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.

But don’t think for a minute that the schizophrenia stops there.  According to the Aquila Report, this same Joshua Moon said on the floor of the Presbytery, and this time in his own defense,

that he believes that no reprobate person ever gets justification, and that he believes that the baptized reprobate do get forgiveness of sin in some real sense.

Now, read that again.  I certainly hope that those words attributed to Moon are accurate, because if they’re not then the folks at the Aquila Report have some explaining to do.  Of course, if they are correct, then not only is the Siouxlands Presbytery schizophrenic, but TE Moon is insane (I’m not exactly sure why Moon was mentioned by name in the earlier Aquila Report and not in the October, 26 Report when Moon’s defense of Lawrence was cited again with the above addition).

Of course, this same Joshua Moon is reported saying in defense of Lawrence:

In attributing to all the baptized some form of union, adoption, new life, and forgiveness, TE Lawrence is speaking the language of our tradition and of our Scriptures. By refusing to attribute absolute and final union, adoption, new life, and forgiveness, TE Lawrence is directly in line with our standards.

So, it would seem that Moon very much believes those baptized reprobates do have “union, adoption, new life, and forgiveness,” even if only “in some sense” which I can only assume is not in the “final” sense when you would think that union, adoption, new life, and forgiveness really mattered.   Although, who knows?   Why these men are never forced to define the precise sense in which they mean the things they say remains a mystery, because I can think of no sense in which the reprobate are justified,  united to Christ, adopted, or are the recipients of the new life.  The Scriptures and the Confession certainly don’t teach that, but it certainly is another example of a Federal Visionist trying to wiggle around the plain meaning of words like reprobation, election, justification, along with union, adoption, new life, and forgiveness.

And, if that weren’t enough, Moon adds:

The fact is, what TE Lawrence says on baptism is held in various ways and with various nuances by a lot of people in our PCA: from ministers and elders here in this Presbytery, myself included, to professors at our (emphasis in original) theological seminary, and even almost entire Presbyteries. Some are wanting to drive them all out and are asking you to begin that exile.

Sadly, this is very true.  Many in the PCA do share Moon’s contradictory view of baptism and justification.   Moon is also right when he says that his views on baptism and that of Lawrence are “held in various ways and with various nuances by a lot of people in our PCA: from ministers and elders here in this Presbytery …to professors” at the official seminary of the PCA; Covenant Theological Seminary.  This is tragic and merely points to the near complete apostasy of the PCA.

For example, Federal Visionist and fellow PCA Pastor, Jeffrey Myers also believes in the temporary justification of the reprobate and even claims to derive this so-called biblical “truth” from Matthew18:21-35.   Of course, Meyers dishonesty and subterfuge is easy to spot when he writes:

Now, I’m not sure I can make what Jesus teaches here fit into our systematic theological system. I will say this: I’m rather uncomfortable talking about “temporary justification,” given the way “justification” is commonly used by us. And common usage is very important. The common understanding of justification does indeed summarize well what the Bible teaches about our judicial standing before God on the basis of Christ’s finished work received by faith. But we must not, however, allow this truth to eviscerate passages like Matthew 18 or others that are difficult to “fit” into our system. I believe we are much better off allowing for some fuzzy edges and imprecision in our system so that the whole counsel of God is not lost to us because of our rationalistic tendencies.

Notice, Meyers’ exegetical novelty won’t “fit into our systematic theological system,” but he assures us that “we are much better off allowing for some fuzzy edges and imprecision in our system” as we affirm the irrational and pretend it’s biblical.   After all, not to accept and embrace the unthinkable nonsense advanced by dogs like Moon and Meyers who claim the reprobate are justified through the magic waters of baptism would mean losing  “the whole counsel of God . . . because of our rationalist tendencies.”  Oh my, we can’t let that happen.  How can anyone even contemplate such a flagrant evil as believing Christianity is a rational faith in which all the doctrines of Scripture logically and necessarily cohere? Of course, if Meyers is correct and Jesus is teaching a scheme in which “the reprobate can attain a state of justification for a time,” then not only does this not “fit into our systematic theological system,” but rather our systematic theological system (read the Confession) is wrong.

Somewhat surprisingly, if only because of its brazenness, Moon has even flown his FV flag in the official magazine of the PCA, byFaith, where he is quoted saying:

I don’t attach a special value to eternal election over and above any other doctrine of the church. However, Paul emphasizes it to the Ephesians, but not the Corinthians, or the Galatians, or the Philippians. [The prophets of the Old Testament are] by and large silent on the issue of divine (eternal and effective) election: they are more interested in the reality of ‘covenantal’ election, and urging those elected into the people of God by birth and promise to become and live like true people of God. That I take as more central to my task in preaching.

