Letters from our Minister

Preserving Life and God's order in a world of death and disorder

12/24/2022

Now when they had departed, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph in a dream and said, “Rise, take the child and his mother, and flee to Egypt, and remain there until I tell you, for Herod is about to search for the child, to destroy him.” And he rose and took the child and his mother by night and departed to Egypt and remained there until the death of Herod. This was to fulfill what the Lord had spoken by the prophet, “Out of Egypt I called my son.”

Then Herod, when he saw that he had been tricked by the wise men, became furious, and he sent and killed all the male children in Bethlehem and in all that region who were two years old or under, according to the time that he had ascertained from the wise men. Then was fulfilled what was spoken by the prophet Jeremiah:

“A voice was heard in Ramah,
weeping and loud lamentation,
Rachel weeping for her children;
she refused to be comforted,
because they are no more.”
Matthew 2:13-18

Dear Friends,

These verses from the second chapter of Matthew’s gospel remind us that following His birth, the earliest months of Christ’s life were set against a backdrop of terrible evil and profound darkness. The celebratory hymn of the angels (in Luke 2:14) was followed by the sound of weeping and loud lamentation as Herod, in his twisted attempt to destroy the Messiah, ordered the murder of every male child under two years of age in Bethlehem.

As we remember and rejoice in the coming of our Saviour 2,000 years ago, let us not lose sight of the fact that the world is not any less dark now than it was then. We may not live in the wake of Herod’s violence, but the actions of civil governments continue to demonstrate the same contempt for what God has ordained – particularly when it comes to the sanctity of human life and His created order.

It is astonishing that just three days before Christmas, the Scottish Government has just this week secured parliamentary support for its Gender Recognition Reform Bill. The age requirement for those wishing to legally change their gender has been lowered from 18 to 16, there is no longer any requirement to secure a medical professional’s diagnosis of gender dysphoria and the period of time a person is required to live in their ‘acquired gender’ has been reduced from two years to three months (six months for those under 18s). Not only does this immoral and irresponsible legislation have the potential to place true women and girls in danger, it will cause untold damage to many teenagers at a time in their lives when they already face many pressures and experience much confusion.

Meanwhile, Liam Macarthur MSP’s Assisted Dying for Terminally Ill Adults (Scotland) Bill is due to be introduced to the Scottish Parliament in early 2023, which if successful, will make assisted suicide (a form of euthanasia) legal in Scotland. Where similar legislation has been passed in other countries (for example, Canada), previously agreed safeguards are already being disregarded by some Doctors who are proposing assisted suicide to patients who are not terminally ill and the list of those who are eligible is likely to be widened next year to include even those with mental health issues.

While on the subject of the sanctity and preservation of human life, I would direct you to a recent speech given by Andrew Bridgen MP in the House of Commons and to the call from UK Doctors for a Government investigation. I realise that to question either the efficacy or safety of Covid-19 “vaccines” is, in the eyes of many, to tread on sacred ground. However, as one who continues to have concerns about the mRNA experimental gene therapy injections (as I highlighted in a letter in September 2021 and to our denomination’s Covid-19 committee the same year), I could not in good conscience fail to alert you to these developments. I don’t know what is more alarming, the fact that there have been thousands of serious Covid-19 vaccine-related adverse events and deaths reported in official national databases, or the apparent unwillingness of health bodies and governments of the world to take any notice.

Whatever may be the reason for this, and whatever people’s motives might be for such sinister policies as the Gender Recognition Act and Assisted Dying for Terminally Ill Adults (Scotland) Bill, the fact remains that we are living at a time when the sacredness of human life is disregarded and the most basic foundations of a God-honouring society are being systematically overturned and destroyed.

Scripture tells us that whereas Christ came into that world to give life in all its abundance Satan exists to kill and destroy (John 10:10). Our battle then, is not ultimately with flesh and blood, but with the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places.

With this in mind, I am convinced that we must truly give ourselves to prayer. In particular, we must pray that:

The bride of Christ would take up the whole armour of God, that she might be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all to stand firm (Eph. 6).

Those responsible for such destructive evils of our day would be brought to repentance, silenced or removed (Dan. 4:31-32).

Those seeking to identify as a gender other than the one given to them by God would be delivered from a corrupted mind (Rom. 1:28) and find salvation in Christ.

The church would recover her prophetic voice to the world and not be guilty of giving an indistinct sound (1 Cor. 14:8; Isaiah 1:17; Prov. 31:8-9). See our friend David Robertson’s recent blog post, for example.

As we enter into the spiritual battlefield of 2023, we would do well to remember that while Herod did his worst in the early years of Christ’s life, he did not ultimately succeed in thwarting the redemptive purposes of God. When Jesus said, “I will build my church and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it” He meant what He said. But as we play our own small part in that work, we must not lose sight of the fact that we do so in a world where many operate according to the same devilishness as King Herod. Let us not therefore neglect our God-given responsibility - individually, locally and as a denomination – to pray hard and to contend for the faith once for all delivered to the saints.

May God have mercy on our land, grant repentance and revival to His bride, and may each of you know the blessing and peace of the True King, our Lord Jesus Christ, in all the days to come.

With love from your pastor and friend, in Him,

Paul Gibson.

Covid-19 vaccinations to school children aged 12-15

9/9/2021

“For everything there is a season, and a time for every matter under heaven...
a time to keep silence, and a time to speak…”
Ecclesiastes 3

What are the duties required in the sixth commandment?
“The duties required in the sixth commandment are, all careful studies, and lawful endeavors, to preserve the life of ourselves and others by...
protecting and defending the innocent.”

Westminster Larger Catechism Q. 13

Dear Friends,

I am very concerned about both the UK and Scottish Governments’ plans to roll out Covid-19 vaccinations to school children aged 12-15 years old and feel an obligation before God to raise these concerns with you - at the very least, as a matter for prayer.

