Presbyterian Fantasies and Delusions

https://theaquilareport.com/presbyterians-mia-missing-in-actions/

I must say it again - Larry Ball never disappoints. He is consistent in his production of doctrinal error, ethical filth, and the celebration of worldliness.

This article can best be described as glorying in one's shame. He would celebrate Presbyterianism's supposedly august role in shaping the American Empire but like all afflicted with the soul-destroying disease of idolatry (in this case nationalism) he is utterly blind to the evils he in fact celebrates.

Witherspoon was a syncretist who promoted murder in order to secure 'liberties' found nowhere in Scripture and the promise of prosperity which was born of Babel not Zion. The fact that the Rebellion of 1776 is associated with Presbyterianism is a mark of shame. Thousands died and like all wars it was an episode of theft, murder, and other forms of deceit and butchery. We are not impressed by either the disciples of Witherspoon or the many Presbyterians who sold themselves to do evil in Washington's army.

As far as the Calvin connections, Ball doesn't need me to point out the absurdity of this. The Magisterial Reformer Calvin also taught the evil of rebellion in the form of the Lesser Magistrate, but to suggest that the 18th century revolution was the result of Calvinism doesn't square with the facts nor the ecclesiastical and epistemological climate of the American colonies. The American Revolution was the progeny of the Enlightenment and primarily the bastard child of men like Locke and Montesquieu. The problem was generations of false teachers (including many Presbyterians) synthesized these errors to create a new set of syncretist doctrines. The Church was not guarded or properly guided by these false shepherds, but allowing themselves to be steered by philosophy and relying on unfaithful and unbiblical reactions to it (such as the school of Thomas Reid), they left the Church wide open to alien influence - and Satan had a field day with them, and still is.

There is certainly no reason to celebrate the likes of TJ Jackson - a man who lived by the sword and died by it.

What Ball is celebrating is a testimony in unfaithfulness to the New Testament. The military, business, and civic leaders he champions are all examples of worldly compromise and the rejection of apostolic teaching regarding ethics, violence, mammon, and vengeance. They are part of the larger Constantinian tradition that teaches Christians may live one type of life on Sunday but on Monday morning they can put on a hat, uniform, or title and live by a different code. Trying to put a sanctified veneer on their deeds may assuage the consciences of those such as Ball, but the student of the New Testament is not fooled.

If all this wasn't bad enough, Ball seems determined to outdo himself by offering additional commentary which does nothing more than expose his own ignorance. If he wants to understand the modern composition of the Supreme Court, then he should study the history of 20th century American politics - particularly the Right-wing branch. He would then understand the role of Roman Catholicism and how Protestant thinking on this point has completely shifted away from ideology and instead relies on the kind of pragmatism and compromise so needed to secure political power or wage a political fight.

Ronald Reagan wasn't anything - he certainly wasn't a Christian. His belief system was a combination of can-do American ideology, capitalism, and astrology, with a healthy dose of and superstitious respect for Scripture - but primarily this was centered on incoherent and poorly understood notions regarding 'End Times' eschatology, heavily influenced by Dispensationalism. This is not to say that Reagan would have been able to elaborate any of these ideas. It seems clear enough that for all his talk about the Bible, it's not a book he was familiar with.

J Gresham Machen is about the only name in his piece that I think deserves some accolade and respect and yet even this would be qualified.

Presbyterianism was captured by liberalism because the theological groundwork was already laid in its embrace of scholastic theology. This combined with its drive for power and worldly status led to an endless succession of compromises. Philosophical-theology will always be subject to dynamism and Presbyterianism was no different - and the spurious narratives regarding Confessionalism proved incapable of stemming the tide.

The Radical Two Kingdom (R2K) theology Ball speaks of does not exist. It's a fiction, a straw man feckless and self-deluded Theonomists resort to when their own narratives and arguments fail. Whatever Two Kingdom theology exists in Reformed circles is that of the Kuyperian variety which though not Theonomic, is every bit as Dominionist and worldly minded as Ball could wish for. The kind of Two Kingdom theology found in the New Testament is nowhere to be found in the Reformed tradition and certainly not in the Confessionalist circles of groups like the PCA, OPC, URCNA, or any of the denominations Ball might esteem. It's certainly not found in Evangelicalism - a movement in which every intuition is about rejecting Fundamentalist separatism. And even the kind of separatism once espoused by Fundamentalism is long dead.

It's clear that in Ball's distorted view of the Kingdom the offices of mayor and governor are just as important (if not more so) than that of elder-presbyter. Power is what is really important and as a transformationalist he looks for heaven on Earth - failing to understand and even rejecting what the New Testament says about the course of this age and the works of men.

Like all Theonomists, Ball flirts with blaspheming the Holy Spirit - denouncing the Church as a bunch of failures and losers, denigrating the glorious testimony of the Holy Spirit in the long roll of martyrs. Men like Ball read Hebrews 11 and celebrate the testimony of the saints but when this testimony is perpetuated in the true history of the Church - they denigrate it as defeatist and turn Scripture on its head by utilizing phrases like 'less than conquerors' ignoring what the Romans 8 passage actually says. If he would bother to read it he might understand that it refutes him - but then again, maybe he wouldn't understand. Maybe he's not capable.

The problem with today's young men is more rooted in the decadence of American society than anything else. The Liberalism of the American Founders has gone to seed and has imploded - turning in on itself. Mammonism also leads to decadence and idolatry results in judgment. All of these and more are factors in explaining the state of today's young men. The fact that young men in the Church are echoing the culture is due to the kind of cultural blurring and syncretism represented by the likes of Ball. They planted the seeds and yet not understanding they have reaped a terrible harvest. His assessment of the situation is completely misguided and erroneous.