. . . The law of contradiction cannot be sinful. Quite the contrary, it is our violations of the law of contradiction that are sinful. Yet the strictures which some devotional writers place on “merely human logic” are amazing. Can such pious stupidity really mean that a syllogism which is valid for us is invalid for God? If two plus two is four in our arithmetic, does God have a different arithmetic in which two and two make three, or perhaps five?

The fact that the Son of God is God’s reason, for Christ is the wisdom of God as well as the power of God, plus the fact that the image in man is the so-called “human reason,” suffices to show that this so-called “human reason” is not so much human as divine.

Of course, the Scripture says that God’s thoughts are not our thoughts and his ways not our ways. But is it good exegesis to say that this means his logic, his arithmetic, his truth are not ours? If this were so, what would the consequences be? It would mean not only that our additions and subtractions are all wrong, but also that all our thoughts, in history as well as in arithmetic, are all wrong. If, for example, we think that David was King of Israel, and God’s thoughts are not ours, then it follows that God does not think David was King of Israel. David in God’s mind was perchance Prime Minister of Babylon.

To avoid this irrationalism, which of course is a denial of the divine image, we must insist that truth is the same for God and man. Naturally, we may not know the truth about some matters. But if we know anything at all, what we must know must be identical with what God knows. God knows all truth, and unless we know something God knows, our ideas are untrue. It is absolutely essential, therefore, to insist that there is an area of coincidence between God’s mind and our mind. One example, as good as any, is the one already used, viz., David was King of Israel.

~ Gordon H. Clark - An Introduction to Christian Philosophy

Just when I thought Lane Keister had his prey trapped he let him go, and, unless he is willing to do some damage control, Doug Wilson may have the last laugh.

Now, I confess, trying to sort out the pieces is a bit difficult, but here is what happened as I see it. First, Lane trapped Wilson in a clear contradiction between the Joint Federal Vision Profession (JFVP) and the Westminster Confession of Faith concerning the Covenant of Works . To recap the JFVP states:

We deny that continuance in this covenant in the Garden was in any way a payment for work rendered. Adam could forfeit or demerit the gift of glorification by disobedience, but the gift or continued possession of that gift was not offered by God to Adam conditioned upon Adam’s moral exertions or achievements.

Whereas, the WCF states:

The first covenant made with man was a covenant of works, wherein life was promised to Adam, and in him to his posterity, upon condition of perfect and personal obedience.

As mentioned in a previous blog piece, Hunting Wolves, life cannot be promised and not promised in the covenant of works on the condition of “perfect and personal obedience,” and, at the same time, not on the condition of “moral exertions or achievements.” Perfect and personal obedience IS (at least for those of us who still speak English) the result of moral exertions and achievements. Or, to put it another way, “moral exertions or achievements”are works and the signers of the JFVP reject the idea that the gift of life promised to Adam and his posterity was conditioned on his “prefect and personal obedience” or works.

Obviously trapped, Wilson in a vain and shameful attempt to get around this glaring contradiction, disingenuously claimed works done in faith are not works at all, but are rather acts of obedience. Therefore, according to Wilson and the other signers of the JFVP, obedience was necessary for Adam to fulfill the CoW whereas “works” were not. This is where the debate should have remained and is where Keister should have marshaled his forces. He had the winning hand and should have played it.

Unfortunately, in his next move Wilson turned the tables on Keister by again returning to the question of the supposed “aliveness of faith” in justification and the question of what constitutes “the obedience of faith.” Red flags should have been waving immediately by Wilson’s surreptitious misuse of James 2 (specifically James 2:26) as relating to forensic justification. Sadly, Keister missed the implication that works of obedience, what Wilson calls an obedient faith and confuses with Paul’s idea of “the obedience of faith,” is something that makes mere faith salvific or “alive.” Instead of challenging Wilson on his errant and deadly misapplication of James, he at first concedes Wilson’s point by stating:

I am willing to say that faith must be alive to justify. We are not justified by a dead faith. The aliveness of faith is hence a state of faith that is always present in a justifying faith.

Why would Kesiter do this? The analogy James uses concerning dead faith is one that does not evidence itself by works and has nothing whatsoever to do with forensic justification. James says, “For just as the body without the spirit is dead, so also faith without works is dead.” Dead or feigned faith is one without works and alive or genuine faith is one that has accompanying works. So why would Keister admit that for faith to justify it must be alive, that is, it must have works? He is wrong and so is Wilson and both for the same reason. We are justified by faith alone apart from works (Romans 3:28), not by the addition of works. Works do not make faith “alive” and James is not discussing how a sinner might be justified before the bar of God’s infinite justice. James is concerned with how someone who professes to believe the truth might be justified before men – not God. Wilson is doing the Roman shuffle by playing fast and loose with the meaning of the word “to justify” in James. James is concerned with helping us judge the sincerity of a person’s profession, not with what makes faith saving. To not draw and maintain this distinction is to make the error of Rome, a deadly error being repeated by Federal Visionists like Wilson. What makes ordinary faith or belief saving are the propositions believed, specifically the propositions of the gospel, not something in addition to mere belief or faith alone. Not works. Not our ongoing obedience. Nothing.

Thankfully, and even though the pot has already been muddied by Keister’s concession that “faith must be alive to justify,” he attempts to correct this misstatement by asserting that

. . . faith’s aliveness is not directly relevant to justification, because in justification, faith is receptive and therefore passive. Faith’s aliveness, always accompanying justification, consists in sanctification.

The problem is, and why Keister has gotten himself in such deep trouble, is that he has contradicted his own position at times and has not been at all clear in even communicating exactly what his position is. Compounding the problem is that he continues to dogmatically maintain that “our obedience of all stripes plays no part in justification.” He also makes a categorical, and worse, a strategic error by asserting that he

. . . can easily grant that saving faith is an evangelical obedience (as WCF 11.1 says), if I can qualify that by saying that its quality as an evangelical obedience has no relevance to justification itself, other than as an always accompanying aspect (like faith’s aliveness)

Now, how can faith, which he grants is an evangelical obedience, have “no relevance to justification itself”? WCF XI:2 states that

Faith, thus receiving and resting on Christ and his righteousness, is the alone instrument of justification; yet is it not alone in the person justified, but is ever accompanied with all other saving graces, and is no dead faith, but worketh by love.

