Siouxlands Schizophrenia

It appears that the Siouxlands Presbytery (SLP) of the PCA (the home Presbytery of Greenbaggins’ Lane Keister) is in the process of re-investigating one of their own TEs (teaching elder), Greg Lawrence, who is strongly suspected of advancing the Neolegalism of the Federal Vision. I say “strongly suspected” because an investigative committee appointed by the Presbytery already found “a strong presumption of guilt” in the teachings of Lawrence as it relates to the FV. It should be noted that the original request to investigate Lawrence’s Federal Vision was denied by the Presbytery claiming “insufficient evidence.” Only after a complaint was filed and later sustained by the PCA’s Standing Judicial Commission (SJC) did the Siouxlands Presbytery finally appoint the investigative committee that found Lawrence’s views out of accord with the church’s confessional standards by a 4 to 2 margin. For the record, I contacted Wayne Golly, Stated Clerk of the SLP, requesting a copy of the committee’s report since I was curious to see what the findings of the committee were and what these men were voting on. He told me the committee report “is not available for distribution beyond the members of SLP.” You can bet Siouxlands church members will similarly remain in the dark concerning the committee’s findings. However, not all is darkness. According to the Aquila Report:

Advocates of the committee recommendation were concerned about TE Lawrence’s statements that we are united to Christ and get new life in the water rite of baptism. They also argued that his teaching that in baptism even the non-elect in some sense receive new life, forgiveness of sins, adoption, and union with Christ was contrary to the Standards affirmation that such benefits only accrue to the elect. They believed that he was creating “a parallel soteriological system,” citing the General Assembly’s Federal Vision Report.

OK, so what’s next? At least according to the PCA’s Book of Church Order (BCO 31-2) following this investigation and the finding of a “strong presumption of guilt” in the case of Lawrence, “the court shall institute process, and shall appoint a prosecutor to prepare the indictment and to conduct the case.” Well, not so fast. This is the PCA after all.   Instead of proceeding to trial according to the established rules, the Siouxlands Presbytery completely rejected the committee’s findings and voted instead to exonerate Lawrence.

One of the two dissenting votes on the investigative committee, TE Joshua Moon, made the motion to dismiss the findings of the committee and his motion carried by a 24-13 margin.  That is a significant majority.  Oddly, the motion to exonerate Lawrence, also in response to another motion made by Moon, only carried by 20-17 with one abstention.  So at least 4 or 5 presbyters (depending how you want to count the abstention) are opposed to exonerating Lawrence, but are also opposed to the committee’s recommendation that Lawrence’s doctrines be tried based on their findings.

It appears that the Siouxlands Presbytery is more than a little schizophrenic in dealing with the Federal Vision and those suspected of advancing this particular false gospel

Well, it looks like the Siouxlands Presbytery may get another shot at figuring out where it stands or fails to stand concerning the advancement of the Federal Vision as it appears they’ve “repented” of their earlier decision to render the findings of investigative committee null and void and have appointed a new committee to investigate Lawrence.

The Art of Understatement

“I believe that concentrating too much on on the Fed “conspiracy,” one that works hand in hand with Congress, gives the system more credit or blame than it deserves and distracts from the more important issue of bad ideology.”  -Ron Paul, End the Fed,121

The irony is that the conspiracy mongers (and you know who you are), as well intentioned as they may be, or as seemingly plausible their loosely “connect-the-dots” theories may be, greatly help to perpetuate the Fed and keep its actual freedom destroying function from ever entering into the public consciousness.  That’s because those who are always looking to tie everything to some conspiracy make the whole thing so much easier to dismiss as just another product of the fevered minds of wackos.

Fiducial Jokesters

It is gratifying when on occasion others have drawn the same conclusion that you have even when so many others seem perpetually oblivious to the painfully obvious.  For a number of years I have been saying, or rather yelling, that there is no such thing as justification by faith alone in the Federal Vision.  For that reason I have called men like Doug Wilson, Steve Wilkins, Steve Schlissel, Peter Leithart, Mark Horne, Jeffery Meyers, Norman Shepherd, John Kinnaird, and a host of others heretics.  Feel free to include N.T. Wright and the followers of the so-called New Perspectives on Paul in that list, but for my purposes here I just want to pick on Federal Visionists and not the other dogs that travel in their pack.  Identifying such men as heretics  would seem to be a biblical imperative like the one found in Romans 16:17, “Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them.”  Some like R. S. Clark are uneasy about calling these notable false teachers heretics, and even refuses to do it, even though he admits, “The FV is a profound corruption of the gospel masquerading as the Reformed faith.” You’d think if Clark really believed that he’d be right there following the Apostle Paul’s lead sounding the alarm that these men are indeed accursed to hell (Galatians 1:8).  And, it’s for this reason men like Clark refuse to identify these FV teachers as heretics, because, he says, he’s “not anxious to see folk in hell.”  Well, neither am I, but I am quite confident that neither R. S. Clark or I  have that kind of juice.  I would rather that all of the above mentioned self-styled Christian teachers would repent of their identified and deadly doctrines.  Yet, even with all the official statements and studies condemning their doctrines, these men remain entrenched, solidly committed to their corrupt gospel “masquerading as the Reformed faith.”