Evidence has shown (and Governments around the world have frequently stated) that children are at very low (in fact, almost zero) risk from Covid-19. Indeed, a recent study in England concluded that there were 25 deaths from Covid-19 amongst the under-18 age group between March 2020 and February 2021. Of those who died, about 15 of them were said to be individuals with “underlying complex disability with high health-care needs, such as tube feeding or assistance with breathing.” In short, children have an approximately 2 in a million chance of dying from Covid. Moreover, just last week the UK Government’s own advisory board, the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JVI), said that at the present time, it did not support this mass roll out to children, partly due to concerns over cases of myocarditis and the blood clotting side-effect of one of the vaccines. This raises the very serious subject of the potential dangers posed by the vaccinations themselves.

As you are no doubt aware, the drugs currently being administered are experimental and authorised for emergency use only. These have not completed their medical/safety trials [1] and, as such, there are many unknowns concerning the possibility of serious adverse reactions – particularly in the medium/longer term. Since all previous vaccines developed for coronaviruses have been halted on the basis that they lacked efficacy or were causing serious adverse reactions, there is no place here for complacency. Long-term sequelae remain unknown, but based on previous experience there is cause for caution: the Pandemrix vaccine for Swine Flu caused very serious life-long neurological damage to many children in 2009, yet these things came to light only many months after administration.

What is most alarming in the case of the drugs now being administered, is that there has already been a huge volume of potential short-term adverse reactions reported to medical databases throughout the world. In the USA, the VAERS database shows more adverse reactions to these novel inoculations in just a few months than to all other vaccines reported over the previous 30 years put together. Moreover, it is being reported these have possibly caused the deaths of thousands of people throughout the world: the CDC reports over 11,000 deaths in the USA; EudraVigilance reports just over 20,000 deaths in Europe and the UK’s Yellow Card system has reported over 1500 deaths along with hundreds of thousands of adverse reactions. Depending on which authority one listens to, actual figures may be between 10 and 100 times more than those reported. To put this in perspective, the vaccine for Swine Flu was withdrawn after just 25 deaths were reported.

It is not my role to tell people whether they should or should not receive a certain medicine, whether it be a “vaccine”, booster” or some other form of medical treatment (although nor is that the role of Government either!). We each have to make our own decisions according to our conscience before God on these matters. However, I do have a responsibility – as do you – to do whatever we can preserve the lives of others, particularly when it comes to those who cannot speak up for themselves. Were it the case that receiving these injections provided immunity from both catching and passing on Covid-19, then an argument could be made for their mass roll out, (although, serious moral questions would still need to be raised as to whether we want to be the kind of society that is willing to put our children at risk in order to protect adults). But that is simply not the case. The recent publication of technical briefing no. 20 by Public Health England showed that 65% of those who died from Covid-19 had been fully vaccinated. This corroborates with data from other highly vaccinated countries, such as Iceland and Israel. [2]

In consideration of these facts, I am persuaded that the decision to encourage – if not, coerce – young children into receiving these experimental medicines would, at best, constitute an act of gross negligence of a very serious kind. Indeed, a Dundee-based Christian Doctor recently stated: “Should our authorities continue the mass immunisation program and include children, then surely they will be guilty of crimes against humanity, breaching the Nuremburg Code of 1947 and therefore should be brought to justice.” [3]

At the very least, please bring all of this to the throne of grace in prayer. Pray that governments of the world would be brought to a fear of God and that they would make decisions on the basis of what is right, true and pleasing in His sight. Pray that the next generation would be afforded the same freedoms that we have enjoyed for so long and kept safe from potentially harmful medicines that they do not need in the first place. Above all, pray that the Lord would have mercy on our world, revive His bride, give discernment to His people and glorify His own name through the furtherance of the gospel.

With my love and concern in Christ,

Paul Gibson

[1] The end-date for the clinical trials are: Pfizer, January 31, 2023; Astra Zeneca, February 21, 2023.

[2] As reported by Dr. Pat Morrisey GP, video presentation sponsored by the Irish Council for Human Rights

[3] Dr Alistair Montgomery, in his letter to a major newspaper, 2021.

Fear God, not the Coronavirus

3/17/2020

Dear Friends,

As some of you know, under the instruction of my Doctor I am currently “self-isolating”, having developed symptoms associated with the Coronavirus pandemic. As I write, this virus has caused the death of over 7000 people throughout the world, a figure which is rising daily. Many Governments have temporarily closed their country’s borders, the sporting world is practically in “lock-down”, supermarket shelves are emptying and the financial markets have experienced their worst day since 1987. There is no question that many people, both here in Scotland and throughout the world, are living in fear. Men, women, boys and girls are worried. Worried about the health of already frail relatives. Worried about catching the illness themselves. And, yes, worried about the prospects of death.

However, there is one kind of fear which is sadly missing in these days, namely a fear of God Himself. God is sovereign over all things, including the Coronavirus. This has come as no surprise to Him and it will spread to the precise extent that He has determined in order to accomplish His perfect will and just purposes in His world. The truth is that because of the fall (Genesis 3), humanity is in constant rebellion against its Creator (Psalm 2:1-3) and as long as life is trouble-free, man in his unbelief is prone towards thinking that he is invincible and that he has no need to give a second thought to God or His will for our lives (Romans 1:18). We convince ourselves that death will never come - or at least that it’s so far off that it needn’t be a cause for concern today.

But then God ordains disaster. Sometimes an earthquake, other times a tsunami and other times still, a deadly virus which spreads across the globe causing widespread calamity. It is, in the end, both an act of judgement and of mercy: judgement in the sense that these events are often His just response to a world intent on defying His laws and rejecting His rule (Isaiah 45:7); mercy in the sense that these temporal disasters serve to warn the unbeliever of the far greater disaster which is to come. The disaster of facing Holy God on judgement day and being sentenced by Him to the everlasting torments of hell.

The bible tells us that “all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” and that “the wages of sin is death”. It tells us that apart from God’s mercy in Christ, we are not on a right footing with Him, but instead under His condemnation, awaiting a day when He will cast the unbeliever into that place where “the worm does not die and the fire is not quenched”. But the glorious news is that God sent His Son, Jesus Christ, to suffer, in His death, the punishment that was due to us for our sins so that all who believe in Him will not perish but have eternal life.