Faith is “the alone instrument of justification,” therefore it is very “relevant” to justification. Without it no man could be justified. Yet, by excluding faith’s relevance to justification Wilson now has Keister trapped. Wilson writes:

God command us to believe. We either do or we don’t. What is that? It is either obedience or disobedience . . . We have moved the pieces back and forth enough on this one. Checkmate.

On this Wilson is correct. God commands us to believe and when we do as we are commanded we are being obedient. Seems simple, so why is Keister so resistant to conceding this point? It appears that Keister is afraid that as soon as he allows for the obedience of faith, which he (erroneously) thinks can and only refer to sanctification, he will be conceding Wilson’s other point that our ongoing obedience to the demands of his anti-Christian conditional covenant is also necessary for faith to justify. Of course this doesn’t follow, but it is precisely what Wilson means by the so-called “aliveness of faith.” To say that faith, the act of believing, is being obedient to the biblical imperative to believe the gospel does not imply that our ongoing obedience to any and every other biblical imperative is similarly an aspect of faith — or is even faith itself — and is therefore relevant to justification. Believing is believing and doing is doing. Not so for Wilson and it’s not at all clear that is for Keister either. Wilson slams his trap shut:

. . .Lane only acknowledges that this justifying faith happens to be alive, but he has told us here that the aliveness (or obedience, take your pick) plays no role in the justification that happens. Well, it certainly plays no role as credit or merit or attaboy. But does it really make sense to say that the “aliveness” of the eyeball does not make it see . . . .

When I say that faith is alive, I am saying nothing more than that faith is really faith. When I say that faith is obedient, I am saying nothing more than that faith is true faith. If it were not alive, or not obedient, you would not have the same basic thing, only with some of the paint chipped off. You wouldn’t have faith at all. And if you don’t have faith at all, then you don’t have justifying faith, or faith that lays hold of Christ. Put another way, faith must be faith to be the instrument of justification.

Look what happened. The idea of the “aliveness” of faith, an implied metaphor lifted from James 2 which is related solely to sanctification, is made a quality of faith that is supposed to render faith “true,” “justifying” or “saving.” This is how Wilson defines “true” or saving faith. For Wilson believing means doing and in order for faith to save, for it to be true faith, it must obey. That is, it must work. The thing Kesiter has failed to notice is that in the process of making his own categorical error by which Wilson has now repeatedly “checkmated” him, is that Wilson makes a much more dangerous and deadly categorical error by including our obedience – which are the fruit or consequences of saving faith — an aspect or quality of justifying faith. As mentioned above, our ongoing obedience, what James calls our works, are the means by which we may judge the sincerity or genuineness of the profession of others. Belief alone is “the alone instrument of justification” which is “ever accompanied with all other saving graces, and is no dead faith, but worketh by love.” Those things which “worketh by love” and accompany saving faith are not aspects of saving faith, they are its fruits. They are the natural consequences of saving belief. To confuse the fruits of faith with faith itself is to crossover into Romanism — which is exactly what Wilson has done — even if Keister once again hasn’t noticed.

Gordon Clark was correct, faith or belief (which in Scripture are just translations of the same Greek word pistis) is an assent to an understood proposition. Saving faith or belief is an assent to the understood propositions of Scripture. Those works, those acts of obedience, that accompany saving faith in sanctification are, according to James, the means by which we may judge true faith from the feigned variety. It seems both Wilson and Keister do not understand what faith is or even the book of James for that matter. Wilson to his own destruction and Keister to the losing of his prey and this debate.

Mark Horne, assistant pastor at Providence Reformed (PCA) in St. Louis, MO got his feathers in a bunch recently on the Greenbaggins blog when one of his fellow Neolegalists, PCA pastor Bill Smith (Community Church, Louisville, KY) came under a little fire for his Federal Vision. Contributor to the Greenbaggins blog, Seth Foster, who seems to have considerable familiarity with Smith, wrote:

Bill Smith’s ordination and credentials were approved and successfully transferred from the Louisiana Presbytery to the Ohio Valley Presbytery in 2005. He, along with his session, have gone unchecked and unchallenged for over three years.

Mark Horne replied:

The reason Bill Smith was passed and has gone unchallenged is because his theology was orthodox and bears no resemblance to your vile caricatures. Ohio Presbytery still knows how to be godly and you should learn from them. (Though I can only wonder if your are being encouraged in your disgusting behavior by other members or former members–I hope not.)

By the way: A stacked political committee, or even an honorable one, even with a GA majority vote, has 0 authority to damage a minister’s office in his presbytery–a fact that was made amply clear to the GA before they made their vote.

Todd’s blessing of layman despising the courts (Ohio Pby is a real court, unlike any committee) is going to come back on his head. Being a commment[sic] cartoonist may qualify you as a Greenbaggins Genius on this blog, but it isn’t going to be viewed that way by the Lord of the Church when we are all summoned before Him.

Which goes to my standing [in] MO pby. The only thing I’m being “protected from” are slanders from bloggers. There is no subterfuge. We are here because we are orthodox Presbyterians. Period.

Before getting into an example from Smith highlighting the depravity of his Federal Vision and answering the question whether he and Horne are “orthodox Presbyterians,” let’s take a moment to first consider some of the desk pounding by Horne. I should point out that the “Todd” mentioned above is Todd Bordow who evidently set Horne off by praising Seth for recognizing the clear and present danger of the FV in the Ohio Presbytery. Todd’s comments provided the impetus for Horne to launch into attack on the FV/NPP committee with the tired FV canard that the report was the work of a “stacked political committee.” Of course, if it were true that the PCA FV/NPP committed was “politically stacked” then the entire GA , which adopted the report by a near unanimous vote, is similarly “politically stacked.” Horne is clearly a sore loser who is still reeling from his complete failure to get even one of his fellow “federal visionaries” included on the study committee so they could rewrite the report. Even more pathetic is Horne’s invocation of God’s judgment against those who would dare question the wisdom, not to mention the fidelity to the gospel, of a presbytery that would approve the transfer of a Neolegalist like Smith or even Horne for that matter.

It seems this self-styled “orthodox Presbyterian” has forgotten that since synods and councils “may err and many have erred” (WCF XXX1:4), it follows that Presbyteries “may err and many have erred” when approving the transfers of unfit pastors. Evidently criticizing the competency of a presbytery that would approve the transfer of Federal Visionists like Smith is worthy of God’s judgment, whereas criticizing the court of the General Assembly for putting together a “politically stacked” committee is perfectly acceptable. Needless to say Horne’s highhandedness provides a wonderful and timely example of one of Kevin Reed’s “Imperious Presbyterians.”

