manners.html

https://dougwils.com/books-and-culture/a-rats-nest-of-a-situation.html

https://dougwils.com/books-and-culture/books/gaaa-jezebel.html

https://dougwils.com/books-and-culture/s7-engaging-the-culture/what-the-ornithologist-knows.html

https://dougwils.com/books-and-culture/s7-engaging-the-culture/like-so-many-dried-beetles.html

https://dougwils.com/books-and-culture/books/striking-while-the-irony-is-hot.html

https://dougwils.com/books-and-culture/s7-engaging-the-culture/defrauding-a-brother.html

https://dougwils.com/books-and-culture/s7-engaging-the-culture/the-great-servant-leadership-mistake.html

https://dougwils.com/books-and-culture/s7-engaging-the-culture/concrete-help-is-not-legalism.html

“Feminism In The Reformed Churches: A Series” by Michael Spangler

http://www.thedailygenevan.com/blog/2020/5/12/Feminism_In_The_Reformed_Churches

“Review Of Aimee Byrd’s ‘Recovering From Biblical Manhood And Womanhood” by Mark Jones

“In relation to the concerns above, part of Byrd’s project involves the contention that “Christian men and women don’t strive for so–called biblical masculinity or femininity, but Christlikeness. Rather than striving to prove our sexuality, the tone of our sexuality will express itself as we do this…My contributions, my living and moving, are distinctly feminine because I am a female. I do not need to do something a certain way to be feminine (such as receive my mail in a way that affirms the masculinity of the mailman). I simply am feminine because I am female” (p. 114). I would say this goes against a lot of classical Christian thinking on anthropology that I have read. At this point, Byrd misses the vocational aspect of gender. I agree that for a woman to be feminine is “to be” (essentialism), but it is also “to become” (eschatological fruition), which only works if a woman has distinctively feminine aspects. As Mark Garcia has mentioned in his Greystone lectures on theological anthropology, in the Bible the feminine is a virtue complex we are called to, not merely a descriptor of what one is. Otherwise the motherly images of God in Scripture (nurturing, protective, strong in defense and care, etc.) are meaningless and may as well be asexual. It reduces to an amorphous asexual humanity, contradictory to her own agreement earlier that the feminine is meaningfully eschatological. Thus her contention that she doesn’t need to act like a woman because she is a woman (p. 120) is sort of like a Christian saying, “I don’t need to act like a Christian because I am one.” We are holy (positionally) and we are to be holy (progressively). Those sympathetic to her critiques of CBWM will see a statement like the one just mentioned and wonder if Byrd is really offering a better alternative.”

https://calvinistinternational.com/2020/05/11/review-of-aimee-byrds-recovering-from-biblical-manhood-and-womanhood/

“My Christian Sisters and the Pence Rule (Why Aimee Byrd Is Misreading Scripture)” by G. Shane Morris:

“Byrd’s categorical mistake should be getting clearer, now. The grace of union in Christ does not abolish or supersede the natural distinctions of male and female, husband and wife, brother and sister. It adds to and sanctifies them. Given her apparent reading of the sibling metaphor as abolishing or superseding the biological realities that make close male-female friendship so fraught, it’s fair to ask why she doesn’t follow liberal theologians in taking Galatians 3:28 (‘There is neither Jew nor Greek…slave nor free…male and female’) as an abolition of all natural distinctions between the sexes within the church. Does Byrd (who is an otherwise conservative Protestant) support female presbyters and pastors? If not, why not? There is, after all, ‘neither male nor female’ in Christ Jesus!”

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/troublerofisrael/2018/04/my-christian-sisters-and-the-pence-rule-why-aimee-byrd-is-misreading-scripture/

“Book Review: Why Can’t We Be Friends, Part I- Houston Is There A Problem?” by Peter Jones:

“Do we have a problem? Yes. But it is not the one Mrs. Byrd assumes. The problem is in a different direction. And if you assume the fire is going out but it is burning hot your solution will only make things worse.”

https://singingandslaying.com/2018/07/16/book-review-why-cant-we-be-friends-part-i-houston-is-there-a-problem/

“Natural Complementarians: Men, Women, And The Way Things Are” by Alastair Roberts:

“I have identified three different areas where an unhelpful narrowing of focus can be seen in Byrd’s piece. First, she fails to attend to the pronounced empirical differences between men and women as groups that Stanton highlighted. Second, she handles historical understandings of gender roles as if unalloyed ideology, rather than as practical attempts to respond to and address prevailing social realities, realities that arose in part on account of natural differences between the sexes. Third, she restricts her biblical analysis to an unclear term in relative isolation, rather than seeking to ascertain the larger biblical picture. At each of these points, she limits the part that nature, empirical reality, and scriptural narrative are permitted to play in the conversation. As these dimensions are marginalized, unchecked gender ideologies are given ever freer rein. Christian teaching on the subject becomes ever more of an abstraction, slipping its moorings in concrete natural, historical, and biblical reality.”

https://calvinistinternational.com/2016/09/13/natural-complementarians-men-women/

“Why It’s Very Difficult For Men And Women To Just Be Friends” by Wendy Wilson via The Federalist

“Byrd doesn’t seem to want to give men a say if their perspective contradicts hers, nor does she seem willing to give women who support measures like the Pence rule a fair hearing. Like secular feminists, she is adamant that such safeguards objectify women, reducing them to temptresses while reducing men to predators.”

https://thefederalist.com/2018/05/29/difficult-men-women-just-friends/

“A Byrd’s-Eye View For Remodeling The Church: A Review of Aimee Byrd’s ‘Recovering From Biblical Manhood & Womanhood’” by Bill Smith at Kuyperian Commentary

“This patriarchal structure that governs the new creation is to be imaged in the world. Men should be leading societies, the church, and the home. Isaiah says that when women and children lead, that is an indication that a society is being punished. (Isa 3.12) Men are created to be oriented to the creation in a way that women are not. Women are created to be oriented toward men in a way that men are not oriented toward women. (1Cor 11.8-9) This is creation glorified, not transcended.