If there is one thing that the Coronavirus should do, it should cause the world to seek the LORD while He may be found, to call upon Him while He is near. This virus is an act of judgement, for sure, but it is also an act of mercy; an opportunity given by God to turn back to Him, to seek His face and to cry out for that glorious pardon which is freely ours through faith in Jesus Christ alone (Romans 3:23-25).

May there be a fear of God in these days and may He grant the grace of repentance, the gift of faith and bring many sons to glory.

“And I will shake all nations, so that the treasures of all nations shall come in, and I will fill this house with glory, says the LORD of hosts.” Haggai 2:7

“…let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts; let him return to the LORD, that he may have compassion on him, and to our God, for he will abundantly pardon.” Isaiah 55:7

Soli Deo Gloria!

With love and affection in Christ,

Paul Gibson

Concerning Spiritual Gifts

6/25/2018

Dear friends,

Some of you approached me with concern about a recent article in the monthly Record magazine, in which the author stated that the Free Church is not “cessationist”. Following this, there has been some debate as to what is the Free Church’s official position. The following article very helpfully articulates the historically accepted position of those who hold to the Westminster Confession of Faith as their subordinate standard.

Richard Gaffin Jr. is Professor of Biblical and Systematic Theology at Westminster Theological Seminary in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

With love in Christ,

Paul

What about Prophecy and Tongues Today?

By Richard B. Gaffin, Jr.

The Westminster Confession of Faith, insisting that Scripture is sufficient in our day, holds that "those former ways of God's revealing his will unto his people" have "now ceased" (1.1). We who adhere to that doctrine are thus often called "cessationists." That label carries a lot of baggage. By itself, it's negative. In current debates about the gifts of the Holy Spirit, it suggests what one is against. At the outset, then, we need to correct certain misconceptions about "cessationism."

We do not assert that God's Spirit is no longer actively working in dynamic and dramatic ways. We earnestly believe that he is. What, for instance, can be more powerful and impressive—even miraculous!—than the 180-degree reversal that occurs when the Spirit transforms those dead in their sins into those alive for good works? This involves nothing less than a work of resurrection, of (re-)creation (Eph. 2:1-10). This is awesome indeed!

Nor do we believe that all spiritual gifts have ceased and are no longer present in the church. At issue is the cessation of a limited number of such gifts. The continuation of the large remainder is not in dispute.

People sometimes tell me, "You're putting the Holy Spirit in a box." At least two responses come to mind. First, I do take this charge to heart. It is by no means an imaginary danger that we might unduly limit our expectations of the Spirit's work by our theologizing. We must always remember the incalculability factor that Jesus notes in John 3:8 (the Spirit is like an unpredictable wind). Any sound doctrine of the Spirit's work will be content with an unaccounted-for remainder, an area of mystery.

Secondly, however, as I will try to show, the Holy Spirit himself, "speaking in the Scripture" (Westminster Confession of Faith, 1.10), puts his activity "in a box," if you will—a box of his own sovereign making. The Bible knows nothing of a pure whimsy of the Spirit. The Spirit is indeed the Spirit of ardor, but he is also, and no less, the Spirit of order (1 Cor. 14:33, 40). It's striking that Scripture particularly stresses order in a discussion of spiritual gifts! A perennial challenge to the church is to seek this ordered ardor—or, if you prefer, this ardor-infused order of the Spirit.

First the Foundation, Then the Superstructure

According to the Nicene Creed, the "one holy catholic" church is also "apostolic." What does that mean? What constitutes the apostolicity of the church? Getting a biblical answer to that question is the important first step toward seeing that God's Word teaches that certain gifts of the Spirit have in fact fulfilled their purpose and ceased.

Ephesians 2:11-22 provides as comprehensive an outlook on the New Testament church as any passage in Paul's writings or, for that matter, in the rest of Scripture. Using a favorite biblical metaphor (cf. 1 Pet. 2:4-8), Paul says that the church—composed now of Gentiles as well as Jews—is the great house-building project that God, the master architect-builder, is constructing in the period between Christ's exaltation and his return. The church is "God's household, built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone" (vss. 19-20).

Two closely related considerations are noteworthy in this description. First, notice that the foundation in view is finished. It is a historically completed entity. When a builder knows what he's doing (as we may assume God does!), he lays the foundation once at the beginning of the project. The foundation doesn't need to be repeatedly relaid. After he lays the foundation, he builds the superstructure on that foundation. From our vantage point today, we are in the period of superstructure-building. Christ has laid the foundation of his church. Now he is building on it.

Secondly, this conclusion is reinforced when we consider exactly how the apostles and prophets, along with Christ, are the church's foundation. For Christ, that plainly consists in his saving work, in his crucifixion and resurrection—"no one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which is Jesus Christ" (1 Cor. 3:11; cf. 15:3-4). But the apostles also belong to the foundation. That is not because the saving work of Christ is somehow incomplete. It is rather because of their witness, a witness—authorized by the exalted Christ himself—which is fully revelatory (e.g., Acts 1:22; Gal. 1:1; 1 Thess. 2:13).

This unique role of the apostles in God's historical unfolding of his saving plan comes to light in Ephesians 2:20. We find a correlation all through the history of salvation to its consummation in Christ (Heb. 1:1-2)—God's word focuses on God's deeds. And so the situation is this: to the foundational once-for-all, finished work of Christ, God joined the foundational once-for-all, finished apostolic witness to that work. God's word focuses on God's deeds. This was the matrix for the eventual emergence of the books of the New Testament.

Ephesians 2:20, then, indicates that the apostles had a temporary, noncontinuing role in the life of the church. Their place was in the important foundation-laying phase of the church's history. Their function was to provide revelatory, infallibly authoritative, canonical witness to the consummation of salvation history in Christ's finished work. That function was fulfilled. It does not belong to the superstructure-building period to follow. It instead provides the completed foundation on which Christ continues to build the superstructure of the church.

