A new confession of the Image of God, the Creation Order, and sexuality...

Confessions weren't meant to sit pristine across time receiving fealty. They were bloody useful and their usefulness consists in calling men to show their commitment to the authority of Scripture by requiring them to describe and subscribe to the specificity of the Word of God in matters of controversy. But controversies change.

We must continue to confess our own faith in our own language and time. Dead men were faithful in this work in their own time and the battles of the past are not over. No heresy is ever dead, so we are privileged to stand on the shoulders of our fathers promising allegiance to the paths they've left for us. Along with Clearnote's officers I subscribe to the Wesminster Standards because they are a faithful exposition of the Word of God, removing many of the weasel paths unprincipled men might otherwise get away with were they not accountable to those standards.

That said, the Westminster divines were not intending their work to stand alone across time. All of us confess our faith in the words of other confessions inherited from other centuries. We take those confessions, also, to be faithful expositions of Scripture.

But what of today?

The attack against Biblical anthropology--Scripture's doctrine of the Image of God in man and the meaning and purpose of sexuality--is demonic and gaining ground across the Protestant, Reformed, and Evangelical Church. This attack against these doctrines is unprecedented across Church history and it requires the hard work of a new confession...

This new confession needs to be written by an inclusive group of churchmen representing many different congregations both large and small. Each man should be there representing and accountable to his session and congregation. The council must not be sectarian. It must not exlude church officers from the north or south, east or west. It must not exclude Presbyterians or Baptists or Congregationalists or Anglicans or Charismatics who subscribe to historic Reformed Confessions.

Men not serving in a particular call as the pastor of a particular congregation (or the equivalent of a bishop over a number of congregations) must be exluded. Those guarding the good deposit should be men who shepherd a particular flock having been called to that office by the Holy Spirit and confirmed in that office by the vote of men. Those who make a living off books and lectures are not doctors of the church in the sense Calvin was and should not be included. Every man working on this new confession needs to have his call on the line with this work defending Scripture's anthropology.

Women are excluded from this work by virtue of their sex. This is intended to be an authoritative body of church officers working together to declare God's truth authoritatively in the language of our time addressing the heresy of our time. It's a reflection of how desperately this work is needed that it must be said that this council on Biblical manhood must be comprised of male church officers.

Privately I've been speaking to churchmen about this for years and there are a number who have indicated interest. Is anyone willing to help? Please pray with me toward this end.


An apt proposal. How do you get it started? Is something like the T4G Affirmations and Denials an appropriate contemporary model?

I was at Doug Wilson's lectures on the 13th and at one point he mentioned something about society vomiting back whatever conservatives or Christians sought to push down its throat -- I think it was during the first lecture. How does that play into this proposal?

Certainly, this is something to which the congregation where I serve has given significant thought and prayer, resulting in congregational statements and policies but a broader confession would be excellent -- like the Danvers Statement on complementarity and the Chicago Statement on inerrancy, perhaps.

I'm all for it! Additionally, this new confession should include a cogent treatment of the economic subordination vs. ontological equality of Son to Father--a Biblical distinction hated by feminists.

Bring it on. And I second Jody's motion.

I will assuredly pray that such a thing comes to pass. Not currently having a flock directly under my care I don't make the team, but that doesn't mean I can't cheer from the sidelines. May God bless you and this endeavor.

At the considerable risk of making a range of moutains out of an already good-sized hill, I'd amend Jody's excellent suggestion to include all areas of Christian doctrine that are warped by the profound anthropological error of our time.

Jody mentioned a tenet of Trinitarian doctrine. Indeed, because our Lord is both God and man, mistakes in anthropology must strike immediately and directly into one's theology proper.

Insofar as the economy of relationships within mankind are operative in the economy of salvation itself (e.g. headship pf the first and second Adams in Romans 5, our inheritance as sons of our father Abraham in Galatians 3, the consequences of creation order as far as worship is concerned in 1 Corinthians 11, to name just three), a modern confession addressing modern heresies of anthropology need also to look toward other areas of the deposit of faith that are affected by errors in anthropology.

For far, far too long it has been individuals here and there who have been reactive to the initiatives of error in the churches. Yes, the days of ecumenical councils is long past (until the Lord returns, of course!). Nevertheless, the promulgation of coherent orthodox tenets that proclaim the truth against modern errors inside and outside the church can have the very useful benefits that Pr. Tim describes above.

Yes to Danvers
please "The Creation Manifesto" and the "Cornwall Declaration"

meant to say "please add ...
There are those who are writing great public declarations ie Manifestos
We need to compile them in one place
They should have a format that states what scripture says, then a we affirm, we deny, we reject
Also they should deal with methodologies, movements and modern trends

"They were BLOODY useful and their usefulness consists in calling men to show their commitment to the authority of Scripture by requiring them to describe and subscribe to the specificity of the Word of God in matters of controversy."

Why the swearing?

I was speaking of martyrdom. Literally.


What is the "cogent treatment of the economic subordination vs. ontological equality of Son to Father"? Does that mean Jesus is eternally subordinate to the Father?

Basically, it means that Jesus is God and has equality with God, but He didn't consider it something to be grasped. Instead, He submitted to the will of the Father and emptied Himself and became sin for us.

A key point to notice here is that you can have complete equality and perfect submission at the same time. Feminists hate this truth because it logically follows that a wife can submit to her husband without automatically becoming an inferior being.


Isn’t it generally believed by evangelicals that Jesus is God and equal with God and that He submitted Himself to the will of the Father emptying Himself to become sin for us? Where I am confused is whether Jesus is eternally subordinate to the Father or only subordinate during His time on earth? And how does that relate to woman eternally?

So the wife through submission to her husband becomes an example of Christ’s submission to God. Submitting her will to her husband and serving him is then a reflection of her fellowship with Christ. Just as the husbands sacrifice for his wife becomes an example of Christ’s sacrifice for the church. Therefore the husband by loving and honoring his wife is showing his fellowship with Christ.

I would be delighted to see something like this move forward.


I won't speak for Elliot, but here are some thoughts:

Q1: Is Jesus eternally subordinate to the Father, or only according to His incarnation?

A1: Quick answer: eternally.

Q2: (H)ow does that relate to woman eternally?

A2: If Christ is not eternally subordinate to the Father, then subordination must be a *qualitative* distinction rather than economic.

Here's what I mean:

If Christ was subject to God according to His incarnation only, then His obedience is predicated upon His humanity, not His eternal Sonship...which implies another heresy (adoptionism)...but leaving that aside, let’s apply this erroneous view of subordination to the relation of man and wife.

•The Son was subject to the Father according to His incarnation...that is according to His created nature, which is different than the divine nature.

•Like the relation of the Son to the Father, wives submit to their husbands...ergo, women are of an inferior in nature to men.

A2a: The submission of the wife to her husband is not predicated on the relationship of the Father to the Son as a direct analogy, rather, it is according to Christ taking on flesh and dying for His bride…according to Christ taking on our flesh (and nature), we obey Him…and we will be given the same glorified body He has.

I pray some serious work is done on this.

The feminist heretics are growing ever bolder. Their lies about Scripture every more egregious. Pastors hail Molech's apologists as "faculty" at their leadership summits and others laud the practice of eugenics.

It's tempting to despair, to lose hope when so few are willing to stand where the fighting rages most fiercely.

Add new comment