Because a woman can do something doesn’t mean that she ought to do it any time or in any space she wants. The same goes for a man. We have God-given lanes to stay in to use the abilities God has given us in the structures in which he has commanded us to use them. Not to stay in our lanes as men and women will be debilitating to our kingdom mission. Consequently, we don’t need to recover from biblical manhood and womanhood. We need to grow into and delight in the beauty of them.

Despite her best efforts to distance herself from egalitarianism, Byrd, in the end, practically promotes a baptized version of egalitarianism. In the end, I don’t think Byrd has a good eye for redecorating the church, so she needs to be careful about ripping down wallpaper in the church.”

http://kuyperian.com/a-byrds-eye-view-for-remodeling-the-church-a-review-of-aimee-byrds-recovering-from-biblical-manhood-womanhood/

“Men Of Straw” by G. Shane Morris via Breakpoint

“Aimee Byrd of Carl Trueman’s popular ‘Mortification of Spin’ podcast recently shared how ‘triggered’ she is by the ‘pervasive’ emphasis on masculinity in the evangelical church. In reaction to a Patheos blog post by one pastor who advised men to give firm handshakes and limit how often they touch other men’s wives, Byrd heaps 1,600 words of scorn and 1950s caricatures on the very idea that we need to raise men to act differently from women. This is the same Aimee Byrd, by the way, who thinks the ‘Mike Pence Rule’ is ‘pickpocketing purity,’ and argues in a recent book that men and women ought to have more frequent and intimate one-on-one friendships with one another (what could go wrong?).”

http://www.breakpoint.org/2019/01/men-of-straw/

An Anonymous Customer Review (many people are afraid to address Byrd publicly since her followers punish people with slander, doxing, and cancelling)

“As one who holds to the complementarian position, I did not find the book particularly helpful or insightful.
The critique that there should not be separate bibles for men and women was odd. Men and women use the same bible. Just because a publisher decides that it would be nice to supplement a particular bible translation with devotions for men or women is not the same thing as saying that those men and women have different bibles.

What is more troubling though was the exercise throughout the book of ‘finding the woman’s voice’ in scripture. The Word of God is primarily and preeminently God’s voice: ‘for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will’; and the Word of God was delivered by men, ‘men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God’ 2 Peter 1:21.
The notion that we need to find ‘women’s voices’ in Scripture is deceptive and contrary to the doctrine of divine plenary inspiration.

Indeed, there are women quoted in the Bible and whom we acknowledge and value. Some, such as Deborah and Huldah, were even identified as prophets (or prophetesses). But unlike Aimee’s description, they were neither authors of the Scriptures, nor functioned as authenticators of the Scripture. Throughout the book, Aimee uses terms like ‘gynocentric interruption’ to describe narrative discourse that features women in the midst of the ‘androcentric’ text. She characterizes the women portrayed in scripture as ‘tradents’ of the faith, without regard to the technical use of the term. Another claim is that women actively participated in the role of canonical selection which contradicts the nature of how the church received the canon of scripture.

Furthermore, a large portion of the book puts forth the egalitarian arguments for passages of scripture that specifically relate to the ways in which women participated in the covenant community, both in the old and new testaments. In so doing, she overstates her case. Do we need to continue to grow in how we value and see how God used women in the scriptures? Absolutely! Do we need to invent or borrow categories from those who have taken unacceptable positions on the nature of God’s Word? Absolutely not. The book puts forth exegesis of New Testamant passages used by egalitarian scholars who argue for women’s ordination and equal access to the pastoral/ priestly offices with men. While Aimee stops short of affirming female ordination, the exegesis by egalitarians is copiously used throughout without any practical engagement with traditional scholarship of the passages under review. Finally, the book neglects any engagement with 1 Timothy 2:12-15 or Titus 2, which was disappointing considering the nature of the topic. If Aimee wants women (and men) to ‘recover from’ their biblical understanding of womanhood and manhood, those passages seem important to the endeavor.

I cannot recommend this book to other readers, except for those who are equipped to understand the many serious errors within and to understand the ways readers will be misled. The idea that the church needs to value women more is important. This is not the answer because it swings the pendulum over to the other side and invites as many issues and errors as it attempts to dispel.”

Originally: https://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-reviews/R2SFCXXNCXEHC4/ref=cm_cr_arp_d_rvw_ttl?ie=UTF8&ASIN=B07TF3TC2J

“I would now turn to plainly warn the reader against the errors that render this work ultimately a threat to the sound doctrine and practice of Christ’s flock. In so doing, it is my aim not to mock nor ridicule, but rather to labor to recover those who are being drawn towards error.”

“A Review of Recovering From Biblical Manhood & Womanhood (Part 1)” by Pastor Bryan Peters

https://westportexperiment.files.wordpress.com/2020/06/rfbmwreviewpart1.pdf ‬

“In conclusion, while Byrd does have a few legitimate grievances over some practices in the wider church, her book is soaked through with an unbiblical hermeneutic and unbiblical interpretations of the biblical texts. Her hermeneutic is subjectivist in nature, contrary to the Reformed objectivist hermeneutic. She is less than honest about her opponents, constantly misrepresenting them and doubling down on her misrepresentations when confronted about it. Her interpretations of difficult texts are contrary to what the texts actually teach, and no amount of hand-waving against “biblicism” is going to save her from that. Byrd’s book therefore is contrary to sound theology, and undermines the Reformed Confessions. While she claims to be Reformed, her hermeneutics is not Reformed. The way she does theology is not the Reformed manner of doing theology, and this book is not recommended for anyone wanting to know about biblical manhood or womanhood, or even what the Reformed tradition’s view on women in the church is and should be.”

“Review of Recovering from Biblical Manhood and Womanhood by Aimee Byrd”

http://puritanreformed.blogspot.com/2020/09/book-review-recovering-from-biblical.html

The PCA And Liberalism: A Warning From Our History / July 4, 2019 by Shane D. Anderson

(The following is a post, reproduced here in its entirety, by Lacy Andrews, Regional Home Missionary for the Presbytery of the Southeast of the Orthodox Presbyterian church.)