Several other lines of New Testament teaching confirm that the office of apostle was temporary. In order for someone to be an apostle, one job prerequisite was to have been an eye and ear witness of Christ before his ascension (Acts 1:21-26). Paul—in 1 Corinthians 15:7-9 (cf. 9:1)—saw himself as meeting this requirement by way of an exception. Along with that, he seems clearly to say here that he is the last of the apostles.
The Pastoral Epistles were largely concerned with making apostolic preparation for the future of the church after the time of the apostles. Two of these letters are addressed to Timothy, whom Paul viewed, more than anyone else in the New Testament, as his personal successor. Yet Paul never called him an apostle. In light of the redemptive-historical rationale already noted, "apostolic succession" in a personal sense is a contradiction in terms. The apostolicity of the church is not secured by an unbroken, outward succession of officeholders that can be traced back to the apostles. It rather consists in steadfast fidelity to the apostles' teaching or tradition (2 Thess. 2:15) as it is inscripturated in the New Testament.

Many in the charismatic movement agree that apostles—in the sense of those who are "first" among the gifts given to the church (1 Cor. 12:28; Eph. 4:11), like the Twelve and Paul—are not present in the church today. In that respect at least—whether or not they realize it—the large majority of today's charismatics are in fact "cessationists." Anyone who recognizes the temporary nature of the apostolate, then, needs to think through—in the light of other New Testament teaching—what further implications this basic cessationist position may carry.

What about Prophecy?

Ephesians 2:20 itself states one such implication—an important one. It affirms that the prophets, along with the apostles, have a foundational role. Who are these prophets? Clearly, they are not the Old Testament prophets. First of all, notice the word order: "apostles and prophets," not "prophets and apostles." More importantly, just a few verses later and in almost identical words, the prophets in view are said to belong to the "now" of the new covenant, in contrast to the "other generations" of past covenant history (Eph. 3:5). Some have recently argued that these prophets are identical to the apostles ("the apostles who are also prophets"). This view is hardly plausible in view of Paul's next reference to apostles and prophets beyond this context (Eph. 4:11: "some to be apostles, some to be prophets"). Ephesians 2:20 clearly implies that prophecy was a temporary gift, given for the foundation-laying period of the church. Therefore, along with the apostles, the New Testament prophets are no longer a present part of the church's life.

What about Tongues?

1 Corinthians 14 deals with prophecy and tongues in far more detail than any other New Testament passage. A quick perusal will show that, like a backbone, a contrast between prophecy and tongues structures the entire chapter (beginning in verses 2-3, continuing throughout, and culminating in verse 39). The broad concern of the apostle's argument is to show the relative superiority or preferability of prophecy to tongues. Prophecy is "greater" because (as speech intelligible to others) it edifies the church, while tongues (unintelligible to others) do not. The immediate proviso, however, is that when tongues are interpreted, they are on a par with prophecy for edifying others (vss. 4-5). Tongues, when uninterpreted, are eclipsed by prophecy. But interpreted tongues are functionally equivalent to prophecy. And so God's Word draws a close tie between prophecy and tongues. We may even say fairly that tongues, as interpretable and to be interpreted (vss. 13, 27), are a mode of prophecy.

What these two gifts have in common, and the reason they can be contrasted in this way, is that both are word gifts. Specifically, both are revelation. Both bring God's word to the church in the primary, original, nonderivative sense.

Verse 30 states explicitly that prophecy is revelation. It is also clear, among other considerations, from the only instances of prophecy in the New Testament, those of Agabus (see Acts 11:27-28; 21:10-11) and the book of Revelation (see Rev. 1:1-3).

That tongues are revelation is plain from verses 14-19. They are inspired speech of the most immediate—indeed, virtually unmediated—kind. In its exercise, the gift of tongues completely bypasses the "mind," in the sense that the intellect of the speaker does not produce what is said. The Holy Spirit so takes over speech capacity and organs that the words spoken are not the speaker's own words in any sense. Also, by speaking of their content as "mysteries" (vs. 2), Paul confirms the fully revelatory character of tongues (as well as their link with prophecy, see 13:2). Elsewhere in the New Testament, at least without any clear exceptions, this word always refers to revelation—more specifically, to the redemptive-historical content of revelation (e.g., Matt. 13:11; Rom. 16:25-26; 1 Tim. 3:16).

From those passages that are most pertinent and decisive, then, a basic explanation for the cessation of prophecy and tongues emerges. By God's wise and gracious design, apostles and prophets played a temporary role in the church's history. They did not continue after its foundation was laid. The redemptive-historical "specs" of God's church-house are such that apostles and prophets are not permanent fixtures (Eph. 2:20). Neither are tongues, since they are tied, as we have seen, to prophecy (1 Cor. 14). They, too, passed out of the life of the church, along with the passing of the apostles and prophets (and other means of bringing God's word).

What about 1 Corinthians 13:8-13?

Many, however, judge that 1 Corinthians 13:8-13 clearly teaches that prophecy and tongues will not cease until the second coming of Christ. To them, this is a "gotcha" text that by itself settles the issue. But does this passage really imply their conclusion?

Look carefully at 1 Corinthians 13:8-13. Notice that its primary thrust is to compare the believer's present and future knowledge. Present knowledge is partial and obscure (vss. 8-9), in contrast to the full, "face-to-face" knowledge that will be ours (vs. 12) with the arrival of "perfection" or perfect knowledge (vs. 10). This "perfection" almost certainly will arrive when Christ returns in power and glory. Does that mean that these gifts will not cease until the Second Coming?

That conclusion goes beyond the aim of this text. The accent of this text is on the character of our present knowledge—in particular, on its partial quality. The particular media of that knowledge are not the point. Paul clearly had a pastoral concern with the proper exercise of prophecy and tongues in the church at Corinth (chapters 12-14). Therefore, it's understandable that he mentioned them in this context. He was not, however, addressing the issue of when they would cease. Rather, he was stressing the partial, opaque character of all our knowledge until Christ returns. This is true no matter by which revelatory means that knowledge comes (including, by implication, even inscripturation). This is also true no matter when those means may cease.

