WHY HERESY PROSPERS
Often we are compelled to ask the question, "Why does heresy prosper in the churches?" We might expect it do so in some churches, such as those of the National Council of Churches that have long ago forsaken the word of God as the only rule of faith and practice. We might also expect heresy to gain footholds in Charismatic churches that have added to the word of God the deluded statements of those who think they are under the inspiration of the Spirit. But we see dangerous and soul destroying heresies that strike at the very core of Christianity and subvert the very gospel of Jesus Christ prospering in the very bosom of conservative Reformed and Presbyterian denominations. This we find shocking. And we are compelled to wrestle with the question, "How can these things be?"
In answer to that question we are posting a recent edition of the Trinity Review that seeks to answer just that question. Our thanks to Dr. John Robbins of the Trinity Foundation for permission to post this article on our website.
Why Heretics Win
Battles
John W. Robbins
The Auburn Avenue Theology, Pros and Cons
Debating the Federal Vision
E. Calvin Beisner, editor
Fort Lauderdale, Florida: Knox Theological Seminary, 2004
The Apostle Paul lost some of his battles. When Paul
preached the Gospel of Jesus Christ in the synagogues, he was persecuted by the
original antichrist, Judaism. We do not know, but tradition says that Paul died
a violent death. (Jesus himself was almost murdered on the Sabbath by devout
synagogue-going Jews who did not like his sermon; see Luke 4.) Most of
the Jews of the first century rejected Christ; only the remnant was saved. The
wrath of God, exercised through an unbelieving and unwitting General Titus,
ended the apostate Temple cult – the vaunted Second Temple Judaism of the New
Perspective on Paul. It was only through the writing of new Scriptures, the
divinely inspired New Testament, and the establishment of new institutions –
churches to propagate the doctrines of the Scriptures, both Old and New – that
the Gospel survived the first century. As a Christian, Paul did not use force
(as Saul he had). He lost battles, but he won the war.
The Reformer Martin Luther lost some of his battles. When
he launched his doctrinal reform in 1517, he hoped to transform the Roman
Church-State. Instead, the papal tyrant excommunicated him, burned his books,
and murdered his followers. There was no significant reform of the Roman Church.
Five hundred years later, the Roman Church-State is bigger and more heretical
than ever. Only the writing of books, sermons, and tracts, and the establishment
of Protestant churches and schools, ensured the survival of the Reformation.
Most of the Romanists rejected Christ; only the remnant was saved. Luther lost
battles, but won the war.
The 20th century Presbyterian J. Gresham Machen lost some
of his battles. In 1923 he wrote a book demonstrating that the Presbyterian
Church in the United States was preaching two different messages, Christianity
and Liberalism. His efforts to stop the Auburn heresies ended with Machen and
others being excommunicated by the Presbyterian Church in 1936. Most of the
Presbyterians rejected Christ; only the remnant was saved. Only the publication
of more literature, and the establishment of new churches and schools, ensured
that Biblical Christianity would not disappear in the United States. Machen lost
battles, but Christ won the war.
In the 21st century the institutions that resulted from the
efforts of Machen are subverted by heretics. If history is any indication, the
heretics will win, and only the publication of more literature, plus the
establishment of new institutions, will ensure the survival of Biblical
Presbyterianism in America. Most American Presbyterians will reject Christ, and
only the remnant will be saved.
Why Heretics Win
There are several reasons that heretics win battles.
First, Scripture tells us that they are more clever and
cunning than believers: “For the sons of this world are more shrewd in their
generation than the sons of light” (Luke 16:8). They have a way of
thinking that makes them more politically astute, more street smart, more
imaginative in their machinations, and more willing to act in sinful ways in
order to achieve their goals. Stealing, lying, and bribery are fine so long as
they “advance the Kingdom.”
Second, heretics introduce false ideas stealthily: “But
this occurred because of false brethren secretly brought in (who came in by
stealth to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might
bring us into bondage” (Galatians 2:4) and “For certain men have
crept in unnoticed, who long ago were marked out for this condemnation...” (Jude
4). They appear to be sheep, but are not; and the ideas they teach, at least at
first, appear to be true, but are not. By their smooth words, they deceive many
into thinking that they are Christian brothers and the ideas they advance are
Biblical.
Third, heretics frequently use force to persecute
Christians. Force works; it silences the opposition. That is why heretics and
tyrants use it. The blood of the martyrs is not the seed of the church; only the
Gospel is.