I rarely get involved in theological discussions online, but I believe it’s important that I express a concern over developments in the PCA and especially the latest GA. Sorry for the length of this post. For those who don’t know me, I’m a minister in the OPC. This concern has grown as I’ve read different responses to what was unfolding at the GA. Some expressed alarm, but then settled down after seeing many positive signs at the assembly. I’ve even read posts of repentance for statements made rashly.

One thing I’ve not seen anywhere in the posts that I’ve read is any real reflection of church history regarding watershed General Assemblies in Presbyterian denominations. I took note of some of the strategies employed by conservatives in the PCA, and though I sympathized greatly with what they did and rejoiced in things said, I wondered if they were repeating a conservative error that has plagued the church in the face of rising progressivism in the past.

The 1923 and 1924 General Assemblies of the PCUSA were watershed GAs in the battle between conservatives and progressives (then often called fundamentalists and modernists). The thing we need to note is that conservatives left both of those assemblies greatly encouraged, believing that their show of power had reclaimed the church. After an initial loss (the election of the moderate, Charles Wishart as moderator over the fundamentalist William Jennings Bryan) in 1923, the conservatives believed they’d won the day on virtually every issue to come before the assembly. First, the assembly sided with the conservatives regarding the preaching of Harry Emerson Fosdick, and second, the assembly voted to require all officers to affirm the Five Fundamentals. Though conservatives rejoiced, they failed to realize that neither action had any teeth. Subsequent to the assembly, the Presbytery of New York essentially ignored the directive of the GA regarding Dr. Fosdick. Also, the modernists convened a meeting to strategize how to respond to the conservative “wins” at the GA that concluded with the writing and signing of the Auburn Affirmation. Sadly, those who signed the Auburn Affirmation understood the constitution of the PCUSA better than the conservatives who were trying to defend it. By adopting the Five Fundamentals the conservatives added extra-confessional requirements for ordination. Though the Five Fundamentals spoke directly to the issue at hand, they provided an open door for the progressives to cry “foul.”

All of this came to a head at the 1924 GA. The conservatives struck first and elected Clarence E Macartney as moderator, who appointed Maitland Alexander as chairman of the Bills and Overtures Committee. William Jennings Bryan also served on the committee creating a false-sense of security for the conservatives at the GA. An overture came to the GA from the Presbytery of Cincinnati putting the matter of the Auburn Affirmation before the GA. Though the dynamics on the Bills and Overture Committee were complex (with a liberal majority of 13 to 9), in the end, no action was taken on the overture as it was placed on the table. There were no dissenting votes recorded to placing it on the table, and it’s been noted by OPC historian, Danny Olinger, that J. Gresham Machen was a commissioner and even he didn’t record a negative vote. The result was that nothing of consequence happened to those who signed the Auburn Affirmation. The conservatives had given them a foot-hold by essentially adding extra-confessional requirements for ordination, which enabled the signers of the affirmation to get away with the egregious aspects of the affirmation which affirmed the Five Fundamentals as truths, but as truths open to various broad interpretations. In the end there was no discipline. The conservatives, by focusing upon the Five Fundamentals instead of the Standards of the Church, made it almost impossible to bring charges against those whose doctrine was contradicted by the Standards. This error of exposing modernism in the church, but not bringing charges against those espousing false-doctrine would continue over the next few years. Interestingly, while conservatives celebrated saving their church after the 1923 and 1924 assemblies, it was only 12 years later that the leading conservative in the PCUSA, J. Gresham Machen was deposed as a minister by that same church. The fall happened rapidly, a conservative majority was caught off guard, the church was lost. I’m not making any predictions about the PCA, only reminding you of history. I understand the sentiment of bringing the Nashville Statement before the Assembly. It is a Biblical Statement, but I’m concerned the battle wasn’t fought by bringing the Westminster Standards to bear, instead of using an extra-confessional statement established by a para-church organization.

In the early 2000s, conservatives (moderates to most of us) in the PC(USA) repeated the same error as the conservatives did in the 1923/1924 General Assemblies. Of course, the confessionalism of the PC(USA) was already eviscerated by the adopting of a contradictory Book of Confessions and watered-down ordination vows, yet still, the same method was used with the establishment of the Confessing Movement. This time, the conservatives selected three Fundamentals instead of five: (1). Salvation only in Jesus Christ, (2) The authority of the Bible for Faith and Life, and (3) sexual fidelity in monogamous hetero-sexual marriage. I had a conversation with a PC(USA) conservative at that time who was excited about the Confessing Movement and reminded him of what had happened in 1923/1924. I also pointed out that the PC(USA) had already abandoned any semblance to confessionalism and pled with him to leave the church. He was sure that the conservatives had turned the tide and were going to win the day. Alas, see what’s happened to the PC(USA). Interestingly, those who opposed the Confessing Movement in the PC(USA) developed their own Auburn Affirmation. Again the progressives understood their history better than the conservatives.

This is a plea for my conservative brothers in the PCA to remember our history and to take note of previous mistakes.

The Orthodox Presbyterian Church: Against Racism / April 30, 2019 by Shane D. Anderson

In 1974 the Orthodox Presbyterian Church (OPC) received the report of its Committee On Problems Of Race.

This report, the Bible (which is the OPC’s official primary standard), and the Westminster Confessions and Catechisms (the OPC’s secondary standards) all reject the sins commonly referred to under the term “racism.” Additionally, both the good news of Christ which is for all people and nations and the law of God, given in creation and again summarized plainly in the Ten Commandments, call all Christians to love our neighbors as we love ourselves and to live in such a way that the world can vividly see the love of Christ by the way we treat people.