Now, before moving on to Smith, there are two points mixed in Horne’s self-serving display of feigned moral outrage that are worthy of special consideration:

1. Horne is correct and the committee report on the FV/NPP has “ZERO” authority to require any presbytery to discipline even one of its Federal Vision pastors, even if one were to stand in direct and open opposition to all 9 declarations found in the conclusion of the committee report. The committee report is a tool that presbyteries may use, but are not required to use, in deciding things like ordinations, transfer credentials or even disciplining errant pastors like Smith and Horne, but they are under no obligation or even compulsion to do so. That is why without decisive court action systematically throwing every last one of these false teachers of the Federal Vision out of the PCA, the report would have been better used as toilet paper.

2. Horne is also correct and that PCA presbyteries like the Missouri and Ohio presbyteries (and there are others) are knowingly and willfully protecting men like Horne and Smith. There can be no dispute that the men in those presbyteries (and they know who they are) are directly responsible for the growth and furtherance of the false gospel of the FV within the PCA and beyond.

Now, let’s turn our attention to Pastor Smith. I confess, until Seth Foster posted a link to the Community Church website pointing readers to the “pastor’s page,” I was completely unaware of Smith. I’m certainly not familiar with the names of all the Federal Visionists in the PCA and I dare say even most, so it’s not surprising that I missed some of the lesser figures in the movement. I once even unwittingly wrote senior pastor at Horne’s church, Jeff Meyers, with criticism of the Missouri Presbytery’s FV report complaining that it would do little to remove FV pastors from the PCA. I could hardly pull my foot from my mouth after that one. The point is, there is really no telling how many men subscribe to and teach the false gospel of the Federal Vision within the various presbyteries and churches of the PCA. My guess is that passage of the FV/NPP report may have made it more difficult to flush out and identify a large number of these men from under the PCA floorboard. I suspect that while the report has “ZERO” authority within the PCA, passage of the report was a clue for FV pastors and elders in the PCA to lay low. Thankfully Pastor Smith has no clue, which perhaps explains why he would publish his objections to the declarations of the FV/NPP report here. Of course, the other option, and as Horne suggests, is that he feels safe enough within the confines of the Ohio Presbytery to air his opposition to the report’s conclusions like a pair of old gym socks.

While there is plenty in Smith’s various responses that would warrant close attention by any Presbytery that still understands and loves the gospel, I just want to look at just one of Smith’s comments in regard to declaration #9 of the committee report. The committee report concludes:

9. The view that justification is in any way based on our works, or that the so-called “final verdict of justification” is based on anything other than the perfect obedience and satisfaction of Christ received through faith alone, is contrary to the Westminster Standards.

Here is Smith’s response:

I affirm that we stand as righteous before God by faith on the basis of Christ’s righteousness. I deny that our works form the ground by which we are accepted by God. Since I do not believe that anyone at anytime or anywhere could merit any favor from God, meritorious works cannot be the basis of our acceptance before God as righteous. Only as we are found in the one who was declared to be the Righteous One in his resurrection, Jesus Christ, can we be found righteous.

This belief does not contradict but is complimentary to what James says when he says that we are “justified by works and not by faith alone” (James 2.24). James, I believe, is dealing with the nature of saving faith. The faith that justifies before God is a faith that works through love (Gal 5.6). That faith, and only that faith, is justifying faith.

I do believe that there will be a final judgment according to works. Jesus teaches this in Matt 25. Paul speaks of this explicitly in 2 Cor 5.10. Our Standards affirm this in WCF 33.1, LC 90, and SC 38. We will be judged according to what we have done in our bodies, whether good or evil. The righteous will be acquitted/vindicated/justified and the wicked will be condemned. Our good works are only accepted in union with Christ. They are, in this way, necessary for final justification but they are not the “basis” of our salvation. They are necessary in that they are the expression of a justifying faith. That is, if a person does not have this kind of living and active faith, then he will not be acquitted by God at the last day.

William R. Smith, II
Pastor, Community Presbyterian Church (PCA)
Louisville, KY

I confess, I could spend considerable time examining the many deadly errors laced like arsenic throughout Smith’s response, but it really isn’t necessary. As I’ve mentioned elsewhere and even on this blog, big red flags should start to fly – and should fly violently – whenever someone tries to relate James 2 to forensic justification. Yet, that is exactly what Smith does here. For Smith James 2:24 is not referring to our justifcation before men as we evidence or demonstrate our professed belief in the finished work of Christ by how we conduct our lives (i.e., by our works), rather it is our works done through faith that justifies us before God. Smith asserts “The faith that justifies before God is a faith that works . . . .” And, just in case anyone could possibly miss it, he adds: “That faith, and only that faith, is justifying faith.” This is Romanism pure and simple. It would be hard to find the idea of justification by faith and works expressed more clearly and unequivocally in any of the writings of any of the Federal Visionists — or in the even in writings of any pope not to mention Roman Catholic apologists like Robert Sungenis and other self-styled former “orthodox Presbyterians” like James Akin and Scott Hahn.

There is not one thing in Smith’s understanding of justification that does not comport completely with the doctrines and anathemas defended at Trent. Yet, here is a PCA pastor teaching this Romanish bile completely without fear of being held to account by anyone in his Presbytery or from anyone else in the PCA for that matter. As Mark Horne blows above, the Ohio Presbytery which approved Bill Smith’s ordination and credentials is the same Presbytery that will protect him.

Pastor Lane Keister over at his Greenbaggins blog is still trying to put together the pieces in Doug Wilson’s “Federal Vision” and has finally come across a piece that just doesn’t fit no matter how hard he tries. As I see it, the solution to this puzzle comes down to what is meant by the obedience of faith and how it might or might not relate to the ongoing obedience which Federal Visionists require to the demands of their conditional covenant in order to secure one’s “final justification.”

For Wilson works done by faith are acts of “obedience” just as much as is the mere act of believing the gospel. What seems to have Lane’s wheels spinning, and which is typical in so much of Wilson, is that on the one hand Wilson is correct and that when we believe the gospel, as all men are commanded to do in Scripture, we are being obedient to a biblical imperative. After all, and even Wilson points out, Jesus said: “The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the gospel.” The obedience of faith therefore is to do as we are commanded and that is to believe the gospel. However, does it follow from this that our ongoing obedience to the law as we progress in sanctification and as new creatures in Christ is also part and parcel of our justification which results from our obedience, specifically the “obedience of faith”? After all, isn’t simply believing the message of the gospel and faithfully observing the law both acts of obedience?