Ephesians 4:11-13 reinforces this interpretation. The exalted Christ "gave some to be apostles, some to be prophets, ... until we all reach unity in the faith ... and become mature [or,perfect], attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ." Almost certainly the "unity" and "fullness" of verse 13 is the same state of affairs as the "perfection" in 1 Corinthians 13:10. Ephesians 4:13 perhaps echoes 1 Corinthians 13:10 as well by its use of the word "perfect" or "mature." This is the situation Christ brings by his return. Since that is so, if we read Ephesians 4 as noncessationists insist we should read 1 Corinthians 13, we are left with the unavoidable conclusion that there will be apostles, as well as prophecy and tongues, until the second coming of Christ. Even many noncessationists, however, rightly reject this conclusion.

But how can they consistently do so? In terms of gifts, in relation to the ultimate goal in view, how is this passage any different than 1 Corinthians 13:8-13? Noncessationists who correctly recognize that there are no apostles in the sense of Ephesians 2:20 and 4:11 today can't have it both ways. If these passages teach that prophecy/prophets and tongues continue until the Second Coming, then they also teach that the apostles do as well. But a more sound understanding is simply to recognize that these passages do not even address the question of whether or not prophecy or tongues (or any other gift) will cease before the Second Coming. They leave it an open question, to be settled by other passages.

A dilemma confronts noncessationists. If prophecy and tongues (as they function in the New Testament) continue today, then the noncessationist is faced with the quite practical and troublesome implication that Scripture alone is not a sufficient verbal revelation from God. At best, the canon is relatively closed. Alternatively, if—as most noncessationists insist—"prophecy" and "tongues" today are not revelatory or are less than fully revelatory, then these contemporary phenomena are misnamed. They are something other than the gifts of prophecy and tongues that we find in the New Testament. Noncessationists are caught in a redemptive-historical anachronism. They are seeking within the superstructure-building phase of the church's history that which belonged to its foundation-laying phase. They are involved in the contradictory effort of trying to maintain that the New Testament canon is complete and closed and yet at the same time that the revelatory gifts for the open canon period—gifts for when the New Testament documents were still being written—continue.

But God's Word lifts us out of this dilemma. It shows us that by God's wise and gracious design, prophecy and tongues have completed their task and have ceased. What remains, supremely and solely sufficient and authoritative until Jesus comes, is "the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture" (Westminster Confession of Faith, 1:10).

“MALE AND FEMALE HE CREATED THEM"

8/23/2017

Dear Friends,

In light of the government's recent gender identity proposals, I wanted to share with you the following report, published by the American College of Pediatricians.

Whilst we know that such interference with God's created order and design is clearly wrong biblically, it is surely an encouragement to see those in the medical community report that it is also wrong scientifically.

I am increasingly convinced that the area of marriage, sexuality and now gender identity is where real persecution will finally come to the church in the west. The fact that many church denominations and so-called evangelical clergy, such as Steve Chalke, have already capitulated on these issues will only make it harder still for those who hold to the eternal truths of scripture.

There is much that could be said about the disastrous ramifications of such developments on future generations, but for now I simply want to urge you to pray:

that our politicians would be given common sense, if not sanctified wisdom;
that Christians within politics, the media, education and the medical profession would know God’s protection and be given the grace to bear witness to His truth, irrespective of the cost;
that in the church, the trumpet would not “give an uncertain sound” in these confused and confusing times, but instead that the sword of the Spirit would be brought to bear to the destruction of such sinister strongholds.

May the gospel of Christ be preached with increasing clarity and power throughout our land. For surely it is this (and only this) - the power of God unto salvation - which can bring any lasting change in these ever-darkening days.

With my love in Christ,

Paul

http://www.acpeds.org/the-college-speaks/position-statements/gender-ideology-harms-children

Gender Ideology Harms Children

Updated May 2017

The American College of Pediatricians urges healthcare professionals, educators and legislators to reject all policies that condition children to accept as normal a life of chemical and surgical impersonation of the opposite sex. Facts – not ideology – determine reality.

1. Human sexuality is an objective biological binary trait: “XY” and “XX” are genetic markers of male and female, respectively – not genetic markers of a disorder. The norm for human design is to be conceived either male or female. Human sexuality is binary by design with the obvious purpose being the reproduction and flourishing of our species. This principle is self-evident. The exceedingly rare disorders of sex development (DSDs), including but not limited to testicular feminization and congenital adrenal hyperplasia, are all medically identifiable deviations from the sexual binary norm, and are rightly recognized as disorders of human design. Individuals with DSDs (also referred to as “intersex”) do not constitute a third sex. 1

2. No one is born with a gender. Everyone is born with a biological sex. Gender (an awareness and sense of oneself as male or female) is a sociological and psychological concept; not an objective biological one. No one is born with an awareness of themselves as male or female; this awareness develops over time and, like all developmental processes, may be derailed by a child’s subjective perceptions, relationships, and adverse experiences from infancy forward. People who identify as “feeling like the opposite sex” or “somewhere in between” do not comprise a third sex. They remain biological men or biological women. 2,3,4

3. A person’s belief that he or she is something they are not is, at best, a sign of confused thinking. When an otherwise healthy biological boy believes he is a girl, or an otherwise healthy biological girl believes she is a boy, an objective psychological problem exists that lies in the mind not the body, and it should be treated as such. These children suffer from gender dysphoria. Gender dysphoria (GD), formerly listed as Gender Identity Disorder (GID), is a recognized mental disorder in the most recent edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of the American Psychiatric Association (DSM-V).5 The psychodynamic and social learning theories of GD/GID have never been disproved. 2,4,5

4. Puberty is not a disease and puberty-blocking hormones can be dangerous. Reversible or not, puberty- blocking hormones induce a state of disease – the absence of puberty – and inhibit growth and fertility in a previously biologically healthy child. 6