Of course the prophets of the Old Testament are not “by and large silent on the issue of divine election” at all.  God’s sovereign, eternal, and completely effective election is taught throughout the Old Testament.   But, notice, in opposition to “eternal and effective” election, according to Moon there is another type of election that is clearly neither eternal or effective and that is “covenantal election” in which people supposedly enter into by birth and not by faith.    Notice too that maintaining this so-called “covenantal election” is premised on living like the “true people of God”  and this is the “central task” of Moon’s preaching.  Clearly the Gospel is not one of Moon’s central tasks. Besides sounding like the typical FV scheme of works righteousness,  Moon is just regurgitating the old Jewish and Pharisaic belief that they had some special entitlement or claim to the Kingdom by virtue of their birth, something Paul refutes in Romans 4.  As John Robbins observes in Not Reformed At All:

Physical circumcision, to which the Jews looked for assurance [or baptism to which Federal Visionists look for assurance-SG] of their favor with God, had no part to play in Abraham’s salvation — and it has no part to play in the salvation of his children either. “For circumcision is indeed profitable if you keep the law [and no one does], but if you are a breaker of the law [and everyone is] your circumcision has become uncircumcision.”  Further, “this blessedness” (Romans 4:6, 9) that is, salvation apart from works, comes on all who believe, whether they are physically circumcised or not. Paul further explained the reasons:

“For the promise that he would be the heir of the world was not to Abraham or to his seed through the law, but through the righteousness of faith. For if those who are of the law are heirs, faith is made void and the promise made of no effect, because the law brings about wrath; for where there is no law there is no transgression. Therefore it is of faith that it might be according to grace, so that the promise might be sure to all the seed, not only to those who are of the law, but also to those who are of the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all [Romans 4:13-16].”

The first reason for justification by faith alone that Paul presents is that the promise was not made to Abraham or his seed through the law, that is through their law-keeping, as the Jews misunderstood the Covenant, but through the righteousness received by faith alone. Paul says that if those who are of the law — those who bear the marks of the covenant and keep their noses clean, those whom Calvin called “saintlings” — are heirs of the promise, then the promise is made of no effect, for they are not saved, but objects of wrath.  Notice Paul’s argument here: The Jewish misinterpretation of the Covenant makes the promise of the Covenant ineffective (“of no effect”), for the circumcised [or Moon’s baptized reprobates who all supposedly enter the Covenant by virtue of their birth and baptism- SG] are not saved, but are objects of wrath, just as he had proved in chapter 2. This is the same Jewish misinterpretation of the Covenant that infected medieval churches, Reformed churches in Europe in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, and American Presbyterian and Reformed churches in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries. In the place of an effective, efficacious Covenant of Grace, in which God writes his laws in the minds of all the members of the Covenant, these churches substitute an ineffective, objective covenant in which reprobate (children of the flesh) and elect (children of the promise) alike receive the promises of God in baptism. In opposition to this counterfeit covenant, Paul teaches a Covenant of Grace in which “the promise might be sure to all the seed.”

Moon clearly maintains two classes or types of election; one effective and eternal and the other, well, not so much.  Moon’s doctrine of election by virtue of birth and his belief that the baptized reprobate are “in some sense” justified, even if only for a time,  stands in direct opposition to at least 5 of the 9 concluding declarations found in the PCA’s FV/NPP report:

2. The view that an individual is “elect” by virtue of his membership in the visible church; and that this “election” includes justification, adoption and sanctification; but that this individual could lose his “election” if he forsakes the visible church, is contrary to the Westminster Standards.

6. The view that water baptism effects a “covenantal union” with Christ through which each baptized person receives the saving benefits of Christ’s mediation, including regeneration, justification, and sanctification, thus creating a parallel soteriological system to the decretal system of the Westminster Standards, is contrary to the Westminster Standards.

7. The view that one can be “united to Christ” and not receive all the benefits of Christ’s mediation, including perseverance, in that effectual union is contrary to the Westminster Standards.

8. The view that some can receive saving benefits of Christ’s mediation, such as regeneration and justification, and yet not persevere in those benefits is contrary to the Westminster Standards.

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.

While Moon has certainly demonstrated that his views are openly hostile to at least some of the conclusions of the PCA’s FV/NPP report,  Moon is certainly correct when he says; “Some are wanting to drive them all out [i.e., all those who share his anti-Christian parallel soteriological system and contradictory notion of baptism and justification] and are asking you [i.e., any remaining Christians in the Siouxlands Presbytery] to begin that exile.”  Of course, if the Siouxland Presbytery is any example, and despite all of his self-righteous carping, men like Moon have nothing to fear.   At the rate things are going it will be those remaining Christians in the PCA, those who still believe and love the Gospel, and who still adhere to the plain meaning of Confession, that will be driven out and sent into exile.

Let’s face it, when Moon asserts that the reprobate both get and do not get justification he’s in good company in the PCA.  Admittedly, if A were A and not non-A then it would follow that if no reprobate “gets justification,” then no reprobate is ever justified.  Of course, and as readers of this blog already know, the laws of logic don’t apply to the Federal Vision and their fellow travelers.  Common theological words like “reprobation,” “election,” and “justification” are completely malleable and can take on entirely different and even contradictory meanings that are supposed to be read “charitably” by Federal Vision opponents as they are systematically tied up in knots.