What seems to leave more than a few TEs and REs (teaching and ruling elders) bewildered, and hesitant to mark these men as they should and instead call them “brothers,”  is that some of the FV’s leading advocates and defenders will from time to time claim to believe in justification by faith alone.  The question is, why does anyone believe them?  Even the current Antichrist in Rome recently told a general audience that “Luther’s phrase: ‘faith alone’ is true if it is not opposed to faith in charity, in love.” Should we just assume that Razinger (aka Benedict XVI) has abandoned Romanism and is now a Protestant; a Christian?  Why is it “charitable” to believe the profession of ersatz-Reformed pastor with a Roman soteriology and not when the same is said by Roman bishop with a funny hat?  Shouldn’t we assume because the pope said “faith alone is true” that the divide that has separated Protestants and Catholics for centuries is nothing more than an ancient artifact from a time when everyone wore funny hates?   Of course, what may seem to be an issue of semantics to some is a matter of life and death to others.  For example, concerning the above mentioned papal affirmation of Luther’s phrase, “faith alone” R. S. Clark points out,  that the whole question comes down to that little conditional “if”:

Clark Quick Quote

With the release of Clark And His Critics, Volume 7 in the Clark Signature Series, that includes the long out of print and hard to find even used, The Philosophy of Gordon H. Clark:  A Festschrift, edited by Ronald Nash, I thought I would offer up the following Clark Quick Quote that remains the core of the Trinity Foundation’s mission.

In addition to urging folks to support the Foundation’s ongoing work, right now TF is offering a great deal — 40% off retail — on all 8 volumes of the Clark Signature Series published so far.  That’s only $99 for the trade paperback or $149 for the hardback (plus S&H).  Clark’s work, all of it, is a must for any thinking Christian’s library and is something you’re unlikely to find in any pablum pushing anemic Christian bookstore.  Besides, the Signature Series will look great on your bookshelf — and even better in your hands!

Now, onto Clark:

There have been times in the history of God’s people, for example, in the days of Jeremiah, when refreshing grace and widespread revival were not to be expected: The time was one of chastisement. If this twentieth century is of a similar nature, individual Christians here and there can find comfort and strength in a study of God’s Word. But if God has decreed happier days for us and if we may expect a world-shaking and genuine spiritual awakening, then it is the author’s belief that a zeal for souls, however necessary, is not the sufficient condition. Have there not been devout saints in every age, numerous enough to carry on a revival? Twelve such persons are plenty. What distinguishes the arid ages from the period of the Reformation, when nations were moved as they had not been since Paul preached in Ephesus, Corinth, and Rome, is the latter’s fullness of knowledge of God’s Word. To echo an early Reformation thought, when the plough man and the garage attendant know the Bible as well as the theologian does, and know it better than some contemporary theologians, then the desired awakening shall have already occurred.

Friendly Fire

Get it here.  Or, read a review here.

Foolish Atheist

As one can see from the above YouTube video, a rather thoughtful Australian atheist, Kelly Jones, has provided a short critique of the Scripturalism of John Robbins. I say “rather thoughtful” because her critique of Robbins is just silly. You’ll notice she does not object to Dr. Robbins defining the word Logos in Scripture as logic, but complains that he refers to the Logos of Scripture as something that exists.  Well, of course it… or better He…exists. To put it another way, Ms. Jones doesn’t deny that logic exists because she experiences it when she thinks.  In her YouTube profile she even says that reason is her “sole friend.”  However, and in the very passage Dr. Robbins explicates, the Apostle John explains why Ms. Jones experiences what she does.  That’s because John 1:9 tells us that  the Logos, the divine Second Person of the Trinity, “enlightens every man” (John 1:9).  The Bible, and not the atheistic positivism Ms. Jones presupposes, provides the account for logic in man.