Fourth, and most important, those who believe the truth
tend to be slow to recognize error and even slower to take the actions necessary
to defend the truth. They lack both discernment and courage. This is the crucial
matter. Christians cannot help the fact that the sons of this world are more
shrewd than they are, or that false brethren do things subtly, surreptitiously,
and coercively. But Christians can help how they understand and respond to such
doctrinal and ecclesiastical subversion. Their lack of discernment stems from a
lack of knowledge of Scripture, and their lack of courage comes from a lack of
belief in the promises of Scripture.
Paul, Our Model
We can learn a great deal from the example of the Apostle
Paul in Antioch and his letter to the Galatians, for he was neither slow to
recognize error nor timid in correcting it. Our failure to learn from and
imitate Paul is the principal reason why heretics win battles.
Paul recognized doctrinal error quickly and acted swiftly
to correct it. He wrote: “But this [a problem over the preaching of the
Gospel] occurred because of false brethren...to whom we did not yield submission
even for an hour, that the truth of the Gospel might continue with you” (Galatians
2:2-5). Paul did not put up with (“yield submission” to) error or those
teaching error on the Gospel “even for an hour.” He was quick to recognize
error and quick to correct it, so that “the truth of the Gospel might continue
with you.” While his concern was doctrinal, it was not academic, for he did
not tolerate those who were teaching error in the churches. He understood error,
and he refused to tolerate the men who were teaching or abetting error in the
churches.
Paul explained further how Christians ought to respond to
those who obscure the Gospel: “But from those who seemed to be something –
whatever they were, it makes no difference to me; God shows personal favoritism
to no man – for those who seemed to be something added nothing to me” (Galatians
2:6). Paul was not impressed by a person’s status in the church. God is no
respecter of persons, and neither was Paul. Church status, church office,
educational credentials afford no immunity. In fact, the Biblical rule is just
the opposite: To whom much is given, much shall be required. The greater the
office, the greater the responsibility in the churches. That is why Paul told
Timothy: “those [elders] who are sinning rebuke in the presence of all” (1
Timothy 5:20).
So far, we have learned three things about how we must
oppose those who obscure or pervert the Gospel:
(1)
We must recognize doctrinal error as a serious sin.
(2)
We must not tolerate either error on the doctrine of salvation or those who
teach it “even for an hour.”
(3)
We must not allow ourselves to be intimidated or cowed by the reputations or
credentials of those teaching error on the doctrine of salvation.
But Paul has much more to teach us about correcting
doctrinal error in the churches. He continues: “But when Peter had come to
Antioch, I withstood him to his face” (Galatians 2:11). This is
Paul’s fourth lesson: Not only must those who teach a false Gospel be
anathematized (see Galatians 1), but Christians must also oppose and
correct brothers who tolerate those who preach a false Gospel. In Galatians
1 Paul had cursed those who preach a false Gospel. In chapter 2 he instructs us
on how to deal with brothers who tolerate those who teach a false Gospel, thus
obscuring or compromising the doctrine of justification by faith alone. Peter
had not preached a false Gospel, but his actions abetted those who did. Paul
explained: “for before certain men came from James, he [Peter] would eat with
the Gentiles; but when they came, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing
those who were of the circumcision. And the rest of the Jews also played the
hypocrite with him, so that even Barnabas was carried away with their
hypocrisy.” By describing Peter’s and Barnabas’ actions as
“hypocrisy,” Paul indicated that Peter and Barnabas believed the Gospel, but
nevertheless they tolerated those who did not. Tolerance of error on the
doctrine of salvation is a sin. It is doubly sin for elders, who are charged
with the responsibility of teaching, of feeding the sheep, and of guarding the
flock.
Moreover, Paul opposed Peter “to his face” – directly
and openly. Paul was Peter’s friend and fellow Apostle. Paul went to the root
of the problem and confronted Peter directly. Paul had no misplaced personal
loyalty to Peter; he did not let a false notion of friendship interfere with his
responsibility to correct Peter and defend the Gospel. Paul did not take Peter
aside privately and suggest politely that he eat with the Gentiles. Paul opposed
Peter directly to his face. Opposing error and those who tolerate it is
something many Christians are loathe to do. They would rather whine, “Can’t
we all just get along?” Those who allow an un-Biblical view of friendship to
cloud their judgments have forgotten Paul’s question: “Have I therefore
become your enemy because I tell you the truth?” (Galatians 4:16).
Further, in Paul’s manner of confronting Peter we see the
important principle that the truth, the Biblical doctrines, are to be defended
openly, directly, and clearly. To try to defend truth by stealth, by cleverness,
by political means, is to undercut the very things we are defending. Falsehood
can be, and usually is, propagated by dishonest, uncandid, and irrational means,
but truth cannot be. Truth must be proclaimed openly, honestly, rationally, and
candidly.
