My Journal

So GCC began delving into this report as a Sunday School topic, for a few weeks. It is a report formulated and presented in the 48th General Assembly of PCA. The report was done by 7 prominent figures of which Tim Keller & Kevin DeYoung were part of. Keller and DeYoung discussion were also presented in the report: https://livestream.com/accounts/8521918/events/9731338/videos/223474749

12 Statements in the report and we've done up to 6th Statement as of now. This report is basically on the conservative side and deals primarily against the problem heated by the Revoice Conference that was not of PCA but hosted by a PCA church. Concupiscence is touched on as well, announcing Roman Catholics' support of it, rebuked. People linked to Revoice and also Tim Keller is Scott Sauls, who appears to be struggling back and forth while still act as if Tim Keller is still his mentor. It's hard for him to fix his own objection to the Nashville Statements' 7th Article: We Deny that adopting a homosexual or transgender self-conception is consistent with God's holy purposes in creation and redemption.

Krista Bontrager of TheologyMom gave a thorough review of all these:

Changedmovement.com and Andrew Comiskey were mentioned by Krista to better contrast the party that turn same-sex attraction into identity (product of fallen but not sinful in itself unless acted upon - concupiscence) rather than sin to be liberated from.

Rev. Jon Payne gave a gratified response to the report:

I do wonder where are those within the denomination who fervently object to this report, because Scott Sauls' seem to have tumbled, trying to argue his way left and right, wanting to object but at the same time, perhaps because Tim Keller's name was on it, Sauls found himself hitting a wall.

Peter Jones on the other hand, criticized the report from the other side. Jones was right on protecting the natural order and creativity of God...

as Paul says in Romans 1:26, it is “unnatural.” It is not “unnatural” just because most people don’t understand it or don’t identify as homosexuals. It is unnatural because it is out of order with the physical cosmos as God made it. It is thus both a rejection of the natural world and of God himself

Jones emphasizes on the otherness of God. Contrasting the otherness between creator and creature, between humans and animals, between male and female, man and woman. This is the essence in apologetics against the attack of the group that promotes "same-ness" against the foundation of God's creation. Against the true beauty and attractiveness of sex and gender.

I still need time to process all these, but certainly, not with the attitude of one lady who tried to confront our pastor last Sunday School on this with the judgment: Did you guys do Romans? Romans answers all of these. Such shallow, almost charismatics/non-denominational childishness is what a part of reports like this are trying to do away with.

It really depends, because of this verse in Acts 22:3..."was zealous toward God, as ye all are this day."

Those who are quick to say theirs is idol, theirs is not the same God, if it were the same God, then why would they believe that God => x, y, z..., are adhering to fundamentalist narrow minded ideals. They have never truly done evangelical works that matters. Their work is I preach the word by proclamation and my job is done per the Bible. They did not realize that the great commission has a lesson for us Christians, it is not just a work-base duty, it is that of grace, of love, of learning the creation of God, and these fundamentalists fail significantly in these areas and their pride covered them, their self-desire, self-vindication match that of the Pharisees in Jesus' time.

There is an appeal to the recognition of God that's built into everyone, even the very wicked ones. You may worship God, but you got your knowledge of God wrong. But to deny a connection of those to the true God, well that's just denying them sensus divinitatis and yet expecting them to not deny their sensus divinitatis.

On Young Earth theology. They love to use the fact that by assumption, Death is bad, sinful, wrong, and therefore, Old Earth Creationists cannot explain the absence of death before the fall. But that begs the question, in what sense is death bad? Refer John 12:24 where Jesus talked about a seed must die for new multiple lives. Only the fundamentalist's idea of death is that narrow. Death is bad only in the context of human lives. To over generalize this the way Young Earth Creationists do, is foolishness and ignorant, regardless of the ending answer, for they did not use sufficient reason in their exposition, but mere traditions and fallen human instinct.