In the Federal Vision one might be reprobate one day, justified the next, and reprobate on the day after.  The only seeming difference in Moon’s confused mind is that the “baptized reprobate do get forgiveness of sin in some real sense.” Therefore it would seem that the water of baptism and the mumblings of some PCA priestling has the power to confer the forgiveness of sins thereby justifying at least one class of reprobates.  This obvious sacerdotalism aside, if the “baptized reprobate do get forgiveness of sin in some real sense” then why call them reprobate at all?   If they are reprobate all they received in baptism is a damp head as they perhaps repeat some words they don’t believe emanating like so much wind from the mouth of some pastor.  Again, if this Aquila Report account is true, and I have no reason to think that it isn’t, then not only should TE Lawrence be tried, but they should find a nice padded cell for TE Moon.

Thankfully, the Session of Foothills Community Church in Sturgis, S.D. made an overture requesting that the Presbytery do just that.  The Foothills’ Session asked the Presbytery to conduct a similar judicial investigation of the views of Joshua Moon. Unfortunately, it appears that despite the efforts of the Foothills Session, debate that included direct questioning of Moon was evidently quickly cutoff and the motion was called finding “no strong presumption of guilt” in the case of Moon.   Not only has another seeming Federal Visionist been exonerated by the Siouxlands Presbytery, but they have also effectively sanctioned the insane contradictory teachings of a lunatic.

It would seem that the next question is why does anyone need the findings of an investigative committee to file charges against either Moon or Lawrence?  In the case of Lawrence, they already have one set of findings from one committee, why not simply file charges based on those?  So what if the majority rejects the committee’s findings?   I would think there still has to be some recourse for those in the minority against this FV controlled majority even in the PCA?   Besides, PCA BCO 31-2 states:

If such investigation, however originating, should result in raising a strong presumption of the guilt of the party involved, the court shall institute process, and shall appoint a prosecutor to prepare the indictment and to conduct the case.

Nowhere does it mentioned that the findings of the committee have to be approved by the majority before the court is required to institute process.    The only thing required is that if an investigation, “however originating, should result in a strong presumption of the guilt of the party involved, the court shall institute process….”  Well, at least one investigation was held and there was found a “strong presumption of guilt.”  In the case of Moon, the finding of no presumption of guilt based on whatever limited floor debate and questioning should be immediately challenged at the GA level.  I would imagine that if charges were filed in either case and the Presbytery ruled that there is insufficient grounds to bring charges or some other technicality, their decision could be appealed to the the General Assembly.  Frankly, if the GA isn’t forced to get more involved in rooting out Federal Visionists it won’t be long before the GA is run by Federal Visionists and their many enablers.

Regardless of what happens next, the decision to completely exonerate Moon also brings into question the Presbytery’s sincerity in their seeming “repentance” for hastily dismissing the findings of the first investigative committee and exonerating Lawrence.  It would appear that Moon and Lawrence share many of the same views, Moon said they do, so how can they “repent” of their actions in the Lawrence case while simultaneously exonerating Moon?   Is this some sort of Federal Vision shell game?  I think so.  On the other hand, I may have spoken too soon when I said that the Presbytery repented of hastily dismissing the findings of the investigative committee and exonerating Lawrence.  Given their track record, perhaps they were repenting of not receiving a report that found a strong presumption of guilt for a man they’ve already cleared of any presumption of guilt.   Now that would be par for the course.

James said “A double minded man is unstable in all his ways.” It would seem the same is true for entire Presbyteries along with the denominations they belong to. But, then, maybe the Presbytery isn’t so “double minded” after all and was only repenting of appointing an investigative committee that found 4-2 against Lawrence? I mean, 24-13 to dismiss the findings of the first committee is pretty convincing and there are plenty to choose from in order to ensure that this new committee comes to the same conclusion as the majority in the case of Moon and Lawrence before him. I guess the question is which side of the column were the new committee members drawn?

Add to this the fact that many of even the best and most able FV opponents already accept the idea that logic must be curbed and that two sides of any seeming contradiction not only may be, but in many cases, must be true, and the deadly nonsensical doublespeak of the Federal Vision will again be affirmed as an act of Christian charity. And, if what I argue is true of many of the most able FV opponents, then what can anyone expect from those amiable marshmallows in the middle who would rather bury all of this silly and divisive FV stuff, let bygones be bygones, and continue on as one big happy PCA family? Instead of binding these slimy eels to the Word of God and the laws of reason, many of those rightly opposed to the FV help tie the noose by which another Presbytery is hung. And, while the Siouxlands Presbytery may seem to be a rather small and inconsequential presbytery, it is just one more battlefield that is about to fall as the FV continues its march toward complete control of the entire denomination.  Don’t think it can happen?  Then you don’t know your Presbyterian history.

Advertisement

Explore posts in the same categories: Heresies, Siouxlands Presbytery