5. According to the DSM-V, as many as 98% of gender confused boys and 88% of gender confused girls eventually accept their biological sex after naturally passing through puberty. 5

6. Pre-pubertal children diagnosed with gender dysphoria may be given puberty blockers as young as eleven, and will require cross-sex hormones in later adolescence to continue impersonating the opposite sex. These children will never be able to conceive any genetically related children even via articifial reproductive technology. In addition, cross-sex hormones (testosterone and estrogen) are associated with dangerous health risks including but not limited to cardiac disease, high blood pressure, blood clots, stroke, diabetes, and cancer. 7,8,9,10,11

7. Rates of suicide are nearly twenty times greater among adults who use cross-sex hormones and undergo sex reassignment surgery, even in Sweden which is among the most LGBTQ – affirming countries.12 What compassionate and reasonable person would condemn young children to this fate knowing that after puberty as many as 88% of girls and 98% of boys will eventually accept reality and achieve a state of mental and physical health?

8. Conditioning children into believing a lifetime of chemical and surgical impersonation of the opposite sex is normal and healthful is child abuse. Endorsing gender discordance as normal via public education and legal policies will confuse children and parents, leading more children to present to “gender clinics” where they will be given puberty-blocking drugs. This, in turn, virtually ensures they will “choose” a lifetime of carcinogenic and otherwise toxic cross-sex hormones, and likely consider unnecessary surgical mutilation of their healthy body parts as young adults.

Michelle A. Cretella, M.D.
President of the American College of Pediatricians
Quentin Van Meter, M.D.
Vice President of the American College of Pediatricians
Pediatric Endocrinologist
Paul McHugh, M.D.
University Distinguished Service Professor of Psychiatry at Johns Hopkins Medical School and the former psychiatrist in chief at Johns Hopkins Hospital

Originally published March 2016
Updated August 2016
Updated January 2017

CLARIFICATIONS in response to FAQs regarding points 3 & 5:

Regarding Point 3:
“Where does the APA or DSM-V indicate that Gender Dysphoria is a mental disorder?”
The APA (American Psychiatric Association) is the author of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th edition(DSM-V). The APA states that those distressed and impaired by their GD meet the definition of a disorder. The College is unaware of any medical literature that documents a gender dysphoric child seeking puberty blocking hormones who is not significantly distressed by the thought of passing through the normal and healthful process of puberty.

From the DSM-V fact sheet:
“The critical element of gender dysphoria is the presence of clinically significant distress associated with the condition.”
“This condition causes clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning.”

Regarding Point 5:
“Where does the DSM-V list rates of resolution for Gender Dysphoria?”
On page 455 of the DSM-V under “Gender Dysphoria without a disorder of sex development” it states: “Rates of persistence of gender dysphoria from childhood into adolescence or adulthood vary. In natal males, persistence has ranged from 2.2% to 30%. In natal females, persistence has ranged from 12% to 50%.” Simple math allows one to calculate that for natal boys: resolution occurs in as many as 100% – 2.2% = 97.8% (approx. 98% of gender-confused boys) Similarly, for natal girls: resolution occurs in as many as 100% – 12% = 88% gender-confused girls

The bottom line is this:
Our opponents advocate a new scientifically baseless standard of care for children with a psychological condition (GD) that would otherwise resolve after puberty for the vast majority of patients concerned. Specifically, they advise: affirmation of children’s thoughts which are contrary to physical reality; the chemical castration of these children prior to puberty with GnRH agonists (puberty blockers which cause infertility, stunted growth, low bone density, and an unknown impact upon their brain development), and, finally, the permanent sterilization of these children prior to age 18 via cross-sex hormones. There is an obvious self-fulfilling nature to encouraging young GD children to impersonate the opposite sex and then institute pubertal suppression. If a boy who questions whether or not he is a boy (who is meant to grow into a man) is treated as a girl, then has his natural pubertal progression to manhood suppressed, have we not set in motion an inevitable outcome? All of his same sex peers develop into young men, his opposite sex friends develop into young women, but he remains a pre-pubertal boy. He will be left psychosocially isolated and alone. He will be left with the psychological impression that something is wrong. He will be less able to identify with his same sex peers and being male, and thus be more likely to self identify as “non-male” or female. Moreover, neuroscience reveals that the pre-frontal cortex of the brain which is responsible for judgment and risk assessment is not mature until the mid-twenties. Never has it been more scientifically clear that children and adolescents are incapable of making informed decisions regarding permanent, irreversible and life-altering medical interventions. For this reason, the College maintains it is abusive to promote this ideology, first and foremost for the well-being of the gender dysphoric children themselves, and secondly, for all of their non-gender-discordant peers, many of whom will subsequently question their own gender identity, and face violations of their right to bodily privacy and safety.

For more information, please visit this page on the College website concerning sexuality and gender issues.

A PDF version of this page can be downloaded here: Gender Ideology Harms Children