Paul said that he opposed Peter, “because he was to be
blamed.” This is Paul’s fifth lesson for us. Paul assigned blame, and he
assigned it correctly. Paul identified the Apostle Peter as blameworthy.
Peter’s status as an Apostle did not shield him from being blamed nor from
Paul’s open opposition. Paul judged Peter – accurately, openly, and clearly.
Paul did not misunderstand Christ’s words, “Judge not, that you be not
judged,” as so many professing Christians do. Paul judged Peter, accurately
and swiftly; and he acted on his judgment. His judgment, of course, was not
about a trivial matter, but about the Gospel, and Peter’s role in obscuring
it. The same zeal for the Gospel that Paul displayed in Galatians 1,
which compelled him to curse those who teach any other message in the churches,
also compelled him to judge and blame Peter for not being straightforward about
the truth of the Gospel in chapter 2.
But Paul is not done teaching us how to handle churchmen
who undermine the Gospel. He wrote, “But when I saw that they were not
straightforward about the truth of the Gospel, I said to Peter before them
all.” Here Paul teaches us that men who are not straightforward about the
truth of the Gospel are to be rebuked publicly: “before them all.” They are
not to be taken aside privately; they are not to be dealt with according to Matthew
18, for Paul understood, as many churchmen do not understand today, that that
procedure is irrelevant to situations in which the Gospel is being publicly
twisted and obscured. Teachers who err on the doctrine of salvation are not to
be ignored, condoned, or dealt with privately.
Furthermore, Paul publicly rebuked Peter the Apostle, not
the lesser men who surrounded him: “I said to Peter before them all.” By
making an example of Peter, by writing his name in Scripture for all time, by
addressing the Apostle and not some Elder, Deacon, or ordinary layman, Paul made
it perfectly clear that even the highest officers in the church are subject to
the Gospel. A fortiori, so are all the rest. By addressing Peter, Paul
acted on the principle that the greater the office, the greater the
responsibility. Were Paul to rebuke Peter today, he would, of course, be accused
of making a “personal attack” on Peter, a pastor in good standing in the
church, and Paul would have been censured by some seminary faculty or church
court for using intemperate language as well. Such critics, not accustomed to
rigorous thinking, cannot differentiate between personal attack and rebuking a
specific person for obscuring the Gospel. Paul’s concern was wholly doctrinal;
he had no personal animus against Peter. His doctrinal concern, his position as
a Christian and an Apostle, required him to confront Peter publicly.
Where Is Paul When We Need Him?
Unfortunately, all these Pauline lessons are lost on most
Christians today. The present volume, The Auburn Avenue Theology,
illustrates the failure of Christians, two thousand years later, to learn
Paul’s lessons. It also indicates why the present heretics, the advocates of
Neolegalism, will win battles (even though they will lose the war).
The organizer of the colloquium tells us that an
“anonymous donor,” a “kind, thoughtful Christian businessman” who
“holds men on both sides in this controversy in high esteem” “paid all
travel, meals, lodging, and other expenses for the colloquium.” They met at
Lago Mar, a “luxurious” resort in Fort Lauderdale, for three days in August
2003. (Can you imagine a businessman paying for Paul, Peter, and the Judaizers
to attend an all-expense paid colloquium at a posh resort on the coast so they
could discover how much they had in common and iron out their
misunderstandings?)
The editor continues: This businessman “holds the
pastoral office in such high regard that he insisted that if we were to ask
these dedicated servants of God to gather for stressful debate we must provide
beautiful rooms in a beautiful location with gourmet food to show them due
honor.” Unlike Paul, who disdained status in the church when the purity of the
Gospel was at stake (“But from those who seemed to be something – whatever
they were, it makes no difference to me”), this businessman “holds the
pastoral office in high regard.” He esteems men who pervert the Gospel as
“dedicated servants of God.” And those whose essays in this volume oppose
the Federal Vision regard men who twist the Gospel as “brothers.” The
critics of the Federal Vision admit their lack of discernment. One describes
those promoting heresy as “friends of mine – even heroes.” He writes:
“We had recommended these brothers to hundreds, perhaps thousands.”