It should be noted that for Wilson works done by God’s grace and by faith are acts of obedience and are not “works” in the biblical sense. According to Wilson “deeds without faith is works. Deeds done in faith is obedience.[sic]” Of course, Paul maintains that we are justified APART from works of the law (Romans 3:28), but for Wilson “works” are distinct from obedience. Therefore, Wilson maintains that we are not justified APART from obedience and in this, and as already noted, he is partly right. The deception here is that in Wilson’s scheme where works differ from obedience , the “obedience of faith” includes all other the acts of obedience including the works of the law provided they’re done as the result of faith. To put it another way, in Wilson’s scheme doing the law as a result of faith is obedience not works and to be justified one must be obedient. Consequently, works are smuggled into Wilson’s “Federal Vision” through the back door and under the guise of obedience and faith.

It should be noted that Lane’s puzzle is something O. Palmer Robertson observed and solved long ago in his retelling of the history of the Norm Shepherd controversy as it raged at Lane’s alma mater, Westminster Theological Seminary:

Mr. Shepherd stressed the organic unity of faith and works in justification. In the end, he could reduce to a single assertion his views about the parallelism of faith and works in justification. He could affirm that justification was by faith alone and yet retain his position that justification was by faith and by works. For in his view the faith that justifies is itself a work of obedience which is an integral aspect of the larger covenantal response of obedience for justification. If justification is by obedient faith, it also is by the obedience of faith. If justification is by a working faith, it also is by the works of faith. Even the classic assertion that justification is by faith alone thus comes to mean that justification is by faith and by works, since the faith that justifies is understood as integral to good works done as the way of justification.

What is true for Norm Shepherd on this score is also true for Doug Wilson. The one primary difference is that Wilson is more skilled at disguising what he means through his use of word play, misleading stories and deceptive analogies. God willing Lane will soon solve this puzzle and finally see through Wilson’s soteriological Three Card Monte and retract his previous exoneration of this first rate con man on the vitals of the faith.

Ron Paul’s The Revolution: A Manifesto is a clear and simple a picture of what a free society looks like, used to look like, and what some of us long for. This book more than accomplishes what a manifesto should as it provides an easy to follow road map bringing us back to the fundamental limits of government set forth in that long forgotten piece of paper, the U.S. Constitution.

The book has some great little anecdotes and stories highlighting the issues and problems Paul describes.  But his section on monetary policy and the manipulation of our currency is arguably the most important part of the book if for no other reason than it is the least understood (much less discussed) problem facing America. The Federal Reserve is simply an evil and immoral institution and the ability to print money out of thin air amounts to nothing more than a clever form of TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION.

Simply put, monetary manipulation is theft that greatly benefits those in power at the expense of the general public and is a swindle that largely goes unnoticed. Well, not if Ron Paul can help it.

Frankly, my eyes used to glaze over whenever I would hear someone talk about monetary policy or seemingly arcane topics like the gold standard. A test pattern would immediately appear in my mind as I would be lulled to sleep by the boring monotone of Alan Greenspan or some other Greenspan wannabee droning on about economic indicators, indexes and the general meaningless minutia of macro and micro economics. Not any more thanks to John Robbins’ piece, The Case Against Indexation in his powerful new book, Freedom and Capitalism, and, of course, Ron Paul presidential campaign. No longer can discussions of the unconstitutional and secretive Federal Reserve be dismissed as the hobgoblin of conspiracy theorists and the ramblings of Illuminati inspired nut-jobs. If nothing else, Ron Paul has done more to bring this topic out of the fevered backwaters and into the forefront of American politics than anyone else in history. In this sense Ron Paul’s presidential campaign was a success.

As Paul points out, new money is used to fund the war and is a great benefit to those in government who get full buying power from the new dollars before the deleterious effects of the increased money supply impacts the rest of the economy. By the time these new dollars trickle down to the middle class, the poor and those on fixed incomes (retirees and widows), those who are really hurt by our now severely devalued dollar, most have no idea why costs for virtually everything are going through the roof and are (sadly) willing believe any explanation the government and the so-called “financial wizards” in Washington give us.

Paul points out that the real deception is that since there is this lag between the creation of new money and its effects on the rest of the economy, those who benefit from this swindle can blame other seemingly benign factors (that are arguably outside of the power of government to control) like the machinations of the oil cartels, crop failures, environmental wacko inspired policies, foreign trade, illegal immigration, natural disasters (like hurricanes with names like Katrina), or whatever else to divert people’s attention away from the real cause of rising prices.

Beyond that, manipulation of the money supply, along with the Fed artificially adjusting interest rates, causes business cycles (witness the boom and bust of the real estate/mortgage market), malinvestment and discourages saving since it’s better to spend your money now rather than save it only to have its buying power evaporate as the Fed just prints more money.

It used to be that in times of war (a least during the last constitutionally declared war) people were encouraged to do things like buy war bonds, make sacrifices (remember “victory gardens”), and “do their part” for the war effort. The key here was that since the war was constitutionally declared (something which all wars should be) we were all in it together and the sacrifices we were called to make were all voluntary. Now our government just prints money out of thin air and forces Americans to “sacrifice” at the grocery store and at the gas pump by means of their coercive manipulation of our money supply. A clearer modern example of corrupt weights and measures, something God strongly condemns, would be hard to find. For example, consider this from Deuteronomy 25:14-16:

Thou shalt not have in thine house divers measures, a great and a small. But thou shalt have a perfect and just weight, a perfect and just measure shalt thou have: that thy days may be lengthened in the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee. For all that do such things, and all that do unrighteously, are an abomination unto the LORD thy God.

If it’s an abomination for me to defraud someone, why would the U.S. Government be any less abominable in God’s sight for doing the same? Or consider Micah 6:11-13:

Shall I count them pure with the wicked balances, and with the bag of deceitful weights? For the rich men thereof are full of violence, and the inhabitants thereof have spoken lies, and their tongue is deceitful in their mouth. Therefore also will I make thee sick in smiting thee, in making thee desolate because of thy sins.

Let’s just say that Paul’s analysis of our government’s monetary manipulation is not going unnoticed, even if Winthrop’s “shining city upon a hill” is looking pretty dingy these days.

May the revolution continue . . . .

