This series is a response to Lane Keister’s response to my previous series about his heresy. You can read his response here. It’s a doozy. In 532 words he promotes 12 distinct heresies and demonstrates he doesn’t understand the basic principles of hermeneutics.
ADDENDUM
Lane Keister as a Wolf in Sheep’s Clothing and the Call to Genuine Repentance
Lane Keister’s theological positions, as outlined across this series, reveal not merely doctrinal errors but heresies of such magnitude that their implications render him a wolf in sheep’s clothing, deceiving the church while undermining the truth of Scripture. The unrepentant persistence in these errors places him outside the bounds of Christian orthodoxy and marks him as one who must repent to receive salvation.
1. The Two Principles That Expose Heresy
A. That Which Implies Heresy Is Heresy
As noted throughout the analysis, “A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit” (Matthew 7:18). Keister’s views produce heretical implications, including the accusation that the Holy Ghost is complicit in falsehood regarding the preservation of Scripture. This outcome alone disqualifies his theology as consistent with the Christian faith. The denial of verbal plenary preservation, the undermining of Scripture’s infallibility, and the elevation of human authority over divine revelation all stem from a corrupt theological foundation.
B. A Little Leaven Leavens the Whole Loaf
“A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump” (1 Corinthians 5:6). Keister’s errors, if tolerated, have the potential to spread through the church, corrupting its doctrinal purity and moral integrity. His presbytery’s defense of Aimee Byrd’s theological errors and their persecution of faithful elders who opposed her demonstrate the danger of leaving heresy unchallenged. The church is commanded to purge such leaven, for the health and sanctity of the body of Christ.
2. Keister’s Unrepentant Heresies and Their Implications
A. Summary of Keister’s Heresies
1. Denial of Verbal Plenary Preservation
- Heresy: By reinterpreting Matthew 5:18 to support only conceptual preservation, Keister undermines the doctrine of verbal plenary preservation, which asserts that God has preserved the exact words of Scripture, not just its concepts or ideas.
- Implications: This view opens the door to errors in the biblical text and diminishes confidence in Scripture’s infallibility.
2. Undermining the Infallibility of Scripture
- Heresy: Keister’s conceptual approach to preservation compromises the connection between infallibility and the necessity of preserving the exact words of Scripture.
- Implications: This erodes the foundation for trusting the Bible as the unchanging Word of God, making it vulnerable to reinterpretation and doctrinal relativism.
3. Elevation of Human Authority Over Divine Revelation
- Heresy: By dismissing historical theological consensus, including the interpretations of the Reformers, Keister elevates personal and contemporary human reasoning above the divine authority communicated through the preserved text.
- Implications: This reflects Enlightenment individualism, undermining the principle of sola Scriptura and confessional orthodoxy.
4. Rejection of the Historical and Theological Context of the Westminster Confession
- Heresy: Keister divorces the Westminster Confession from the historical writings of the Reformers, treating their interpretations as nonbinding opinions.
- Implications: This leads to a misrepresentation of the confession’s original meaning and a departure from its theological foundation, allowing for subjective reinterpretation.
5. Logical Relativism in Doctrinal Preservation
- Heresy: Keister’s conceptual view undermines the objective textual authority of Scripture, leading to theological relativism where the Bible’s truths are reduced to malleable concepts.
- Implications: This opens the door to doctrinal pluralism and fragmentation within the church.
6. Misuse of Matthew 5:18
- Heresy: Keister’s reinterpretation of Matthew 5:18 denies its explicit textual focus (jots and tittles), reducing its application to abstract principles rather than specific written words.
- Implications: This reinterpretation invalidates the verse as a foundational text for the doctrine of preservation and weakens its use in defending Scripture’s integrity.
7. Heretical Implications for Related Preservation Texts
- Heresy: By applying his conceptual framework to Matthew 5:18, Keister opens the door to reinterpreting other preservation texts (e.g., Psalm 12:6-7, Isaiah 40:8, Matthew 24:35) in a similarly abstract manner.
- Implications: This erodes the theological basis for textual preservation, undermining the confidence of believers in the precise words of Scripture.
8. Denial of the Church’s Role as the Pillar and Ground of Truth
- Heresy: Keister’s rejection of the historical consensus of the church regarding preservation minimizes the church’s role in safeguarding and upholding Scripture as the pillar and ground of truth (1 Timothy 3:15).
- Implications: This reduces the collective responsibility of the church in defending the integrity of the biblical text and opens the door to individualistic interpretations.
9. Toleration of Adultery and Moral Compromise
- Heresy: Through his presbytery, the OPC, Keister has supported the defense of Aimee Byrd’s adulterous theological positions while silencing faithful elders who opposed her views.
- Implications: This compromises the church’s moral integrity, calling good evil and evil good (Isaiah 5:20), and undermines the biblical standard of holiness and discipline.