Studying the people, doctrines, and practices of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, one will see that the overarching question for this small communion of Christians has been, by God’s grace, “how can we be faithful to God according to His Word and so bring Christ glory?” This impulse fueled the work of the 1974 Committee On Problems Of Race, and the General Assembly’s concern that the churches live out this mission of faithfulness in matters of race relations:

Although there are marked distinctions and even divisions among men, including those of race, mankind, according to the teaching of the Bible, has a single origin. Later distinctions and divisions are indeed significant and may not simply be pushed aside; nevertheless, the Bible clearly teaches that the gospel is universal in its offer and its call. All those who are in Christ are united together with Him as their Head in a new humanity, in which the distinctions and divisions that otherwise separate men are transcended in a new unity. This is also true of the divisions occasioned by race. True, the distinctions mentioned in the Bible as having been overcome in Christ are not primarily those of race, nor does the Bible think along lines that correspond with the distinctions of race as we understand them today; nevertheless, racial distinctions and divisions as we know and understand them today certainly fall under those things that have been transcended in Christ. How, then, is the new unity in Christ to be expressed in the communion of the saints today as it bears on the question of race?

In a world marked by violence, bigotries, self-centeredness, injustice, anger, and all manner of sins surrounding matters of race, the Bible presents an ethic of love for God and neighbor according to his law. This law has never been followed perfectly in Christ’s church, and it sometimes has been directly contradicted by what Christians (including Presbyterians) have taught or done. But, let it be clear to the fair observer, the Orthodox Presbyterian church is no refuge for those who want racial strife, but it has been a refuge for those who want to live lives pleasing to God and good for our neighbors.

Also See: Mark Robinson’s article in the OPC New Horizons magazine “Four Theses for Reforming Race Relationships”

“A Public Statement on the Shooting at the Chabad Synagogue” by the Orthodox Presbyterian Church

Training Your Children in the Covenant / March 26, 2019 by Jacob Morse

Proverbs 22:6 “Train up a child in the way he should go; even when he is old he will not depart from it.

If you are a parent, you know that kids are observant. Kids know the schedules and the daily routines, even if they don’t always want to follow them. They notice when other kids have new shoes or the newest phone. They probably even know where you hide your secret stash of chocolate chip cookies!

Observation plays a big part in the development of children. Often what they regularly observe translates into actions and behaviors down the road; child sees, child does. Consequently, who do children watch more than anyone else? Their parents.

Teachers, coaches, friends, and classmates can all have a major impact on a child and their development, but it is the parents who most influence their young ones. A parent’s words and actions have a significant effect on their kids, and it is their example that most resonates in the mind of the child.

Proverbs 22:6 teaches that we are to train our children to follow the way of the Lord so that they will not depart from the Way later in life. However, this task is not taken seriously in many Christian homes today. For many, their training is nothing more than giving their children a picture Bible and praying before eating dinner. These parents have no problem spending hours teaching the proper baseball pitching mechanics or helping their child memorize their speaking lines for the school play, but when it comes to teaching their children the things of the Lord, there is a sense of apathy.

Parents, please understand this: if you are apathic in the manner in which you serve God, do not be surprised when your children reciprocate.

We must teach our children how to live according to the will of God. We must teach them the laws and statutes that are given in His Word. We must teach them what it means to profess that Jesus is Lord and how every facet of our lives must reflect that allegiance to the King. Teach them when they are young, and teach them these things often.

We must teach them these things and then, just as importantly, we must demonstrate what they look like. The way in which we live is just as important as the words that we teach them. The expression, “practice what you preach” is especially true in parenthood. Reading Scripture to your children every night will hold no real value if your own actions do not match what you are reading.

If you tell your children that they are not allowed to watch certain movies, then you must not be watching vulgar television shows every week. Send your children to Sunday school, but then go to the adult Sunday school class yourself, instead of drinking coffee in the foyer. Make prayer and devotion an intricate part of the day and not just an activity that is easily dropped.

Deuteronomy 6 and 11 exhort that we are to lay God’s words on our hearts and souls, that we are to bind them as a sign on our hands and before our eyes. But it also tells us to teach them to our children when we are at home and while we are on the road, from the moment we rise to the time when we lie down.

Your children are watching. Are they seeing what it looks like to be a follower of Christ?

About the author: Jacob is the youth director at Knox Presbyterian Church (PCA) in Harrison Twp., MI. He graduated from Kuyper College with a degree in Bible and Theology and is currently enrolled in Reformed Theological Seminary’s Distance M.Div. program. He and his wife are expecting twins in September.

The Fall Was Not A New Creation: Bavinck On Nature, Sex, And Socialism / February 23, 2019 by Guest User

“In all these issues Reformed theology was able to make such sound judgments because it was deeply imbued with the idea that Adam did not yet enjoy the highest level of blessedness. Sin undoubtedly has cosmic significance. As is evident from the phenomenon of death, sin also impacts our physical existence and has brought the entire earth under the curse. Without sin the development of humanity and the history of the earth would have been very different—though still unimaginable. Still, on the other hand, the state of integrity cannot be equated with the state of glory. We may not draw conclusions from the former for the conditions of the latter. Isaiah 11:6 and 65:25 can no more be applied to the state of human life before the fall than Mark 12:25; Luke 20:36; and 1 Corinthians 6:13 (etc.). Though the form (forma) has changed, the matter (materia) of humankind, plant, animal, nature, and earth is the same before and after the fall. All the essential components existing today were present also before the fall. The distinctions and dissimilarities between men and women, parents and children, brothers and sisters, relatives and friends; the numerous institutions and relations in the life of society such as marriage, family, child rearing, and so forth; the alternation of day and night, workdays and the day of rest, labor and leisure, months and years; man’s dominion over the earth through science and art, and so forth—while all these things have undoubtedly been modified by sin and changed in appearance, they nevertheless have their active principle and foundation in creation, in the ordinances of God, and not in sin. Socialism and communism, also the socialism and communism of many Christian sects, are right in combating the appalling consequences of sin, especially also in the sphere of society. But these systems do not stop there; they also come into conflict with the nature of things, the creation ordinances, and therefore consistently take on, not a reformational, but a revolutionary character.”