G.L.W. Johnson is the senior pastor at Church of the Redeemer in Mesa, Arizona, and the editor of B. B. Warfield: Essays on His Life and Thought. Recently, Johnson has been busy at Lane Keister’s Greenbaggins blog offering up a series of reviews of John Muether’s new biography, Cornelius Van Til: Reformed Apologist and Churchman. In his latest installment Johnson provides some homey recollections of time he spent with both with Gordon Clark and the man he most admires, Cornelius Van Til.

Before getting into the substance of Johnson’s reminiscence, I should point out that this is the same Pastor Johnson who, when asked to consider John Robbins’ dispute with Muether examined in Can the Orthodox Presbyterian Church be Saved? , or perhaps even giving him a call to get his side on Muether’s questionable take on the Clark controversy, said he “wouldn’t give Robbins the time of day.” He then went on to justify his snide, sinful and unprovoked attack on his brother in Christ by saying: “Anyone who claims to be ‘Reformed’ and yet describes both Bavinck and Vos as the two ’sinister’ figures behind Van Til would merit only Warfield’s contempt.”

Ouch!

Now, admittedly, I couldn’t find any instances where Dr. Robbins’ described either Bavinck or Vos as “sinister” or that they were somehow the “puppet masters” behind Van Til. Maybe I missed something or maybe this is a good reason for Johnson not to trust his memory. Robbins does cite some short incoherent babble from Bavinck that very much tracks the later anti-intellectual and incoherent babble repeated by Van Til. So I asked Johnson was Robbins wrong for doing so? Johnson didn’t say. Robbins has also been very critical of the entire biblical theological movement that has both jettisoned logic and usurped systematics in any number of Presbyterian and Reformed circles and seminaries. Again, I fail to see the problem?

As for how Warfield might or might not view Robbins, I have no idea how pastor Johnson could possibly know this since Warfield died in 1921 more than twenty years before the Clark/Van Til controversy and well before Dr. Robbins was even born? I guess because Johnson edited a book on Warfield that it now qualifies him as some sort of clairvoyant mystically channeling the thoughts of Warfield. Of course, it’s always possible that if Warfield were alive today that he would be on Keister’s blog rebuking Johnson along with Muether and Keister for defending Van Til’s bankrupt and antichristian epistemology along with his sordid attack on Clark. I confess, I don’t know, but then I don’t claim to speak for the dead.

Getting back to plumbing Johnson’s memories, he begins by recounting a charming story of how he had the opportunity to drive Van Til to Faith Theological Seminary in his old faded blue 1966 Peugeot with rusted out floorboards so that they could both hear Clark lecture on Empiricism. It should be noted at the time of this little road trip, both Van Til and Clark were now in their eighties, which, for Johnson, means that his little road trip was more than twenty years ago. Johnson goes on to note how friendly and cordial both men were toward each other following the lecture. It evidently impressed Johnson that Clark exemplified what it means to be a Christian and held no grudges against his former adversary. Then, later that week, while Clark was visiting Johnson’s home and after enjoying a pleasant dinner with his family, Johnson claims that Clark dropped a bomb by telling him that Ned Stonehouse, and not Van Til, “was the guy in the black hat” in the whole controversy.

This latest expanded version of events, complete with faded blue ‘66 Peugeot with rusted out floorboards all drawn from Johnson’s decades old memory, is intended to support his earlier claim that “[Van Til] was enlisted as the one to actually argue the case . . .” but that it was Stonehouse who “led the opposition to [Clark] in the OPC.”

Admittedly, if true this would certainly be news. After all, both defenders of Van Til and Gordon Clark have universally understood the controversy in the 1940’s as a clash between two Reformed giants and one that pitted Van Til against Clark in a major battle between two competing and mutually exclusive epistemologies. Now, according to Johnson, the real fight was between Gordon Clark and Ned Stonehouse, a man not known as a particularly original thinker, certainly not anywhere near the caliber of Van Til even on a good day.

When asked to corroborate this story, perhaps by providing something from Clark’s many letters, articles, or books, or even something Van Til may have wrote, Johnson’s reply to me was: “God is witness between us.”

While God might be Johnson’s witness, this certainly doesn’t help Lane Keister who also stated his own version of events. Keister said that according to Muether, and the book Johnson is supposed to be reviewing, that “[John] Murray was the primary one pressing charges.” Keister added that not only was Van Til not the one pressing charges but that Van Til even “sharply disagreed” with them. Of course, even here it is a little difficult to see how Van Til might have “sharply disagreed” with the charges since he not only signed the complaint against Clark, but according to the Presbytery’s minutes of the case, he made an impassioned “plea for a serious consideration of the Complaint.” Hardly the actions of a man who “sharply disagreed.” I’d hate to imagine what Van Til might have done if he actually agreed with the charges.

Further, if Van Til “sharply disagreed” with the Complaint, then why would Muether write in Van Til the Controversialist that in the “larger context of Reformed ecclesiology, Van Til’s role in the Clark controversy, far from being an embarrassment, becomes one of his finest moments.” If this is to be considered one of Van Til’s “finest moments,” then why would he and Keister now be trying to paint Murray as controversy’s chief architect and mover, whereas Johnson tried to hand the ball to Stonehouse?

These men need to get their stories straight.

Of course, one would have thought that in the larger context of Reformed ecclesiology the scurrilous attack on Clark would have been a notable low point regardless of who is left holding the ball. And rather than defending Reformed ecclesiology, and as Dr. Robbins observed, “The WTS faction opposed Reformed ecclesiology and defended the independent, parachurch status of Westminster Seminary, which was its power base in controlling the OPC.” Anyone interested in seeing how this very un-Reformed ecclesiology operates needs to read O. Palmer Robertson’s historical account of the Shepherd controversy as it raged for seven years at WTS.

So, according to these latest revisionist, the Clark/Van Til controversy is either the Clark/Stonehouse or the Clark/Murray controversy. Consequently, not only did both sides have it wrong for all these years, but thanks to Johnson, Keister and Muether, Van Til is now recast as an unwilling participant and even someone who “sharply disagreed” with the attack on Clark. Again, this is all news to me.