The editor explains that he first had the idea of a private
colloquium while attending the 2003 AAPC Pastors Conference in Monroe,
Louisiana. He dreamed of a meeting at which both proponents and opponents of the
new theology could discuss matters in order to clear up “misunderstandings”:
“I hoped that such a colloquium would result in the whole group’s being able
to say, ‘The vast majority of charges against these men rest on
misunderstandings of what they’ve said. Here’s what they’ve really said,
and in all but a few instances – and those largely peripheral – they’re
solidly within the boundaries of Reformed, orthodox confessionalism.’ That
certainly was my hope.” This private colloquium would be set up so that “the
discussion would be private, with no observers present, no reports made, and the
papers and responses not to be quoted outside the colloquium group, unless the
participants unanimously voted otherwise after the last session. The aim was to
ensure that everyone could speak openly without fear of his words’ being
raised in ecclesiastical charges....” Now, why didn’t Paul think of that?
This notion – that the Gospel of Jesus Christ is the
proper subject of an academic discussion, off the record, with no one’s words
being taken down, with a promise of immunity against church discipline (but with
a hope of exoneration) – violates Scripture at many points, some of which are
listed above. The editor reports that “much misunderstanding was cleared away
and warm relationships were renewed,” despite the fact that “substantive
disagreements really divided the groups,” which remain “strongly divided
over specific doctrines.” Now, the Apostle Paul did not seek a warm
relationship with his friend and fellow Apostle Peter. He wanted them to be of
one mind on the Gospel and the importance of not obscuring it. That is the
consistent theme of Scripture: The only worthwhile unity in the church is unity
in the truth. Warm fuzzy relationships devoid of such unity are worse than
worthless. It is such warm relationships apart from the truth that enable the
growth of heresy in the churches.
Douglas Wilson
Not only has heresy grown in the Reformed churches, it has
spread like kudzu. Men like Douglas Wilson claim that their views are
“orthodox and Christian.” But who knows what the Great Redefiner means by
those terms? The modus operandi of false teachers is to use old terms with new
meanings, thus deceiving the naive and undiscerning. Wilson claims, “One of
our fundamental concerns is this: we want to insist on believing God’s
promises concerning our children.” Unfortunately, neither he nor any other
proponent of Neolegalism ever quotes those promises. Worse, no critic of
Neolegalism calls Wilson’s bluff in this book. Wilson alludes to Acts
2:39, but that merely shows he does not understand the verse. Neither that verse
nor any other verse in the Bible promises salvation to children of believers
simply because they are children of believers. Several verses explicitly deny it
(Luke 3:8; John 1:12-13), and others report that some children
of believers are eternally lost.
Wilson imagines – he has a great imagination, which is
why he is such an atrocious theologian – that Acts 2:39 promises
salvation to the children of believers, but here is what the verse says: “For
the promise [of the Holy Spirit] is to you and to your children, and to all who
are afar off, as many as the Lord our God will call.” There are three
recipients of the promise: “you,” “your children,” and “all who are
afar off.” All three groups receive the same promise; children are not singled
out for any special promises. So “all who are afar off” have the same
promise of the Spirit as “your children.” Furthermore, the last clause of
the verse, “as many as the Lord our God will call,” modifies and limits all
three referents: “you, your children, and all who are afar off.” Therefore,
the promise of the Holy Spirit is made only to the elect, not to all of
Peter’s audience, nor to all their children, nor to all who are afar off, but
only to as many as the Lord our God will call from all three groups. The promise
is not to all that Peter addressed, nor to all their children (let alone to
Wilson’s children), nor to all afar off, but only to the elect. The
Jewish-pagan notion that salvation is received by genetic or ritual endowment
(Wilson vacillates between two erroneous and conflicting opinions, that children
of believers are born Christians, and that they are made Christians by baptism)
is denied repeatedly by Scripture.
Another major theme of the Neolegalists is “union with
Christ.” Scripture teaches legal and intellectual union with Christ, but that
is not what Wilson means: “When we talk about union with Christ, we are
talking about union with his body, as it is in the world today, blemishes and
all.” So “union with Christ” means church membership. Not only does this
confuse Christ with the church (if Christ is the head, he is not the body; if
Christ is the bridegroom, he is not the bride), it makes the institutional
church salvific, and makes salvation a result of church membership. This
medieval heresy ought to be recognized for what it is.
At the foundation of Wilson’s heresies lies his
irrationalism, which is perhaps the worst heresy of all. He writes: “In faith
we want to say that children of believers are saved [“infant baptism is not a
crap shoot,” he says emphatically]. But we are not making a categorical
statement of the “All P are Q” kind. [Please note the contradiction between
the two preceding sentences.] We are saying that we believe God’s statements
and promises concerning covenant children.... Now these promises...have apparent
instances of non-fulfillment. How are we to account for this?... The question of
levels of discourse is central in understanding this. On one level, all of us
confess that some of the children of believers are reprobate, and will
eventually fall away. On another level of discourse, we say that God is God to
our children. In preaching, in catechesis, in liturgy, the second level of
discourse is operative. This level is operative because faith in the promises
requires it. But an important point to note is that we are not saying
contradictory things within one level of discourse.”