From Reformed Dogmatics, Vol 2. ch. 13 on Human Destiny

Godliness Evidenced When Against The Stream: Richard Baxter / January 19, 2019 by Shane D. Anderson

I know law, and custom, and education, and friends, when they side with godliness, are a great advantage to it, by affording helps, and removing those impediments that might stick much with carnal minds. But truth is not your own, till it be received in its proper evidence; nor your faith divine, till you believe what you believe, because God is true who doth reveal it; nor are you the children of God, till you love him for himself; nor are you truly religious, till the truth and goodness of religion itself be the principal thing that maketh you religious. It helpeth much to discover a man's sincerity, when he is not only religious among the religious, but among the profane, and the enemies, and scorners, and persecutors of religion: and when a man doth not pray only in a praying family, but among the prayerless, and the deriders of fervent constant prayer: and when a man is heavenly among them that are earthly, and temperate among the intemperate and riotous, and holdeth the truth among those that reproach it and that hold the contrary: when a man is not carried only by a stream of company, or outward advantages, to his religion, nor avoideth sin for want of a temptation, but is religious though against the stream, and innocent when cast (unwillingly) upon temptations; and is godly where godliness is accounted singularity, hypocrisy, faction, humour, disobedience, or heresy; and will rather let go the reputation of his honesty, than his honesty itself.

From Richard Baxter’s “Christian Directory” http://a.co/0rbSMSd

It’s Easier To Get New Religion Than To Get A New Heart: A Warning From Baxter / January 6, 2019 by Shane D. Anderson

“Either a religion made up of loose opinions, like the familists, ranters, libertines, and antinomians, and the Jesuits too much; or else made up of trifling formalities, and a great deal of bodily exercise, and stage actions, and compliments, as much of the popish devotion is: and a little will draw a carnal heart to believe a carnal doctrine. It is easier to get such a new religion, than a new heart. And then the devil tells them that now they are in the right way, and therefore they shall be saved. A great part of the world think their case is good, because they are of such or such a sect or party...”

If you’ve engaged in social media for long, you surely have seen at least some religious conversions and de-conversions. The modern context puts everything on display, making observations of human tendencies as easy as a click away. Even for the well-grounded Christian, it can be disconcerting to see someone falling into various doctrinal and practical sins. Or, it can be disappointing to see people stay in unbiblical churches, opinions, and practices when you hoped better for them. Particularly troubling is when someone seemed to know and love Christ and his Word, but later falls to a sect with a false gospel, false worship, false piety.

Sometimes the problem is less severe, at least outwardly. In our context, there are so many religious options that a person can simply find whatever degree of soundness they can tolerate and settle there, until they again are strongly challenged (by the Word or Providence) in the particulars of their own life before God. Then they simply move on again to somewhere that feels easier to the flesh.

In this quotation from Baxter’s Christian Directory he warns of two kinds of sects that appeal to this sort: on one side are those that are of “loose opinions” (what I call “free range”) and on the other side are those that excel in man-made religious activities (exotic liturgies, false worship, special works or missions, and extras of all sorts.) So then, as you see if you are observant and wise, times have not changed! These great Scylla and Charybdis still wreck many souls. As Baxter says, “It is easier to get such a new religion, than a new heart.”

10 Godly Expectations For Husbands & Fathers / January 1, 2019 by Shane D. Anderson

At the start of a new year, it is a seasonable time to re-evaluate ourselves in our calling as husbands and fathers. In light of this opportunity, Pastor Uriesou Brito of Providence Church CREC of Pensacola, Florida offers “Ten Straightforward Godly Expectations for Husbands/Fathers in 2019.” He’s graciously allowed them to be shared here:

It doesn't matter how many times I say it, it needs to be repeated until it pierces the Christian masculine soul: Under normal circumstances, church is not optional. It is God's fourth commandment requirement of you. Men, if you allow your wife or other circumstances dictate your faithfulness to worship God with his people, you are weak and need to be rebuked.
Your children (to borrow Peterson's language) will grow to be annoying to you if you do not invest in them now. Love. Care. Spend time. Read. Play. Hug. Kiss. Instruct. You won't be annoyed with your future children when you invest in the present.
Don't just "date night your wife," but kiss her, love her, write to her, romance her, cook for her, and make her job at home as easy as possible by making yourself useful. If you don't know what that looks like, ask her. She will tell you.
Family devotions are either too boring or non-existent in the home. Secret: make them short and participatory. Men, most of you are not pastors and don't play one on TV. Don't play preacher to your kids. They will resent you.
Read. If you don't read at least 3-5 books in a year, you're a poor leader in the home. "But I don't like to read!" Then get yourself an audible subscription and have at it.
Pray like a man. "But I don't have a habit of praying for me or my family." Then get a copy of the "Valley of Vision" or Evelyn Underhill's "Prayer Book" on amazon. And read those and learn how to pray by reading people's prayers.
Serve your church. "But I work odd hours and only have a few hours to spend with my family on the weekends." That's irrelevant. If your church has set-up to do, or if they have widows and shut-ins in need, or a host of things, there will always be time for service. And if you are concerned about not spending enough time with your kids, take them with you to serve. I guarantee you your family time in service will be doubly as profitable as just about anything you can do together.
Sing God's songs together. "But I can't sing." Ever heard of youtube? Contemporary, psalms, hymns or whatever, it's all there. No more excuses, gents. Gather around dinner with a few printouts and sing something.
Get together with other men. "But my wife says I am not allowed to go out at nights with my friends." Tell her it will make you a better husband if you spend time with other godly saints. Don't isolate your masculinity. On the other hand, if you don't extend the favor to your wife, you're an idiot that needs gentle but a firm rebuke.
Watch good movies together. Quit isolating your styles from others in the household. A little here and there is okay, but when you have adult kids watching one thing, you watching something else and your spouse watching something else frequently, you have isolated the family from an exercise that may build healthy bonds and provide a forum for interesting conversations.