I’ll have to wait to see how Keister and Muether backup their claim that Murray was the man and Van Til was somehow a reluctant and unwilling participant who “sharply disagreed” with the charges. In the meantime, where is the substantiation of Johnson’s claim that Stonehouse was the primary figure in the attack against Clark and that Van Til was somehow dragged into or simply “enlisted” into the controversy rather than being a willing participant, much less the prime mover and intellectual force behind the Complaint? I can only think Johnson has never noticed the many references to Van Til throughout Clark’s works – precisely as it relates to the central questions raised in the case – not to mention the direct mention of the case itself? Or, Van Til’s many references to Clark referring to Clark as a man deeply entrenched in the “sin” of “rationalism” who was busy advancing a dangerous and antichristian theory of knowledge? Of course, and at the very least, Clark most certainly was familiar with Herman Hoeksema’s editorials in The Standard Bearer all written during the height of the controversy and later compiled and published by the Trinity Foundation, all identifying Van Til as the intellectual and driving force behind the attack. Did either Clark or Van Til publish anything anywhere that controverts Hoeksema’s reporting of the major players in the whole affair? Funny, I can’t find even a mention of Stonehouse as being the primary instigator and architect of the controversy in any of Clark’s works or in Hoeksema’s account of the events as they unfolded. I haven’t found anything yet in Van Til’s works either. Perhaps there is something buried in that massive CDROM of his sitting on my shelf and I just missed it?

Was Ned Stonehouse very much involved in this orchestrated and well crafted hit on Dr. Clark? Of course he was. So was that “Christian gentleman” John Murray. The record speaks for itself. It was the Clark/Van Til controversy and not the Clark/Stonehouse or the Clark/Murray controversy. After all, whose philosophies were on the table and on the line in that debate? Ned Stonehouse’s? John Murray’s? Give me a break.

It was Van Til’s doctrines, primarily those centering around his analogous view of truth and love of biblical paradox, the very heart of Van Til’s doctrine of the incomprehensibility, that made up the central issues in the Complaint. To now try to minimize his role, even to the point of removing him completely as a willing participant in a vain attempt to magically exempt him from any culpability in the attack, seems, well, disingenuous and very ungentlemanly.

Besides, if Johnson’s memories of what Clark may have said some twenty plus years ago during a private dinner conversation at his home are correct, and have not been distorted by time like the old rusted out floorboards in his faded blue ‘66 Peugeot, then how can he explain Clark naming Van Til as the “guy in the black hat” even as late as in his final book – a book Clark arranged to be published posthumously so he could answer his critics one last time and from the grave? Clark wrote:

“Cornelius Van Til . . . furnished the basic content of A Complaint. “

As mentioned, Stonehouse was a major player in the controversy. As was John Murray, R.B. Kuiper and almost a dozen lesser men who made up the WTS faction aligned against Clark. Could it be that Stonehouse was particularly vicious if not downright personal in his attacks against Clark and that this explains why Clark would identify him as “the man in the black hat?” Perhaps? Who knows? Have historians up until now been wrong in identifying the WTS faction that launched an unprovoked attack against Clark with Van Til? I have to think this would require a little more than just some personal old and faded memories from a private dinner conversation that happened more than twenty years ago. Just like the holes in Johnson’s floorboards, it appears there are more than a few holes in this story as well.

Vantilians are great at dishing it out, but collapse like the rusted floorboards on a ‘66 Peugeot as soon as you exert even the slightest pressure. Recent case in point is Lane Keister who showed me the hole in the floor for criticizing Vantilian historian John Muether. Lane wrote:

. . . this last comment is over the top. John Muether is an extremely well-respected historian. He is a librarian and professor of church history at RTS Orlando. He knew Van Til personally, and knows many people who knew Van Til as well. The only reason people are attacking you is that you are attacking them, making this whole issue a central issue of the Gospel. You are banned from this blog temporarily, and maybe permanently. I don’t mind debate one bit, and you have contributed much good iron-sharpening debate. But unless you can control your temper and your words to be polite, I can’t have you on this blog. It grieves me no end to have to do this. But people who would otherwise comment are not interested in commenting because you are so harsh.

What were my comments that were “over the top,” ill tempered, impolite, and just a downright nasty abusive ad hominem attack against OPC historian and librarian Muether and deserving of Lane stuffing my head through the floorboards? I wrote:

Meuther is an untrustworthy historian and I’ve already been over some of the revisionism now being advanced by Vantillians to somehow remove Van Til’s name from the heart of the controversy. The myth of Van Til continues.

How mean! How nasty! I guess in the minds of Vantilians saying that a Vantilian historian is an untrustworthy and biased source when writing on the Clark/Van Til controversy rises to the level of abusive ad hominem and is “over the top.” Why, I’m so “harsh” that other timid souls who “would otherwise comment” cower in the corner fearing for their lives.

Harsh or not, could it be that instead of advancing actual arguments defending their treasured myths the preferred method of debate of thin skinned Vantilians like Keister is to simply silence their opposition? Meuther is an untrustworthy and biased historian when commenting on the Clark controversy, and, with the help of a piece written by John Robbins, I documented that fact on Lane’s blog and will do so again here.

In response to an earlier exchange with Lane on Muether, I cited a John Robbins’ essay, Can the Orthodox Presbyterian Church Be Saved? As demonstrated in that piece, Muether draws his information concerning the Clark affair from secondary sources, makes unsupported assertions and his work in regards to Van Til is at best lazy. Some might call it shoddy. Muether’s untrustworthiness is also demonstrated in referring to the Clark Controversy as Van Til’s “shining moment.” At least other Vantilians have been willing to view this battle as a low point, not so for Muether who seems intent on continuing the Van Til myth.

But, since Lane evidently did not consider any of these points relevant and clearly did not read the above article that I linked to on his blog in answer to something he even wrote, here are a few relevant portions of that article, although the entire article is strongly recommended since Robbins demolishes any pretense that Muether is writing history :

___________________________________________________________________

The Controversy Continues

The current OPC Historian is John Muether of Reformed Theological Seminary, whose essay “Van Til the Controversialist” opens the October 2004 issue of New Horizons. In the course of his three-page essay on Van Til, Muether criticizes Gordon Clark repeatedly. On September 23, 2004, I wrote to Mr. Muether about his statements:

In the latest issue of New Horizons, you make several statements about Gordon Clark that I would like more information about. First, you make a passing reference to “false principles, whether the rationalism of Gordon Clark or the irrationalism of Karl Barth.” What false principles, which you call rationalism, did Clark hold? Please provide quotations.

Second, you say that “Clark was a pawn in the agenda of a faction of the church that was discontent with its Reformed identity. Ultimately what was at stake was the question of whether the church’s ecclesiology would be evangelical or Reformed.”

