Green Baggins is on to the next chapter of RINE, the one on heretics and heresy. He begins by acknowledging that individualism is a bad deal, but distinguished individualism from the obvious fact that we all go to heaven or hell, as I have noted elsewhere, by ones.
Lane wonders if we in the FV are over-reacting against the admittedly bad individualism at the cost of losing an important emphasis on the necessity of individual salvation. I don’t think so — I have made the point that individual salvation is very important more times than I can remember, a number of those times in the book that Lane is reviewing. Second, the issue of emphasis is problematic when discussing issues like this. I believe all kinds of things that I emphasize in varying degrees. Why is that a problem? Belief is where you measure doctrinal orthodoxy. Legitimate differences in emphasis can be affected by numerous factors like the period of history you are in, the state of the church you are preaching to, the nature of your own personal gifts, and so on. If I am preaching at Thyatira, my emphasis is one thing; if at Ephesus, it is another. The truth remains unified. And third, Lane concludes this paragraph by saying “what must I do to be saved?” is the most important question that anyone can ask. On one level, certainly. But I can think of some people I have counseled where this is the one question I wish they would stop asking. And as a good Westminsterian, I would point out that glorifying God is more important than the second half of the answer, which is to enjoy Him forever (which presupposes that one knows how to be saved).
Lane differs with my point that heresy is obvious. He points out that Satan is an angel of light, that Arius was a subtle one, and so on. So let me qualify my statement — heresy is obvious if you look where the Bible tells you to look. Lane responds to a statement of mine this way:
“Wilson argues that ‘sheep don’t have to go to graduate school to find out the difference between a shepherd and a wolf’ (pg. 142). Again, I beg to differ.”
Is Lane saying that the sheep do have to go to graduate school? Orthodoxy is a gift, a grace, not an achievement. Jesus teaches us plainly that His sheep hear His voice. John tells us this: “These things have I written unto you concerning them that seduce you. But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him” (1 John 2:26). This is about resisting false teachers, and every true child of God is equipped by the Holy Spirit to do so. This distinction is not obvious to those who don’t want it to be obvious. But it is obvious to those who have the Spirit.
Lane makes his point this way:
“I know of many church situations where the pastor has been a heretic, and the church became divided over him, some believing that he was just fine, and others thinking he was the devil incarnate.”
But when foolish people follow after heretics, this is not an innocent move on their part. This is one of the ways that a division is established between the elect and the reprobate. The reprobate believe lies because they want to do so. When the day of judgment arrives, no one who has been deceived, to the destruction of his own soul, will be able to say that his state of deception was honestly come by. In this sense, heresy is obvious. But it can also be quite tangled up for those who hearts are tangled up also.
Lane asks the question — who identifies heretics? “Is it not the church?” I agree. It is the Church. It is not a faction within the church. It is not a roster of selected rabbis. It is not a sectarian subset of the Church. But before the Church comes to this determination, the Church is supposed to have it out. The Church is supposed to discuss and debate it. That said, I move on to this statement: “I see lots of protestations on the part of FV advocates that they have been misunderstood. I see far less proof of it. In fact, hardly any proof of it. In fact, hardly any evidence.”
To the contrary, Lane, I have proven over and over again that I have been misrepresented and misunderstood. I have done it in person, and I have done it in writing. I have a standing offer on the table to debate these issues in a public forum with any acknowledged representative of the FV critics. If such a debate were to occur (no longer am I holding my breath, incidentally), my principle line of argument would be that I do not hold what you claim that I hold, and here is a stack of published materials that proves that assertion. So don’t come around saying you haven’t seen proof. If you want to see proof, then help me arrange a debate where we can video and audio tape it. Then we could put the proof on YouTube, and it would be impossible to pretend any more that it wasn’t there.
In the old days, defenders of the faith used proclamation, argumentation, and apologetics. These days, the defenders of the faith use all the bureaucratic levers they have hidden under the desk. If the SJC goes the way I suspect it might, that would mean that Wilkins would be condemned in the PCA despite two vindications by his own presbytery, despite the fact that no charges were ever brought, despite the fact that no trial was ever held, and despite the fact that he was never given an opportunity to defend himself in open court. Don’t talk to me about proof. We don’t need no stinking proof.
In the old days, the prophets of God would thunder the word. These days, they resort to Machinations and Back Room Deals. You don’t think so? Then look at what happens to Wilkins. Look closely. Look at the procedures. Look at what was done, and what was not done. And imagine yourself trying to explain the polity ramifications of all of that to Samuel Miller. The whole thing would be a joke if it were only funny.
The last point to make is about discipline as a mark of the Church. Discipline is a mark of the Church in this sense — discipline is the Church’s immune system. Lane objects that I don’t consider discipline a mark of the Church, but rather Word and sacrament only. But this is just a debate about how we structure the terms, not about whether they must be there. Word is a mark of life like breathing is. Sacraments are a mark of life like heart beats are. Discipline is a mark of life the way an immune system is. This last one is different than the first two — in this way. If a man stops breathing, he dies right then. If his heart stops, he dies right then. If his immune system goes, he dies sometime sooner or later, probably sooner.