10. Failure to Protect the Church from False Teachers
- Heresy: By defending Aimee Byrd and destroying the ministries of elders who exposed her errors, Keister’s presbytery failed in its duty to protect the flock from false teachers.
- Implications: This allows heretical ideas to spread within the church, corrupting its doctrinal purity and moral witness.
11. Redefinition of Confessional Orthodoxy
- Heresy: Keister’s claim that the Westminster Standards are independent of historical theological consensus redefines confessional orthodoxy, detaching the standards from their historical roots.
- Implications: This redefinition creates a subjective, self-referential standard for interpreting the confession, leading to doctrinal instability.
12. Promoting Doctrinal Instability Through Subjective Preservation
- Heresy: Keister’s conceptual preservation framework introduces ambiguity into the doctrine of preservation, allowing for shifting interpretations of Scripture over time.
- Implications: This instability undermines the unity of the church and the clarity of its teachings.
Summary of Heresies
- Denial of verbal plenary preservation.
- Undermining the infallibility of Scripture.
- Elevation of human authority over divine revelation.
- Rejection of the historical and theological context of the Westminster Confession.
- Logical relativism in doctrinal preservation.
- Misuse of Matthew 5:18 to deny textual preservation.
- Opening preservation texts to conceptual reinterpretation.
- Denial of the church’s role in upholding textual authority.
- Toleration of adultery and moral compromise.
- Failure to protect the church from false teachers.
- Redefinition of confessional orthodoxy.
- Promoting doctrinal instability through conceptual preservation.
Conclusion
Lane Keister’s theological positions and their implications constitute significant departures from historic Reformed orthodoxy, affecting both the doctrine of preservation and the moral integrity of the church. These heresies undermine the authority of Scripture, the unity of the church, and the confessional standards that define Reformed theology. They must be confronted and refuted to safeguard the truth of God’s Word and the purity of Christ’s church.
B. The Heretical Accusation Against the Holy Ghost
The logical implication of Lane Keister’s position, if followed to its ultimate conclusion, based upon the biblical principle set forth in Mt 7:17-20, is indeed that the Holy Ghost has either failed in His role or has been complicit in propagating falsehood about the true text of Scripture within the church for centuries. This implication is particularly grave because it directly challenges core attributes of God’s character—His truthfulness, omnipotence, and faithfulness—and the doctrine of the Holy Spirit’s work in guiding the church into all truth (John 16:13) and preserving the Scriptures for the edification of His people.
Expanded Implication: The Holy Ghost and Falsehood
- God’s Promise of Preservation
- Psalm 12:6-7, Isaiah 59:21, and Matthew 5:18 affirm God’s promise to preserve His Word in its entirety for all generations.
- The church has historically affirmed the doctrine of providential preservation, recognizing the Holy Spirit’s role in ensuring the integrity of the Scriptures.
- Keister’s Conceptual Preservation
- By reducing preservation to the preservation of concepts rather than the exact words of Scripture, Keister’s view implies that the church has been fundamentally wrong in its understanding of preservation.
- This shifts the burden of textual integrity from divine providence to human textual criticism, suggesting that the Holy Spirit did not preserve the Scriptures as the church historically believed.
- The Logical Contradiction
- If Keister’s position is correct, the Holy Ghost would have allowed the church to affirm and teach an erroneous understanding of preservation for centuries, effectively making the Holy Spirit a witness to falsehood.
- This contradicts John 16:13, which teaches that the Holy Spirit guides the church into all truth, and Titus 1:2, which declares God cannot lie.
- Implication of Doctrinal Instability
- If the church has been wrong about the preservation of Scripture, then the foundation of many doctrines becomes suspect, as they depend on the infallibility and authority of the preserved text.
- This introduces the possibility that the Holy Spirit has failed to protect the church from significant error, undermining His role as the divine preserver of truth.
Heresy: The Holy Spirit and Falsehood
The logical end of Keister’s view is not merely a theological error but a direct affront to the Holy Ghost’s work:
- Denial of the Holy Spirit’s Truthfulness:
- The Holy Spirit, as the Spirit of Truth, cannot propagate falsehood. Yet, Keister’s position implies that the Spirit allowed the church to err about the Scriptures’ true text for centuries.
- Undermining the Doctrine of Divine Providence:
- If the Scriptures’ preservation depends on human efforts rather than divine action, then the doctrine of providence is rendered ineffective in matters of utmost importance—namely, the transmission of God’s Word.
- Compromising the Church’s Testimony:
- The church’s testimony to the truth of Scripture is inseparable from the Holy Spirit’s guidance. If the church has been wrong for centuries, then its credibility and the Spirit’s guidance are called into question.