Now there is a simple word for Wilson’s doctrine:
dishonesty. His nonsense about “levels of discourse” – what is true on one
“level” is false on another – is a blatant rejection of both God and
Scripture. Christ said, “Let your Yes be Yes, and your No be No” (Matthew
5:37). He did not add, “Of course I am speaking on one level of discourse, but
if I speak on two levels, ‘Yes’ may be ‘No’ and ‘No,’ ‘Yes.’”
In Wilson’s theology, “liturgical truth,” “catechetical truth,” and
“preached truth” are one thing, “operative” on one level of discourse;
and truth itself is another, inoperative in preaching, teaching, and worship.
Paul wrote, “As God is faithful, our word to you was not
Yes and No, for the Son God...was not Yes and No” (2 Corinthians
1:17-19). Paul did not add, “but our word to you might be Yes and No if we
talk on different levels of discourse.” One reason Christians and churches are
held in such low esteem by the world is that churchmen like Wilson, through the
ages, have dishonestly played with words and denied the truth. They prattle on
about paradoxes, antinomies, tensions, levels of discourse, and other
un-Biblical ideas, attributing them to Scripture, and impugning both the
intelligence and the honesty of God himself.
The proponents of this Neolegalist theology are
John Barach,
a minister in the United Reformed Churches of North America;
Peter Leithart,
a minister in the Presbyterian Church of America and teacher at New St.
Andrews College;
Rich Lusk,
then assistant pastor of the Auburn Avenue Presbyterian Church (PCA) in
Monroe, Louisiana;
Steve Schlissel,
pastor of Messiah’s Congregation in New York City;
Tom Trouwborst,
pastor of Calvary Orthodox Presbyterian Church, Schenectady, New York;
Steve Wilkins,
pastor of the Auburn Avenue Presbyterian Church (PCA), Monroe, Louisiana;
and
Douglas Wilson,
pastor of Christ Church (CREC), Moscow, Idaho.
The opponents of the Neolegalist theology whose
papers appear in this book are
E. Calvin Beisner (PCA),
Professor of Historical Theology and Social Ethics, Knox Theological Seminary;
Christopher Hutchinson,
associate pastor of Trinity Presbyterian Church (PCA), Statesboro, Georgia;
George W. Knight III,
erstwhile teacher at Matthews OPC, Charlotte, North Carolina;
Richard D. Phillips,
minister of the First Presbyterian Church of Coral Springs, Florida (PCA);
Joseph Pipa, Jr.,
President of Greenville (South Carolina) Presbyterian Theological Seminary (GPTS);
Carl Robbins,
pastor of Woodruff Road Presbyterian Church (PCA), Greenville, South
Carolina;
Morton H. Smith,
Professor at GPTS; and
R. Fowler White,
dean of the faculty at Knox Seminary.
Steve Schlissel
Steve Schlissel attacks justification by faith alone by
changing the definition of faith. He emphatically informs us that
“Reason requires a proposition as its object whereas Faith requires a history
and/or a Person as its object.” Like Wilson and Wilkins, Schlissel is fatally
confused. We have heard all this before: “No creed but Christ” was the view
of the Liberals a hundred years ago. They thought it was the height of piety
then, and Schlissel thinks so today. Far from being pious, the slogan is a
direct attack on Scripture, which is propositional revelation. But Schlissel
wants “history” and “Story” and persons to be the objects of faith, not
propositions. He even capitalizes the word Story. History and Story, Schlissel
says, are not propositional, which means that Schlissel does not know what the
word “proposition” means.
Rich Lusk
Rich Lusk, erstwhile assistant to Steve Wilkins, tells us
that “Machen would have been more true to Paul if he had had [sic]
telegrammed [sic], ‘I’m so thankful for [the] resurrection of
Christ. No hope without it.’ The resurrection is the real centerpiece of the
gospel since it is the new thing God has done.”
Lusk makes it clear that Richard Gaffin of Westminster
Seminary is the co-father (along with Norman Shepherd) of this heretical
theology. Decades ago Gaffin published a book called The Centrality of the
Resurrection in which he argued that point. Like Gaffin, Lusk appeals to Romans
4:25, which simply shows he does not understand the verse; and he ignores the
verses that teach explicitly that we are “justified by his blood,” not by
his resurrection.