Therefore, ironically and more than a bit tragically, what Ms. Jones is experiencing when she recognizes and affirms the architecture of her own mind, is God.  After all, besides the Scriptures teaching that man is the very image of God (2 Cor. 4:4) who is Logic, Paul explains in Romans 1 that unbelievers like Ms. Jones will, in spite of the clear testimony of Scripture and the truth of God revealed within her, suppress the truth. Ms. Jones has provided a classic example of the suppression of the truth even as she simultaneously recognizes and affirms it.  As Paul explains:

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God, or give thanks; but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures. Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, that their bodies might be dishonored among them For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.

Notice, the truth of God is evident within Ms. Jones, to the point where she even refers to reason — the very Logos of God enlightening her mind – as her “sole friend.”  Yet, she suppresses the truth and merely asserts that the Logos of Scripture that lights her mind does not exist because, she claims, this is something she cannot experience. How foolish is that?

Later in the video Ms. Jones objects that Dr. Robbins does not explain why he accepts the definition of God given in the Scripture and simply assumes that the biblical definitions are true. This objections is also silly.  As opposed to her brand of logical positivism, Dr. Robbins has chosen the axiom of Scripture as his source of knowledge and truth. Her objection comes down to nothing more than Robbins is a Christian who accepts the Bible as true and as the axiomatic starting point of his philosophy and she does not. Big deal.

John Piper and his Heretical Friends (Revised)

It has just brought to my attention that John Piper has invited Federal Vision pitchman and apologist Doug Wilson to speak at his Desiring God Conference in September.  Not only has Piper previously stated that the heretical and deadly doctrines of Wilson’s Federal Vision IS NOT another Gospel, now he has given FV spokesman Wilson a platform to further advance his FV heresy on unwitting Baptists.  The Judaizers never had it so good.

While as sinful as it is shameful, it is not surprising.  To anyone who has suffered through Piper’s Future Grace (you can read a review of the book here), Piper agrees with the central tenants of the Federal Vision including a denial of the Covenant of Works and a conditional view of grace and the gospel.

World Magazine editor Marvin Olasky (the same magazine that refused to publish Trinity Foundation’s Reformation Statement signed by R.C. Sproul and others)  will be sharing the stage with Wilson and Piper. I should point out that Olasky is (or at least was) an elder in the PCA.  If that’s the case, it is more evidence that the PCA’s committee report on the Federal Vision should be shredded for toilet paper.

For Piper and DG fans, here is a quick recap of Wilson’s theology taken from his book, Reformed is Not Enough, which he wrote to answer the “call to repentance” and heresy charges leveled against him by the  Reformed Presbyterian Church in the United States (RPCUS).

First, for Wilson one doesn’t become a Christian by believing the Gospel,

Irrational Baptists

Before busying himself with chasing after every new philosophical fad and having his ears tickled by so-called “Reformed Epistemology” while trying to resurrect the Romanish fantasy of natural theology, Michael Sudduth asked the question, Are Baptists Rational? His answer back in 1993 was a resounding “No.”  Sudduth wrote:

The rejection or disparagement of logic, then, whether it be by the religious irrationalist, the orthodox Reformed theologian, or a Calvinistic Baptist, is manifestly unscriptural. God is a God of truth, wisdom, and knowledge. Man was created in his image, endowed with an a priori reason by which he can think God’s thoughts after him. God’s revelation is rational because it is the revelation of the divine mind. Man can understand that revelation because he was created in the divine image. The Biblical writers reason, they construct arguments, they think in terms of the laws of logic. The Bible is, therefore, a rational revelation from God to man. Christian theology, because it is based upon that revelation, is inherently rational.

The suggestion of this concluding chapter is a basic one. If theologians would reconsider the relationship between God and logic, that belief in the former entails a commitment to the latter, the intellect will be restored to its rightful place in theology. The primacy of reason will thwart the forces of irrationalism in general and misology in particular. Theology will be, as Augustine once said, ”de divinitate rationem sive sermonem,’” rational discussion respecting the Deity.

The theological defense of logic is an argument quite easy to follow. Since theology implies Scripture, and Scripture implies logic, it follows that theology implies logic. Or, in other terms: to reject logic is to reject truth, and to reject truth is to reject God; therefore, misology is the rejection of God.

In the beginning was the Logic,

and the Logic was with God,

and the Logic was God.