I presume that as the OPC Historian, you have some documentary evidence that supports these statements. I would like to see those documents. Who were the members of this “faction”? How did they use Clark as a “pawn”? What was their “agenda”? How was their “discontent” with the “Reformed identity” of the OPC expressed? How did Clark become a “pawn,” if, as is the case, the whole controversy began when the theological views of Clark were attacked by the Westminster faculty, which initiated the whole affair? Do you mean to suggest by your remarks that this whole controversy was at bottom not theological or doctrinal, but ecclesiastical? If so, why do you think that?

Third, you write, “But when the church rejected the agenda of broader evangelicalism, Clark and his supporters left the church.” Again, what was this “agenda”? I would like to see some documentary evidence for it. Do you mean to suggest, as your words imply, that Clark was not Reformed, but “broadly evangelical”? What is the evidence for this? How did the church “reject” this “agenda of broader evangelicalism”? Was there a vote at GA?

Since you are the official Historian of the OPC, I hope I can anticipate a prompt, thorough, and accurate response to my requests for more information and documents supporting these statements, which are not supported in your essay.

Mr. Muether’s response was disappointing. He did not provide any documents or quotations supporting his statements about Dr. Clark, but referred me to three other writers:

Dear Mr. Robbins,

1. Cornelius Van Til’s claims about the rationalism of Gordon Clark can be found in his Introduction to Systematic Theology (1949), especially pages 16-17, 33, 37-38.

2. The broader ecclesiastical issues that accompanied the Clark debates in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church are well documented by Michael Hakkenberg (”The Battle over the Ordination of Gordon H. Clark,” Pressing Toward the Mark, 329-50; see especially the “Program for Action” found in footnote 64 on pp. 349-50) and by Charles Dennison, History for a Pilgrim People, 131-35 (see esp. footnote 51 on p. 134).

Let us examine Mr. Muether’s response and the sources he cites.

One of the characteristics of a competent historian is his practice of citing primary sources for his statements. If he makes an assertion about a person’s views, for example, he quotes the words of that person. He does not merely quote or cite someone else, especially an opponent or critic of that person. In his first paragraph, Muether does not cite any words of Dr. Clark or any primary source; he cites only Van Til, perhaps Dr. Clark’s most confused and determined opponent. This is not characteristic of a competent historian.

On pages 16-18 of Van Til’s An Introduction to Systematic Theology, which Muether cites as supporting his accusation of “rationalism” against Dr. Clark, Van Til accuses Dr. Clark of both rationalism and irrationalism: He claims that Dr. Clark’s view “assumes an irrationalist philosophy of fact” and that “Irrationalism is involved in rationalism and rationalism is involved in irrationalism” (18). Since Van Til in the context defines neither of these terms, they function merely as pious swear words. They are used only for their prejudicial, pejorative, and rhetorical effect; they have no scholarly, probative, or cognitive value whatsoever. The words Van Til actually quotes from Dr. Clark — such as this sentence from Dr. Clark’s 1946 book, A Christian Philosophy of Education, “In view of this pragmatic dealing with history, its positivistic denial of universal law, of metaphysics, of supernatural interpretation, it may be permitted by way of anticipation to suggest the conclusion that, instead of beginning with facts and later discovering God, unless a thinker begins with God, he can never end with God, or get the facts either” — not only do not substantiate an accusation of either rationalism or irrationalism, they actually demonstrate Dr. Clark’s presuppositionalism, which Van Til attacks. Van Til writes: “Now it is true that no Reformed person should begin with facts and later discover God, but it is equally true that no Reformed person should begin with God and later discover the facts” (17-18).6 Van Til asserts that “every fact proves the existence of God” (17). After this sweeping assertion, Van Til fails to provide the proof.

Although Muether does not mention it, Van Til concludes this brief discussion of Dr. Clark’s views by asserting his own view that there is no point of identity of content between God’s mind and man’s mind: “At no point does such a system [that, is, "Reformed confessions of faith"] pretend to state, point for point, the identical content of the original system of the mind of God…. To claim for the Christian system identity with the divine system at any point is to break the relationship of dependence of human knowledge on the divine will” (18-19). This second sentence is, of course, merely asserted; as with so much in Van Til’s books, there is no Scriptural or other argument offered to support the assertion.

But what is more important to notice is Van Til’s distinction between “the Christian system” and “the divine system.” In Van Til’s thought, there are two systems of theology, the “Christian system” and the “divine system.” The “Christian system” is not the “divine system,” and the “divine system” is not the “Christian system.” Not only are the two systems different, they are completely different: There is no “identity of content” between them. Included in the “Christian system” are all Reformed confessions. According to Van Til, no Reformed confession does, or even can, claim to state the content of God’s theological system “at any point.” “At no point,” Van Til writes, is there identical content in the Reformed confessions (the “Christian system”) and the mind of God (the “divine system”). This utter agnosticism, this attack on Scripture and propositional revelation, this repudiation of all Reformed creeds and confessions per se, is compelling the OPC to commit theological suicide.

The next citation from Van Til that Muether provides, page 33, is a discussion of the primacy of the intellect. It contains no quotations from Dr. Clark, and no accusation of “rationalism.”

The third and final citation Muether provides from Van Til is pages 37 and 38. They also contain no mention of Dr. Clark. Page 39 mentions Dr. Clark in passing, who, Van Til says, “appeal[s] constantly to the abstract principle of contradiction for the defense of the Christian position.” That, apparently, is wrong. Pointing out that non-Christian views contradict themselves is somehow illegitimate in apologetics. But Van Til makes no accusation of rationalism on this page either.

To recapitulate, the OPC Historian, John Muether, failed to substantiate his assertion that Dr. Clark taught something called the “false principles” of “rationalism” that were opposed to Christianity. Specifically, Muether failed to answer my simple request: “What false principles, which you call rationalism, did Clark hold? Please provide quotations.” Muether provided no quotations. His citations of Van Til were equally empty. In fact, there are no such quotations to be found in Dr. Clark’s books, and the accusation of holding the “false principles” of “rationalism” is a slander against Dr. Clark that Van Tilians have been repeating for decades in both their official and private communications. Nearly twenty years after his death, both the official Historian and the official magazine of the OPC find it necessary to continue their smear campaign against Gordon Clark.

. . . In his New Horizons essay, OPC Historian Muether said that the WTS faction was defending “Reformed ecclesiology.” Hardly. The WTS faction opposed Reformed ecclesiology and defended the independent, parachurch status of Westminster Seminary, which was its power base in controlling the OPC.