Men, don't waste your leadership!

They Live On Earth But Their Citizenship Is In Heaven: The Epistle to Diognetus / December 29, 2018 by Shane D. Anderson

The Epistle to Diognetus is an early, apologetically oriented, Christian writing (c. 150-250 AD). It survived into the modern era by only one manuscript that eventually was destroyed in the Franco-Prussian War. You can find the text online in many places, one of which is here: http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/diognetus-roberts.html

The letter feels quite familiar to modern Christians and contains some beautifully written sections. This one describes the place of the Christian Church in the world:

For the Christians are distinguished from other men neither by country, nor language, nor the customs which they observe. For they neither inhabit cities of their own, nor employ a peculiar form of speech, nor lead a life which is marked out by any singularity. The course of conduct which they follow has not been devised by any speculation or deliberation of inquisitive men; nor do they, like some, proclaim themselves the advocates of any merely human doctrines. But, inhabiting Greek as well as barbarian cities, according as the lot of each of them has determined, and following the customs of the natives in respect to clothing, food, and the rest of their ordinary conduct, they display to us their wonderful and confessedly striking method of life. They dwell in their own countries, but simply as sojourners. As citizens, they share in all things with others, and yet endure all things as if foreigners. Every foreign land is to them as their native country, and every land of their birth as a land of strangers. They marry, as do all [others]; they beget children; but they do not destroy their offspring. They have a common table, but not a common bed. They are in the flesh, but they do not live after the flesh. They pass their days on earth, but they are citizens of heaven. They obey the prescribed laws, and at the same time surpass the laws by their lives. They love all men, and are persecuted by all. They are unknown and condemned; they are put to death, and restored to life. They are poor, yet make many rich; they are in lack of all things, and yet abound in all; they are dishonoured, and yet in their very dishonour are glorified. They are evil spoken of, and yet are justified; they are reviled, and bless; they are insulted, and repay the insult with honour; they do good, yet are punished as evil-doers. When punished, they rejoice as if quickened into life; they are assailed by the Jews as foreigners, and are persecuted by the Greeks; yet those who hate them are unable to assign any reason for their hatred.

Always In Christ Alone: Baxter On Sanctification / December 26, 2018 by Shane D. Anderson

I am continuing slowly through Richard Baxter’s monumental Directory and am sharing various ideas and quotations I have found particularly encouraging. Immediately preceding this quotation, he has been challenging the person who wants to please God to rid himself of any thought of self-merit or deserved acceptance before God in anything but Jesus Christ. Conversion and the beginnings of new life are only in and by Christ, but so it the way of sanctification and ultimate victory:

Alas! without Christ,

we know not how to live an hour;

nor can have hope or peace in any thing we have or do;

nor look with comfort either upward or downward, to God, or the creature;

nor think without terrors of our sins, of God, or of the life to come.

Resolve, therefore, that as true converts,

you are wholly to live upon Jesus Christ,

and to do all that you do by his Spirit and strength;

and to expect all your acceptance with God upon his account.

Remember When Driscoll Plagiarized? An Appeal For An Explanation: Derek Thomas, P&R, and Plagiarism: Part 3 / December 14, 2018 by Shane D. Anderson

Back in 2013 Reformed social media went nuts over Mark Driscoll’s plagiarism.

Mortification of Spin even did a show about celebrity preachers and plagiarism and how it evidenced a deep flaw in the YRR movement.

Yet, even though several thousand [edited] unique visitors to thedailygenvan.com have read about P&R’s public, yet ambiguous, announcement of plagiarism in Derek Thomas’ Acts Commentary, I see no open concern or discussion about the importance of integrity in our Reformed circles in light of this. His book was nominated for awards and paraded as a great achievement on the Alliance of Confessing Evangelical blog. But now even after P&R’s announcement it is still being sold at various Reformed online bookstores....

Instead of a concern that we clean up our own act regarding plagiarism, I’ve seen 1. Efforts by ministers and elders to identify “the source” who first reported the plagiarism to P&R. 2. Efforts to get me to take down the public call for an explanation. 3. Accusations of me not loving Christ, the church, and good polity because public actions by a public figure and a public publishing house are being discussed publicly. 4. A virtual emotional meltdown over my decision to post the “appeal for an explanation” anonymously—-yet, why? So the good ole boys can hunt down the unloyal and punish?

I understand the emotional sorrow over these realities among those who are close to Thomas or have particularly benefited from his ministry. Yet, frankly, that is irrelevant to the matter at hand, and potentially adds weight to the need for a more reasonable public explanation and plan for future accountability at P&R than, say, bad note taking, whoops.

So here’s a question to ponder: could it possibly be that Reformed folks are just as big of sinners as non-Reformed folks and need accountability? Could it be that celebrity and the gospel-industrial-complex aren’t just a problem out there with those other guys?

So, are we allowed to pick apart people we don’t like but not allowed to criticize our own friends? That’s unhealthy, and worse ungodly, and in fact the reverse should be true. We should hold ourselves to higher standards.

On their Alliance podcast in 2013, Carl Truman, Aimee Byrd, and Todd Pruitt discuss plagiarism the lack of ethics and accountability in the YRR movement.

On his Alliance blog, Todd Pruitt in 2013 lamenting celebrity culture and how it promotes plagiarism.

The Aquila Report In 2012: https://www.theaquilareport.com/derek-thomas-commentary-on-acts-finalist-for-prestigious-christian-book-award/

An Appeal For An Explanation: Derek Thomas, P&R, and Plagiarism: Part 2: Some Examples / December 13, 2018 by Anonymous

P&R has announced publicly that Derek Thomas’ commentary on Acts, a once celebrated achievement, contains what it calls “unattributed content from sermons by another pastor.” The publisher explains that “it appears that the lack of attribution resulted from unclear note-taking more than a decade before the commentary on Acts was written, and we believe it does not reflect intentional misuse on the part of the author.” Nevertheless a simple examination of portions of the text against the sermon does not seem consistent with the explanation of “unclear note-taking” and a mere “lack of attribution.” This basic concern was discussed here.