The New King James Version translates Romans
4:25 correctly: “who [Jesus] was delivered up because of our offenses, and was
raised because of our justification.” Christ was not raised “for” (in
order to accomplish) our justification, but “for” (because of) our
justification. To twist this verse into saying that the effect of Christ’s
resurrection (not his death) is justification through union with Christ, when
this verse comes at the end of Paul’s grand chapter on imputation, is
theologically grotesque.
Lusk explicitly denies imputation, and
thus the Gospel: 1
This
justification [because it comes by union with Christ, as Gaffin says] requires
no transfer or imputation of anything. It does not force us to reify
“righteousness” into something that can be shuffled around in heavenly
accounting books. Rather, because I am in the Righteous One and the Vindicated
One, I am righteous and vindicated. My in-Christ-ness makes imputation
redundant. I do not need the moral content of his life of righteousness
transferred to me.... Union with Christ is therefore the key.... I am not
justified by a legal transfer of his “obedience points” to my account....
there is no imputation, strictly speaking. Rather, there is a real union, a
marriage.
The Failure of the Critics
The big disappointment in this book is not the vehemence
with which the Neolegalists state their views (that is to be expected), but the
failure of their critics to challenge their premises. Time after time the
critics concede points to the Neolegalists. Now the critics do make some telling
arguments, but they do not challenge the Neolegalists where they must be
challenged. When one critic comes close, the arrogant Schlissel demands an
apology.
This failure of the critics to defend the Gospel properly
seems to stem from two causes: misguided loyalty to the Neolegalists, and
ignorance of what the Bible teaches. One critic describes his relationship to
the Neolegalists in these words: “I speak/write with nothing but the deepest
affection and appreciation for each of the men who will be attending the
colloquium.” Nothing but affection and appreciation? How about a little
skepticism, if not suspicion? How about a little of Paul’s willingness to
speak sharply to Peter? Or, perhaps more to the point, a little of Paul’s zeal
in cursing false teachers? The critic continues:
James
Jordan has been an instructor and stimulant for twenty years.2 My
children have gone to sleep with Peter Leithart’s 3 stories ringing
in their ears. Steve Schlissel’s faithful ministry was what we
self-consciously modeled our urban ministry after in Las Vegas. I have given
away more Douglas (and Nancy) Wilson’s books in the process of family
counseling/discipleship than anyone else in North America. Steve Wilkins has
helped to home-school my children in history4 (and me in homiletics)
and had faithfully preached from our pulpit. Rich Lusk and John Barach were
gracious counterparts when we met in Monroe, and their scholarship and humility
are a gift to the whole church. Because I value these brothers so highly, it is
very difficult for me to write a disagreeable word against them.... I am deeply
saddened over the inappropriately public way these discussions have been
conducted heretofore....
Why does this PCA pastor fail to defend the faith?
“Because I value these brothers so highly, it is very difficult for me to
write a disagreeable word against them.” Not only does he value them too
highly, he values the Gospel too little. This critic allowed his personal
relationships to cloud his judgment for twenty years, and he is still doing so.
That is one reason this heresy has spread so widely in the churches.
Another reason this heresy has spread so widely is this
critic’s (as well as others’) ignorance of what the Bible teaches on these
matters. Even after this critic quotes James Jordan explicitly denying
regeneration, he says “James Jordan’s humility and scholarship are both
beyond question.... I have no intention of assaulting Jordan, but I would like
to humbly point out several areas of advice or disagreement where he could
(perhaps) hone his arguments.” Contrast these words with those of Paul when he
confronted Peter “to his face before them all,” merely for hypocrisy. Peter
was a much greater man than James Jordan, and his error was less serious than
James Jordan’s. This pastor’s response is pathetic – and sinful. It is
thinking like this that has allowed these heresies to spread and flourish in the
churches.
In one of his essays, Fowler White, dean of the faculty at
Knox Seminary and a man who strongly professes to believe in the infallibility
and inerrancy of Scripture, writes several paragraphs about Scripture that
certainly sound like a denial of inerrancy:
[W]e want to consider briefly the biblical authors’
assertions from the perspective of their finite knowledge. I have in mind the
point that we underestimate the historical character of the Bible if we
interpret its human authors’ reflections on the salvation of individuals as
though they had direct access to the secrets of the eternal decree. On this
fact, we do not differ from the FV group.... As we all recognize, the authors of
Scripture are people whose knowledge of salvation is a finite creaturely
knowledge based on observable conformity to the canonically revealed – that
is, the covenantally revealed (Deuteronomy 29:29) – defining traits of those
destined for blessing or curse. Given the boundaries of their finite knowledge
and the prerogatives of God’s infinite knowledge, the writers of the Bible
could not presume to make infallible assertions with regard to individual
salvation.... They could, however, make justifiable, if fallible assertions [in
Scripture] about an individual’s salvation based on his observable conformity
to the defining traits of those whom God saves as revealed in the covenant.