- John 1:1

Sadly, the misology that Sudduth attributed to those calling themselves Reformed Baptists, which ends, and by good and necessary consequence, with the rejection of God, persists today.   Back in January of this year, someone posting on my blog’s comment box with the tag “deangonzales” took issue with something I wrote in a piece entitled, “The Sincere Insanity of the Well Meant Offer.” In defending the absurd notion of insoluble paradoxes in Scripture, which are in every sense indistinguishable from contradictions, and, frankly, if truly insoluble are really just contradictions despite all the feigned pious prattle by Vantilians about there not being any contradictions for God, “deangonzales” wrote:

Having read this post and the subsequent comments, I wonder how the line of thought that finds paradox (defined as an apparent not real contradiction) as “insane” would escape the same dilemma when trying to (1) affirm that God is not the author of evil while, simultaneously, (2) affirming that God plans, controls, and employs evil to accomplish his purposes. If God has written the script for creation history and inserted evil into that script, how can one avoid the seemingly logical conclusion that God is in fact the “author of evil”?

Admittedly, an interesting problem, but one that was a bit afield of my piece and already answered effectively by Gordon Clark back in 1932 in a piece entitled, “Determinism and Responsiblity,” which was later reprinted in Trinity Review  in 1991.  So, rather reinvent the wheel, I referred “Dean” to Clark along with recommending Robert Reymond’s discussion of the problem of evil in his systematic theology (which nicely expands on Clark’s solution).  Well, six months later “deangonzales” is back linking a piece he wrote defending the incoherence of the so-called Well Meant Offer entitled: “God Makes A Wish That Each and Every Sinner Might be Saved.”

Needless to say I was a little surprised to find out that the man I thought was “Dean Gonzales” was actually Dr. Bob Gonzales, Dean of Reformed Baptist Seminary in South Carolina.  Rather than just another misologist and paradox monger in blogosphere, clearly here is a man who is genuinely responsible for shaping the minds of men while purportedly training them for Gospel ministry.  I say purportedly because if “God Makes A Wish” is at all representative of the kind of training men receive at Reformed Baptist Seminary, it doesn’t bode well for anything approximating Gospel ministry coming out of RBS.   Paul said; “For if the trumpet give an uncertain sound, who shall prepare himself to the battle? So likewise ye, except ye utter by the tongue words easy to be understood, how shall it be known what is spoken? for ye shall speak into the air.”  Similarly, if the message of salvation is presented in an incoherent and contradictory manner then how can the words being preached be rightly understood?

Has it never entered the confused minds of these paradox mongers that if Scripture really does consist of a series of impenetrable mysteries and insufferable paradoxes, even as they touch upon God’s glorious plan of salvation, then they give every reason for unbelievers to reject the Gospel message as just so much nonsense?  And, since it seems that it is only those calling themselves “Calvinists” who persist in presenting and trying to justify their incoherent and irrational so-called “plan of salvation” where God is said to both desire and not desire the salvation of all, can there be any mystery why Calvinism remains the minority report relegated to the backwaters of the ersatz-Evangelical world?

After all, if the message of grace includes antinomies, contradictions and so-called paradoxes impenetrable by human minds, then we can concluded that at least some of the Gospel message is false, or, at the very least, not to be trusted.  Consequently, it would be better if such preachers were left preaching “into the air.”   Instead these men persist in teaching nonsense all in the name of Christ.

Which brings us back to the Dean of RBS, Dr. Bob Gonzales.

The Politics of Fraud

For those who haven’t read it, I highly recommend Steve Moore’s scary and insightful OpEd in the Wall Street Journal, ‘Atlas Shrugged’: From Fiction to Fact in 52 Years.  Moore is the founder and former president of Club for Growth and seems to be a regular now on Kudlow & Company.  Moore gave me reason to pick up my now ragged copy of Shrugged.   Anyway, I came across this last night and it nails it:

Whenever destroyers appear among men, they start by destroying money, for money is men’s protection and the base of a moral existence. Destroyers seize gold and leave to its owners a counterfeit pile of paper. This kills all objective standards and delivers men into the arbitrary power of an arbitrary setter of values. Gold was an objective value, an equivalent of wealth produced. Paper is a mortgage on wealth that does not exist, backed by a gun aimed at those who are expected to produce it. Paper is a check drawn by legal looters upon an account which is not theirs: upon the virtue of the victims. Watch for the day when it bounces, marked: “Account overdrawn.” – Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged

John Robbins Quick Quote

Knowledge is always true. One cannot know that 2 + 2 = 5. Opinions may be true or false. Ignorance is neither true nor false. What distinguishes a true opinion from knowledge is an account of that opinion: It is giving reasons.  [Michael] Sudduth dared me to provide any passage of Scripture that so defines knowledge. It seems to me that there are many. For example, “Be ready to give a reason….” “To the Law and to the testimony: If they speak not according to that Word, there is no light in them.” “In Christ are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge.” All, not some. Hidden, not available to discovery by men. The Scripture is both the content and the account on knowledge.