Sidenote: Check out this article by Mary Demuth also where she discusses how serious and pervasive plagiarism is among Christian publishers.

Since You Asked: The reason these articles are anonymous here is that even though the charges are merely factual in nature, there is a habit in the big reformed world of attacking people who raise such questions. As to an objection from Matthew 18 that this should be handled one-on-one in private, the behavior is not personal or private, and P&R has already made a public announcement of it. Also, charitable speculations about how this could have occurred are right and reasonable. One reason this was posted is to give an opportunity to the author and publisher to come clean about the process. It’s obvious that this is a widespread problem in Christian publishing and that the pressures on men (and women these days) with large platforms to produce materials are immense. So, my prayer is that we will straighten up what is crooked when it comes to plagiarism in our circles.

The Original Sermon: http://tapesfromscotland.org/Audio3/3603.mp3

The entire section of the sermon by Sinclair Ferguson (from minutes 04:55 – 12:21) appear almost word or word (including a parallel of development of ideas and flow of thought) on pages 378-380 in Derek’s Thomas’ commentary on Acts. I pick it up again at minutes 14:39 and transcribe it to minutes 18:55. This section of Ferguson’s sermon also appears almost word for word in Thomas’ commentary – definitely the ideas in the sermon reflect unmistakably in pages 380-382.

The most charitable assessment I can give is that the difference between Ferguson’s sermon and Thomas’s commentary is the difference between the NAS and ESV – same message just slightly varied and in many places not even. If we put this in Bible translation terms, Thomas’ commentary is better than dynamic equivalence i.e. more word for word (literal).

I’ve made the comparisons by putting extracts from Ferguson’s sermon next to Thomas’ commentary. I’ve only referenced the page numbers for Thomas’ commentary. Ferguson’s sermon extracts are basically the continuation of the section starting at 04:55 and ends at 12:21.

COMPARISON OF SINCLAIR FERGUSON’S SERMON AND DEREK THOMAS’ COMMENTARY

SINCLAIR FERGUSON: “The Acts of the Apostles which we are studying together on Sunday mornings was of course inspired by God for you and for me but it was not written either to you or to me. It was written to an isolated and unknown individual called Theophilus.”

DEREK THOMAS: “The book of Acts was written for someone else, an unknown individual called Theophilus but it was inspired by God for us.” (pg. 378)

SINCLAIR FERGUSON: “And it was written for Theophilus probably to help him understand that in God’s purposes for His people two things always go hand in hand. Number one, that God is keeping the promise that Jesus made, that the gospel would extend to the ends of the earth and to the end of the ages.”

DEREK THOMAS: “It was written to enable us to understand that in God’s purpose two things always go hand in hand: first, God is keeping Jesus’ promise that the gospel is to reach the nations of the world” (pg. 378)

SINCLAIR FERGUSON: “In the opening verses of Acts chapter 1, Jesus tells the little band of disciples that they are to be His witnesses in Jerusalem, in Judea, in Samaria and ultimately to the ends of the earth.”

DEREK THOMAS: “Jesus tells the disciples after the resurrection that they will be his witnesses in Jerusalem, in all Judea and Samaria, and ultimately, to the end of the earth (Acts 1:8)” (pg. 378)

SINCLAIR FERGUSON: And the Acts of the Apostles which begins with that statement ends with the Apostle Paul at the center of the earth in those days, the great capital city of the Roman Empire, Rome itself.And the last words of the Acts of the Apostle as we’ve sometime noticed are:“without hindrance”. He was preaching the gospel “without hindrance”. And between these two bookends, Luke is telling his friend Theophilus the story of the triumph of the gospel to the ends of the earth and to the center of the Empire.

DEREK THOMAS: We have seen how Luke wrote the book of Acts with this verse in mind, noting as each boundary was crossed the significance of the advance. The book of Actscomes to a close with the apostle Paul in Rome, at the capital of the empire, noting that he was preaching the gospel “without hindrance” (Acts 28:31). Between these two bookends, Luke is telling his friend Theophilus the way in which the gospel has made it to the very heart of the Roman Empire. (pg. 378)

SINCLAIR FERGUSON: But the other thing that we have notice inevitably that is woven into that story of the triumph of the gospel is the story of the trials of the Apostles which lie behind and are so often God’s way of moving forward the triumph of the gospel. As for Christ no cross no crown; so for the victory of the Christian church no cross, no crown.

DEREK THOMAS: In the second place, Luke is also telling the story of the trails of the apostles that lie behind the greater story of the advance of the kingdom of God, He wants us to see that the gospel moved forward through the trials and persecution of the apostles. As it was true for Christ – “no cross, no crown – so also it true for his disciples(pg. 378-379)

SINCLAIR FERGUSON: And perhaps it’s partly because of that, no cross no crown – no crown without a cross that the early disciples, faithful as they were, were so slow to bring the gospel to the ends of the age. And we noted up until the beginning of chapter 13 it’s almost as if though God (has to) to keep nudging them because they have been so reluctant to do anything.

DEREK THOMAS: The victory of the Christian church is achieved through similar trials experienced by the Lord of the church himself. This may well explain why it is that on so many occasions God has to nudge the church forward, driving it to see the need for mission expansion, perhaps because it knew all too well that suffering awaited in almostevery city.(pg. 379)

SINCLAIR FERGUSON: It’s only at the beginning of chapter 13 that we’ve seen the church moving from needing persecution or revelation to being willing to accept the God given mission of Jesus Christ to take the gospel not only the Jews but also to the Gentiles. And God has given this little church in Antioch this tremendous burden by the Holy Spirit so that they have now sent out two of their leading figures on whom they have depend so much, Barnabas and Paul, himself, with a very clear strategy.