[White here cites Ephesians 1:3-14 as an example of the fallible
assertions he is talking about.]... In my view, it is precisely the nature of
human knowledge and faith that we have to take into account when we interpret
those assertions in which the biblical writers, conditionally and otherwise,
attribute salvation ordained, accomplished, and/or applied to individuals.
White’s words assert the following errors:
1.
The “historical character” of the Bible somehow makes it susceptible to
error;
2.
The “human” Biblical authors teach their fallible “reflections” on the
salvation of individuals in Scripture;
3.
The Biblical authors did not have access to divine secrets about the salvation
of individuals when they wrote Scripture;
4.
The Biblical authors’ statements about the salvation of individuals are
“finite” and “creaturely,” that is, fallible; and not divine, that is,
infallible;
5.
The statements in Scripture, “conditional or otherwise,” about the salvation
of individuals, are “fallible.”
White’s errors are directly attributable to his denial
that the authors of Scripture have access to the relevant divine secrets when
writing Scripture, because of the “boundaries” of their knowledge. He does
not seem to realize that whatever the limitations of human knowledge are, those
limitations do not apply to the writers of Scripture, qua writers, for their
written words, every one of them, are inspired by God, completely true, and
infallible.
In his response to White’s essay Douglas Wilson agrees
with White’s attribution of fallible “reflections” to Scripture. Wilson
admits, and White expresses no disagreement, that the authors of Scripture, when
writing Scripture, used “provisional knowledge” which may in fact be false.
Steve Wilkins
Steve Wilkins, a pastor in good standing in the PCA, and a
Neolegalist, tells us that water “baptism unites us to Christ and his church
and thus in him gives us new life.... By our baptism we have been reborn, in
this sense, having died with Christ, we have been raised with him.... The same
is true for all who are baptized.” According to Wilkins, water baptism means
“united to Christ, forgiveness of sins, Holy Spirit cleansed, regenerate and
renewed, buried and resurrected, joined to the body of Christ, clothed in
righteousness, justified and sanctified, saved, ordained as priests with access
to [the] heavenly sanctuary.”
For years the PCA has tolerated this false Gospel being
taught in its congregations, from its pulpits, and in its presbyteries. If a
true church bears three marks – the preaching of the Gospel, the proper
administration of the sacraments, and church discipline – neither the Auburn
Avenue Presbyterian Church nor the PCA is a true church.
Wilkins informs us that
The
elect are those who are faithful in Christ Jesus. If they later reject the
Savior, they are no longer elect – they are cut off from the Elect One and
thus lose their elect standing. But their falling away doesn’t negate the
reality of their standing prior to their apostasy. They were really and truly
the elect of God because of their relationship with Christ.... The apostate,
thus, forsakes the grace of God that was given to him by virtue of his union
with Christ. It is not accurate to say that they only “appeared” to have
these things but did not actually have them.... That which makes apostasy so
horrendous is that these blessings actually belonged to the apostates.... The
apostate doesn’t forfeit “apparent blessings” that were never his in
reality, but real blessings that were his in covenant with God [emphasis is
Wilkins’].
Neo-Arminianism
It should be obvious to the reader by now (though no critic
in this book raised the point), that the Neolegalists at least implicitly deny
every one of the five points of Calvinism:
1.
They do not regard men as totally depraved, for they teach that the law of God
is “do-able.”
2.
They do not teach that election is unconditional, but they assert that election
is conditional, and the condition is faith plus works.
3.
They do not teach that Christ died only for his people, but for all baptized
persons. They teach that all the baptized receive “all the blessings and
benefits of Christ,” yet some of the baptized are eternally lost. Christ’s
work is ineffective.
4.
They do not believe God’s grace is irresistible, for some men who are saved,
regenerated, justified, and adopted, can and do reject the Lord and lose their
salvation.
5.
They do not believe in the preservation of the saints, for a saint can fail to
persevere and lose his salvation.
At all points at which the disciples of Arminius differed from the Reformed
faith, the Neolegalists differ as well. We must keep in mind that throughout the
Arminian controversy, Arminius’ disciples claimed to be Reformed.
The Error of Worldview Thinking
The critics of the Neolegalists, however, do not recognize
this. The last chapter of the book, written by the editor, returns to the theme
of the first. He writes: “ I find myself feeling much more comfortable in the
company of the Monroe Four and their associates than in that of the broad
generality of professing Christians and their pastors.... My broad commitments,
concerns, and postures are solidly with these brothers.”