References:
1. Consortium on the Management of Disorders of Sex Development, “Clinical Guidelines for the Management of Disorders of Sex Development in Childhood.” Intersex Society of North America, March 25, 2006. Accessed 3/20/16 from http://www.dsdguidelines.org/files/clinical.pdf.
2. Zucker, Kenneth J. and Bradley Susan J. “Gender Identity and Psychosexual Disorders.” FOCUS: The Journal of Lifelong Learning in Psychiatry. Vol. III, No. 4, Fall 2005 (598-617).
3. Whitehead, Neil W. “Is Transsexuality biologically determined?” Triple Helix (UK), Autumn 2000, p6-8. accessed 3/20/16 from http://www.mygenes.co.nz/transsexuality.htm; see also Whitehead, Neil W. “Twin Studies of Transsexuals [Reveals Discordance]” accessed 3/20/16 from http://www.mygenes.co.nz/transs_stats.htm.
4. Jeffreys, Sheila. Gender Hurts: A Feminist Analysis of the Politics of Transgenderism. Routledge, New York, 2014 (pp.1-35).
5. American Psychiatric Association: Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition, Arlington, VA, American Psychiatric Association, 2013 (451-459). See page 455 re: rates of persistence of gender dysphoria.
6. Hembree, WC, et al. Endocrine treatment of transsexual persons: an Endocrine Society clinical practice guideline. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2009;94:3132-3154.
7. Olson-Kennedy, J and Forcier, M. “Overview of the management of gender nonconformity in children and adolescents.” UpToDate November 4, 2015. Accessed 3.20.16 from www.uptodate.com.
8. Moore, E., Wisniewski, & Dobs, A. “Endocrine treatment of transsexual people: A review of treatment regimens, outcomes, and adverse effects.” The Journal of Endocrinology & Metabolism, 2003; 88(9), pp3467-3473.
9. FDA Drug Safety Communication issued for Testosterone products accessed 3.20.16: http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/DrugSafety/PostmarketDrugSafetyInformationforPatientsandProviders/ucm161874.htm.
10. World Health Organization Classification of Estrogen as a Class I Carcinogen: http://www.who.int/reproductivehealth/topics/ageing/cocs_hrt_statement.pdf.
11. Eyler AE, Pang SC, Clark A. LGBT assisted reproduction: current practice and future possibilities. LGBT Health 2014;1(3):151-156.
12. Dhejne, C, et.al. “Long-Term Follow-Up of Transsexual Persons Undergoing Sex Reassignment Surgery: Cohort Study in Sweden.” PLoS ONE, 2011; 6(2). Affiliation: Department of Clinical Neuroscience, Division of Psychiatry, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden. Accessed 3.20.16 from http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0016885.

OUR CHURCH STRATEGY: ORDINARY

11/16/2016

Dear Friends,

The Elders at Knox Church Perth recently began a session meeting with the discussion of a very helpful article by Rev. Bill Schweitzer, from the book, “Jonathan Edwards for the Church: The ministry and means of Grace”. This was chosen on the basis of our shared commitment to a ministry which is truly grounded in, and driven by, the “ordinary means of grace” – those means which God has set down for the order, rhythm and blessing of His church: the preaching of God’s word, right administration of the sacraments and prayer.

Following that encouraging discussion, I was all poised to write an article entitled “Ordinary” in which I was hoping to say something about these reformed, biblical convictions and why they really matter. However, I quickly discovered that almost 10 years ago, Rev. Ligon Duncan had already done a far better job on this subject than I ever could (there really is nothing new under the sun!). I would therefore urge you to read Ligon’s excellent article below, used here with thanks to Ligonier Ministries.

Before that though, a brief word on why this is more important today than ever. The truth is we live in a day when pragmatism and the perceived need to “strategise” are increasing trends, even pressures, in the church. Before being called into ministry I worked in management consultancy for almost 10 years and so I know at least a little bit about strategy and I’ve certainly seen the importance of having such things tightly defined in a business environment. However, whilst there are often important lessons to learn from secular entrepreneurialism, there is also a vital distinction we would do well to keep in mind: whereas there is no golden, universally-applicable rule book which stipulates the mission and means of success in the business world, there is such a book which orders the life and blessing of the church.

When it comes to the body of Christ, both the mission and the means have been given - for every culture and generation - within God’s Inspired Word. These “means” may not always appear successful (see Jeremiah, Acts 21:30; John 16:2 and think about what became of the apostles themselves!) - in fact, they will typically appear foolish in the eyes of a fallen world (1 Cor 1:21) - yet it is nevertheless our duty and privilege to embrace not only God’s mission, but also His means. The church exists first to bring glory to the name of our Triune God (Exodus 20:3; Matt 22:37-38) and second to make disciples of the Lord Jesus Christ (Matthew 28:19). The means God has chosen for this glorious task are the preaching of His word, sacrament and prayer (Romans 10:14; 1 Cor 2:1-4; Luke 22:19; James 5:14-16). The order - as Jonathan Edwards said - is important since it is from Scripture that “the others have their basis, but the reverse is not true.”

The Westminster Confession – our church’s subordinate standard – is particularly instructive: “The outward and ordinary means whereby Christ communicates to his church the benefits of his mediation, are all his ordinances (that which He has instructed); especially the word, sacraments and prayer; all of which are made effectual to the elect for their salvation.” How is the Word made effectual to salvation? “The Spirit of God maketh the reading, but especially the preaching of the Word, an effectual means of enlightening, convincing, and humbling sinners; of driving them out of themselves, and drawing them unto Christ; of conforming them to his image, and subduing them to his will; of strengthening them against temptations and corruptions; of building them up in grace, and establishing their hearts in holiness and comfort through faith unto salvation.”

With these glorious truths in mind, let us continue to live as a church which is not only unswervingly committed to God’s own mission, but one which recognises that in His world, He is always the best and only strategist we will ever need.

With love in Christ, your pastor and friend,

Paul

The Ordinary Means of Growth
by Ligon Duncan

We are living in a confused and confusing time for confessional Christians (Christians who are anchored by a public and corporate theological commitment to be faithful to the Bible’s teaching on faith and practice as expounded by the great confessions of the Protestant Reformation). We are witnessing the final demise of theological liberalism, the rise of Pentecostalism, the beginnings of the so-called emerging church movement, the breakdown of evangelicalism, and an utter discombobulation about how the church is to conduct its life and ministry in an increasing “post-Christian” culture. All around us, in the name of reaching the culture with the Gospel, we see evangelical churches compromising (usually without intending to) in both message and methods.

It is not uncommon today to hear certain buzz-words and catch phrases that are meant to capture and articulate new (and presumably more culturally-attuned) approaches to ministry: “Purpose-driven,” “missional,” “contextualization,” “word and deed,” “ancient-future,” “emerging/emergent,” “peace and justice.” Now, to be sure, there are points, diagnoses, and emphases entailed in each of these terms and concepts that are helpful, true, and timely. Sadly, however, the philosophies of ministry often associated with this glossary are also often self-contrasted with the historic Christian view of how the church lives and ministers. That view is often called “the ordinary means of grace” view of ministry.

