What is at issue is how we should talk about sanctification. Is it evidence of the influence of Keswick theology to speak of acknowledging a homosexual orientation per se to be sinful? No. This is old-fashioned confessional Reformed theology. I have spent the last week neck-deep in Ursinus’ Corpus doctrinae (our English translation of his lectures on the catechism, the Willard edition of the Commentary, is not always reliable) and in part 2 of Olevianus’ De substantia. In my mind, there is no question that were we to put to them the question whether the Revoice anthropology (the Christian doctrine of humanity) is acceptable, they would reject it heartily. One could not insert a worn dime between their theology of humanity and sin, their doctrine of definitive justification and progressive sanctification as the “double benefit of Christ” (Olevianus’ language), and that of the Westminster Standards.