This error might be called the error of worldview thinking.
It is the error of thinking that “broad commitments, concerns, and postures”
are somehow more important or more fundamental than the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
It is the error of thinking that a worldview can be Christian even though it
does not include the Gospel of Jesus Christ. It is the error of thinking that
justification is merely one more topic of theology, and that if one can agree on
other topics, that one can have fellowship with men who deny, pervert, or
obscure the Gospel of Jesus Christ. One well-known proponent of such worldview
thinking, who attends a PCA church, says that he has risen above the
Calvinist-Arminian theological dispute. He travels in the more important realm
of social and political action.
Paul did not make that mistake in Antioch or Galatia. There
must have been many things he agreed with the Judaizers about, to say nothing of
Peter and Barnabas. But to none of them did he declare his solidarity until he
had rebuked them for obscuring the Gospel and they had repented. Justification
by faith alone was not just another topic in theology for Paul; it was the
center of Christian theology, a sine qua non of Christian doctrine. The
Reformers recognized its central place 1500 years later and declared that it was
the doctrine by which churches, as well as individuals, stand or fall.
But in American Reformed churches, such understanding and
courage are absent. Even when the Mississippi Valley Presbytery of the PCA
denounced the errors of the Neolegalists earlier this year, it did not request
any action from the PCA as a whole to stop the propagation of their doctrines.
It asked the Louisiana Presbytery to investigate Steve Wilkins. If the Louisiana
Presbytery does so, it will accomplish three things:
1.
It will gain more time for the heretics to spread their heresies in Presbyterian
churches.
2.
It will preclude other Presbyteries from taking original jurisdiction in
bringing Wilkins to trial, as they now are permitted to do under PCA law.
3.
It will be able, after a year or two of investigation, to whitewash Wilkins and
his heresies. Douglas Wilson’s denomination whitewashed him last year after he
requested an examination from them.
Paul’s lessons, and his example, are lost on American
Reformed churches. That is why, once again, the heretics are likely to win the
battle over justification. A few, the remnant, will be saved, but most of the
churches and seminaries will be lost to the heretics. Perhaps God will bless his
people and his Gospel, and cause many who are now outside the increasingly
apostate Reformed churches to accept the truth of justification by faith alone.
Or perhaps God is finished with the United States, and it will become a vast
spiritual wasteland, very religious of course, but Antichristian to the core,
like the medieval Europe for which the Neolegalists long.
May/June 2005
1Westminster Larger Catechism Question 72 is
usually misread by people looking for some esoteric and complicated definition
of saving faith as something more than understanding of and assent to the
Gospel. What the Catechism actually teaches is that one must not only
assent to the truth of the promise of the Gospel, but also to the righteousness
of Christ imputed to believers:
“Justifying faith is a saving grace wrought in the heart of a sinner by the
Spirit and word of God, whereby he, being convinced of his sin and misery, and
of the disability in himself and all other creatures to recover him out of his
lost condition, not only assents to the truth of the promise of the Gospel, but
receives and rests upon Christ and his righteousness, therein held forth, for
pardon of sin, and for accepting and accounting of his person righteous in the
sight of God for salvation.”
The Catechism is concerned to make clear what truths one has to believe
in order to be saved. It is not discussing the psychology of the act of
believing, still less is it disparaging assent to the truth of the Gospel.
Among other things, this Catechetical and Biblical definition of justifying
faith asserts what Wilson et al. deny: that sinners are saved by believing the
doctrine of justification by faith alone. That is precisely what the Larger
Catechism asserts. If the Catechism is correct, Lusk is lost.
Also important to note is that no Reformed Confession, and certainly not the Westminster
Confession, defines “faith” by asserting that it consists of three
components, notitia, assensus, and fiducia. When
professed Reformed theologians lapse into that misleading Latin model, they
sound like they are exegeting the Vulgate, not the Greek New Testament.
2 In 1992 The
Trinity Review published a review of James Jordan’s book on the church
under the title “The Reconstructionist Road to Rome.” There is no excuse for
any Elder to have been bamboozled by Jordan for the past twenty years.
3 Peter Leithart
is the author of the book Against Christianity. He is against
Christianity.
4 Anyone
listening to the first fifteen minutes of Wilkins’ tapes on American history
should have known how far off base he is: Wilkins informs his listeners that
Columbus was a Christian who desired to take the Gospel to the New World.
Wilkins repeats Romanist propaganda. Last year Wilkins was caught in some
serious plagiarism from Time on the Cross in the booklet he co-wrote
with Douglas Wilson defending Southern slavery.