DEREK THOMAS: Only at the beginning of chapter 13 have we seen something of the church’s willingness to accept its God-given mission to be a witness for Jesus in the entire world. The church in Syrian Antioch sent two of its best to do this work with a very clear mission. (pg. 379)

SINCLAIR FERGUSON: “They weren’t simply going wherever the sea would take them or the wind would blow them. They had a very clear fixed strategy. And chapter 14 verse 26 speaks about the way they have been committed to the grace of God for the work they have now completed. And this strategy was that these men would make a round trip of somewhere in the region of a 1000 miles through Barnabas’ native area and then through the Apostle Paul’s native area in order to bring to gospel to the Gentiles as well as to the Jews. And this 14th chapter tells us how they moved, first of all through Crete and then across to the mainline, gone up, northwards, to Antioch and now they are moving ever so generally in an easterly direction. Through the cities of Iconium and Lystra and Derby, through the very edge of Asia Minor. And then they will return at the end of the chapter and report to God’s people at Antioch of what God has done.”

DEREK THOMAS: “They didn’t simply go wherever they felt like going. When they arrived back in the church from which they had been sent, they reported on having “fulfilled” the task appointed them (Acts 14:26).They had made a round trip of approximately a thousand miles, through the native areas of both Barnabas (Cyprus) and Paul (the region near Tarsus). In doing so Barnabas and Paul were setting the agenda for the church in every age…” (pg. 379)

SINCLAIR: FERGUSON: “And you will notice how Luke adds, the style of their preaching, Again in verse 3 they spent a considerable time there speaking boldly for the Lord…”

DEREK THOMAS: “Luke summarized what happened in Iconium using two ideas: Paul and Barnabas proclaimed the word of God, “speaking boldly for the Lord” (Acts 14:3)…”(pg. 379)

SINCLAIR FERGUSON: “And they preach the same message they have preached everywhere, what Luke here describes as the message of God’s grace. In verse 3 they spend a considerable time speaking and God confirmed the message of His grace. They spoke of a gospel that was free, a gospel that required no qualification. To people who were used to thinking in terms of qualifying for the grace of God. They said sinners cannot qualify for the grace of God they can only depend on God’s grace as a free gift.”

DEREK THOMAS: “How does Luke summarize it? It is “the word of his grace” (Acts 14:3). It was a gospel that was essentially free from the idea and burden of merit: “For by works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight, since thorough the law comes knowledge of sin” (Rom. 3:20). The gospel requires no prior qualifications on our part. Paul and Barnabas spoke to people who has become used to thinking in terms of qualifying got the blessings of God.” (pg. 380)

SINCLAIR FERGUSON: “Again in verse 3 they spent a considerable time there speaking boldly for the Lord, that’s a word that literally means “all speech”. And it is used frequently in the New Testament to designate what happens when God’s Holy Spirit fills the person who is speaking the word of God either privately or publically. There is such a sense of God’s grace and power as they speak that they are able to speak boldly for the Lord Jesus Christ.”

DEREK THOMAS: “Finally, notice the manner of their proclamation. They spoke “boldly” for the Lord (Acts 14:3). The word translated “boldly” (Gk. parresiazesthai) literally means “all speech”. It is used in the New Testament to describe the way in which the Holy Spirit fills the person who is speaking the word of God either privately or publically. There is such a sense of God’s power when they speak. There is boldness and urgency. (pg. 381)

SINCLAIR FERGUSON: [14:39] You see here the word of God had been spoken about the grace of God to these people, the fulfillment of God’s promises in the Old Testament to these people and in addition to the truth of his Word God had confirmed the truth of the gospel by these miracles, these signs that the gospel was true. There was all the evidence mortal man would need to believe in Jesus Christ but they refused to believe to believe in Jesus Christ. It wasn’t that they didn’t make the connection, it wasn’t that that gospel was too difficult to understand. It was that their hearts were hardened and nothing would change them. [15;26]

DEREK THOMAS: Despite the word of grace and the confirmation of the truth by miraculous sigs they refused to believe. Their hearts were hardened, and nothing would change them. It did not matter how true it was, or how clear it was; they refused to believe.(page 382)

SINCLAIR FERGUSON: [15:55] And so those who have hardened their hearts against the gospel – then do you notice stir up. In a union with others they stir up the people against the apostles. In a very strange union that you see appearing again and again in the Acts of the Apostles. Verse 5 there was a plot, a foot, among the Gentiles and Jews. These people were neither on eating terms or speaking terms. But they were joined powerfully by this hostility to the Lord Jesus Christ. Strange alliances against the word of God and the gospel of Christ are always the work of Satan [end 16:42]

SINCLAIR FERGUSON: [16;55] And those with hardened hearts who will not be alone in their heart-hardness now are not content with that but of course want to poison the mind of those who have begun to be drawn to the gospel.[17:09]. And like something out of Hamlet, the way in which to poison the minds of people, is to pour the poison into the ear. And they begin their little whispering and campaign, just a little drop does it. You don’t actually need to say something that’s false about the apostles. You just need to give the little hints and the result is that the plot succeeds. And the gates of hell, while they do not prevail, make it necessary for the apostle to move on.

DEREK THOMAS:Jews and Gentiles did not speak or eat with each other, and yet they formed an alliance of opposition against the gospel of Jesus Christ. Strange alliances of this kind against the work of God are always the work of Satan. Those with hardened hearts begin to poison the minds of those who have begun to be drawn to the work of God. The enemies of the gospel begin to pour poison into the ears of those how show any interest in what the apostles are saying. Just a word will suffice, discrediting the apostles, attributing, perhaps, a false motive to their message. Whatever it was collective animosity was raised against the apostles forcing them to move on. (pg. 382)

Derek Thomas does not explicitly state in the text of his commentary (as far as I can see) his reasoning for the section titles e.g. “Proclamation and Poisoning”. However, it comes directly from Sinclair Ferguson’s sermon. Ferguson remarks in his sermon at 10:10

“Now all the details of God’s work in Acts chapter 14, I think can be summed up in three pairs of words. The first pair is this – that as they visited Iconium at the beginning of the chapter their visit was marked by proclamation and poisoning - proclamation and poisoning.”