Hakkenberg wrote: “A Reformed theology, although important to this group [the "Clark group"] was not crucial in the battle against modernism” (337). Hakkenberg cited no source for this statement, no quotation, not even a sentence, from any member of this “group,” let alone from the whole group. Hakkenberg repeatedly referred to “Clark’s willingness to cooperate with fundamentalists in the battle against modernism,” falsely implying that Dr. Clark was willing to water down Reformed theology in order to achieve such cooperation. Hakkenberg suggested that this willingness to cooperate with Fundamentalists in the battle against Modernism (which was a policy that Machen had in fact pursued), led Van Til and his supporters to “suspect” that Dr. Clark’s theology was “not Reformed enough and perhaps Arminian” (337). That suspicion was, of course, complete speculation, without any basis in fact, and neither the WTS faction nor Hakkenberg, nor any official OPC Historian, writing 40 or more years later, supplied any evidence for it. But there was and is plenty of evidence against it.

. . . But the problem goes deeper than misrepresentation of one essay by Dr. Clark. The official OPC spin on the Clark-Van Til controversy is that the WTS faculty, whose views were made the standard of orthodoxy, were defending the church against the “broad evangelicalism” of Gordon Clark. They cite no evidence to support such an interpretation, and I cite evidence to contradict it. So why do they say it? There is a reason, not a good one, but a reason nonetheless: The official Historians of the OPC do not write history, but propaganda designed to cover up the reprehensible behavior of Van Til and the entire WTS faction in attacking a man of sterling academic, theological, and ecclesiastical credentials. Rather than admitting that Dr. Clark was not broadly evangelical and did not seek any compromise with Arminians, rather than reporting that Dr. Clark was in fact a strict adherent to the Westminster Confession of Faith, an enthusiastic supporter of J. Gresham Machen, and a founding Elder of the OPC, the OPC Historians have concocted a version of the controversy that bears little resemblance to the truth. Hart and Muether conclude, “In sum, Dr. Clark failed to express unequivocally a God-centered understanding of the Christian religion.” They cite no evidence to support this falsehood.

. . . In the course of his remarks, Dennison commented on the difference between Dr. Clark’s view of revelation and Van Til’s. He noted that “Truly, the ‘incomprehensibility debate’ is one of the great theological encounters in the twentieth century…” (133). This is a notably different assessment from Hakkenberg’s description of the issues as “non-fundamental.” Dennison accurately described Van Til’s view as “Man’s knowledge is like (analogous to) God’s knowledge but it is not the same.” This agnostic notion undermines all of Christianity, beginning with the doctrines of Scripture and propositional revelation. If the human words of Scripture are not also God’s own divine words, then the Bible is a merely human book. If the truths revealed in Scripture are not what God really thinks, then we have no knowledge of God whatsoever, which is, of course, exactly what Herman Bavinck teaches in his systematic theology. If man does not and cannot know what God knows, if there is and can be no identity of content between God’s knowledge and man’s, then man can know nothing, and we are all lost. On Van Til’s view, Christianity must be a cruel hoax, for it claims to be a revelation of divine truth in human words.

Dennison was candid about the reason Floyd Hamilton was not approved for a position at a Presbyterian seminary in Korea: “Floyd Hamilton was an able man but a defender of Clark and a determined evidentialist” (134). It was the WTS faction that opposed Hamilton, an “able man,” and they opposed him because he defended Dr. Clark. Obviously the WTS faction was not going to seek the peace of the Church, but was spoiling for another fight. At that point, Dr. Clark’s defenders left the denomination in disgust.

Dennison, in those portions of his book in which he speaks accurately, does not support Muether’s allegations . . . .

. . . After 60 years, its denominational magazine still genuflects before Van Til, and its official Historian still attacks Gordon Clark. As we have shown, that attack is false, scurrilous, and sinful. None of the statements demeaning Dr. Clark made by the official Historian of the OPC, John Muether, in the October 2004 issue of New Horizons is supported by the evidence.

1. Dr. Clark was not a rationalist, and neither OPC Historian Muether nor his source Van Til quoted any of Dr. Clark’s words demonstrating that he was. The allegation is simply slander, repeated many times by disciples of Van Til, and now by the official Historian of the OPC. Further, to lump Gordon Clark and the Neo-orthodox theologian Karl Barth together in the same sentence, as Muether does when he accuses Clark of holding the “false principles” of “rationalism,” appears to be malicious.
2. Nor was Dr. Clark a “pawn,” as Muether stated, and none of the sources he cited support this slander.
3. Muether alleged that there was a faction in the OPC in the 1940s, a faction to which Dr. Clark belonged, that was “discontent with its Reformed identity.” Neither he nor any of the sources he cited demonstrate this alleged discontent. Dr. Clark’s 1943 essay, “An Appeal to Fundamentalists,” demonstrates the falsity of Muether’s allegation as it applies to Dr. Clark, who is Muether’s target.
4. Muether’s allegation that what was at stake in the controversy was whether the OPC’s ecclesiology would be Evangelical or Reformed is also unsupported by any documentary evidence Muether cited. The ecclesiological issue in the controversy was whether the parachurch institution, Westminster Seminary, would be subject to Church oversight. It was the WTS faction that opposed such ecclesiastical oversight, making them, not Dr. Clark, the advocates of an un-Reformed ecclesiology.

The official OPC Historian is not reporting history, but writing propaganda. Until the leaders of the OPC are willing to come to grips with history and acknowledge their errors of both teaching and practice, the denomination will continue its descent into apostasy . . . .

Copyright (C) 1998-2008 The Trinity Foundation

___________________________________________________________________

As anyone can see, Lane needs to grow some skin. I wasn’t attacking the man just his credibility as a competent historian in regard to a narrow debate that happened more than 60 years ago. He used secondary sources and the previously refuted opinions of others to make his case. He even quotes Van Til as his source for continuing the tired Vantilian slander of Clark as a “rationalist.” If that’s the work of a first rate historian and scholar I guess Lane and I have different opinions of what constitutes good history and scholarship. Frankly, I don’t think that’s good work for a librarian. However, I’m willing to believe that Muether, like Lane and GLW Johnson (whose rusty floorboards I will be commenting on in my next blog), are just so enamored with the legend that is Van Til that they are unwilling and unable to look past the hype. It certainly explains why Pastor Johnson said on Lane’s blog that he wouldn’t give Robbins the “time of day” concerning his dispute with Muether. As far as I’m concerned, this stuff is pretty much par for the course when dealing with Vantilians. So is a boot in the rear.