The fundamental assumption underlying these new approaches is that “everything has changed,” and so our methods must change. I would want to dispute both parts of that equation. Whatever the entailments of our present cultural moment, constituent human nature has not changed (as R.C. Sproul often reminds us). And thus the fundamental human problem has not changed. Neither has the Gospel solution to it. Nor have the effectiveness of God’s Gospel means. Furthermore, one of the things that has always marked faithful and effective Christian ministry in every era and area of the world is a confidence in God’s Word, both in the Gospel message and in Gospel means. Faith still comes by hearing.

In sum, there are basically three views of Gospel ministry. There are those who think that effective cultural engagement requires an updating of the message. There are those who think that effective ministry requires an updating of our methods. And there are those who think that effective ministry begins with a pre-commitment to God’s message and methods, set forth in His Word.

Thus, liberalism said that the Gospel won’t work unless the message is changed. Modern evangelicalism (and not just in its “seeker-sensitive” and postmodern permutations) has often said that the Gospel won’t work unless our methods are changed. But those committed to an “ordinary means” approach to church life and ministry say the Gospel works, and God has given us both the method and the message. This is vitally important in a time where one of the dominant story-lines in the churches has been that of methods unwittingly, unhelpfully, and unbiblically altering both the message and the ministry.

Ordinary means of grace-based ministry is ministry that focuses on doing the things God, in the Bible, says are central to the spiritual health and growth of His people, and which aims to see the qualities and priorities of the church reflect biblical norms. Ordinary means ministry is thus radically committed to biblical direction of the priorities of ministry. Ordinary means ministry believes that God has told us the most important things, not only about the truth we are to tell, but about the way we are to live and minister — in any and every context. Hence, God has given us both the message of salvation and the means of gathering and building the church, in His Word. However, important understanding our context is, however important understanding the times may be (and these things are, in fact, very important), however important appreciating the cultural differences in the places and times we serve, the ordinary means approach to ministry is first and foremost concerned with biblical fidelity. Because faithfulness is relevance. The Gospel is the message and the local church is the plan. God has given to his church spiritual weapons for the bringing down of strongholds. These ordinary means of grace are the Word, sacraments, and prayer.

They may seem weak in the eyes of the worldly strong. They may seem foolish in the eyes of the worldly wise. But the Gospel message is the power of God unto salvation, and the Gospel means are effectual to salvation. These are the Spiritual instruments given by God with which Christian congregational Spiritual life is nurtured, the Spirit’s tools of grace and growth in grace appointed by God in the Bible.

So, when we say ordinary means of grace-based ministry, we mean a radical commitment to following the direction of God’s Word as to both the message and the means of gathering and perfecting the saints. Ordinary means ministry has a high view of the Bible, preaching, the church, the ordinances or sacraments, and prayer. Ordinary means ministry believes that the key things that the church can do in order to help people know God and grow in their knowledge of God are: First, emphasize the public reading and preaching of the Word; second, emphasize the confirming, sanctifying and assuring efficacy of the sacraments, publicly administered; and third, emphasize a life of prayer, especially expressed corporately in the church. These things are central and vital but sadly often under-emphasized, under-appreciated, and undermined.

Ordinary means of grace-based ministry believes that God means what He says in the Bible about the central importance of these public, outward instruments for spiritual life and growth. God explicitly instructs ministers and churches to do the following things: “devote yourself to the public reading of Scripture, to exhortation, to teaching” (1 Tim. 4:13); “preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, and exhort, with complete patience and teaching” (2 Tim. 4:2); “make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you” (Matt. 28:19); “take, eat; this is my body. …which is for you…drink of it, all of you, for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins; …do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me. For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes” (Matt. 26:26–28; 1 Cor. 11:25–26); “I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made…. I desire then that in every place the men should pray, lifting holy hands” (1 Tim. 2:1, 8).

These are the main ways God’s people grow. We are saved by grace (alone), through faith (alone), in Christ (alone). But the instruments, the tools of God’s grace to bring us to faith and grow us in grace are the Word, prayer, and sacraments. Nothing else we do in the church’s program of ministry should detract from these central instruments of grace, and indeed everything else we do should promote and coalesce with them.

This means, among other things, that ministry is not rocket science. Gospel faithfulness does not require the minister to be a sociologist. Because ministry is not determined (in the first place) by reading the culture but by reading the Word of God. The ordinary means minister wants to connect with the culture, but when it comes to determining method and priorities he moves from text to ministry, not from culture to ministry. He neither changes his message nor his methods based on the polling of the most recent focus group (though he strives to be fully cognizant of the obstacles and opportunities that his biblical message and methods face in his particular cultural context). He fully understands that there is no such thing as an unsituated biblical ministry, or an uncontextualized ministry (and so is careful not to universalize his particular cultural moment, nor to confuse it with universal, biblical norms). He also fully appreciates that some churches have unhelpfully baptized cultural norms and methods from the past, without realizing that baneful cultural influence. But he also knows that many churches, in the quest to contextualize the Gospel and the ministry, have in fact compromised them. So he’s constantly going back and asking “what are my marching orders?” And when he remembers, it doesn’t require a Ph.D. in semiotics to interpret them: preach the Word, love the people, pray down heaven, disciple the elders, promote family religion, live a godly life. And what are the church’s marching orders: delight in the Lord’s Day, gathering with the saints to drink in the pure milk of the Word every Sunday morning and evening, as families; pray together as a congregation once every week; worship and catechize at home in families; love one another and all men.

What will a church look like that is committed to the ordinary means of grace? It will be characterized by love for expository Bible preaching, passion for worship, delight in truth, embrace of the Gospel, the Spirit’s work of conversion, a life of godliness; robust family religion; biblical evangelism, biblical discipleship, biblical church membership, mutual accountability in the church, biblical church leadership, and a desire to be a blessing to the nations. Along with this all, there will be an unapologetic, humble, and joyful celebration of the transcendent sovereignty of the one, true, triune God in salvation and all things.