Conclusion
Keister’s position, by logical implication, accuses the Holy Ghost of either being complicit in a massive falsehood regarding the preservation of Scripture or failing to fulfill His divine role. This is a heretical outcome that must be rejected outright, as it contradicts the nature of God and the promises of Scripture. Faithful theology must uphold the truth that the Holy Spirit has preserved the Scriptures exactly as promised, ensuring that the church has always had access to the infallible Word of God.
3. The Call to Repentance
A. Keister’s Status as a Wolf in Sheep’s Clothing
Keister’s persistence in these heresies, coupled with his lack of repentance, reveals him as a false teacher whose theology threatens the integrity of the church. “Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves” (Matthew 7:15). His rejection of correction and defense of heretical implications place him outside the bounds of Christian fellowship.
B. The Necessity of Repentance for Salvation
Scripture is clear that heretics must repent to receive salvation:
- Isaiah 55:7: “Let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts: and let him return unto the Lord, and he will have mercy upon him; and to our God, for he will abundantly pardon.”
- Acts 3:19: “Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out.”
- Titus 3:10-11: “A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject; knowing that he that is such is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned of himself.”
Keister’s only path to restoration is through repentance. Until he renounces his errors and returns to biblical fidelity, he cannot be considered a Christian in good standing.
4. The Church’s Responsibility
A. Purging Unrepentant Heretics
The church must act decisively to remove unrepentant heretics from its midst:
- 1 Corinthians 5:13: “Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person.”
- 2 John 1:10-11: “If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed.”
The OPC must confront Keister’s heresies, discipline him according to Scripture, and protect the flock from further harm.
B. Upholding the Truth
Faithful believers must stand firm in defending the authority and integrity of Scripture. As Jude exhorts: “Earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints” (Jude 3). The church must reaffirm its commitment to verbal plenary preservation and reject the conceptual framework that undermines God’s Word.
Conclusion
Lane Keister’s theological errors and their heretical implications demand a decisive response. His persistent rejection of correction and propagation of falsehood identify him as a wolf in sheep’s clothing, not a faithful servant of Christ. The church must call him to repentance and, if he remains unrepentant, treat him as an outsider to the faith. “Holding fast the faithful word as he hath been taught, that he may be able by sound doctrine both to exhort and to convince the gainsayers” (Titus 1:9). Let the church stand firm, purging leaven and upholding the truth of God’s Word for His glory.
The Hermeneutical Failure of Lane Keister
Lane Keister’s theological positions and interpretive practices reveal fundamental failures in the basic principles of hermeneutics. Hermeneutics—the art and science of interpretation—requires fidelity to historical, theological, and textual contexts. By detaching the Westminster Confession of Faith (WCF) from its historical roots and reinterpreting it in isolation, Keister undermines the very confessional orthodoxy he claims to uphold. This article explores the critical flaws in Keister’s hermeneutical approach and highlights why these failures disqualify him from the role of a faithful teacher and preacher.
1. Detachment from Historical Context
A. Ignoring the WCF’s Historical Foundations
The Westminster Confession of Faith is not a stand-alone document. It was crafted within a rich historical and theological framework, drawing heavily on the writings of Reformers like John Calvin, Francis Turretin, and William Perkins. These theological giants provided the foundation for the confession’s doctrines, including the preservation of Scripture.
Keister, however, dismisses the insights of these Reformers as mere “individual opinions,” severing the WCF from its historical context. By doing so, he undermines the confession’s meaning and intent.
B. Why This is Bad Hermeneutics
Good hermeneutics demands understanding a text within its historical and theological context. The WCF was not written in a vacuum; its authors were guided by the theological consensus of the Reformation. Ignoring this context leads to:
- Subjectivity: Without historical grounding, interpretations become arbitrary and anachronistic.
- Misrepresentation: The confession’s original intent is lost, replaced by modern presuppositions.
Keister’s approach is a textbook example of presentism, the fallacy of interpreting historical documents through the lens of contemporary ideas and biases.
2. Subjectivity in Interpretation
A. The Danger of Isolated Interpretation
Keister’s dismissal of the Reformers’ writings suggests that the WCF can be interpreted independently, divorced from the theological framework that shaped it. This opens the door to subjective reinterpretation, where personal or cultural biases dictate meaning.
B. Why This is Bad Hermeneutics
Hermeneutics seeks to uncover the author’s intended meaning. In the case of the WCF, this includes the collective theological understanding of the Reformers. Keister’s subjective approach:
- Imposes Modern Presuppositions: His reinterpretation of Matthew 5:18 reflects Enlightenment individualism rather than confessional orthodoxy.
- Undermines Confessional Integrity: By detaching the confession from its historical roots, he reduces its doctrinal authority and coherence.
3. Reductionism of Confessional Standards
A. Simplifying Complex Doctrines
Keister’s interpretation reduces the WCF to a collection of disconnected statements, stripped of their theological depth and historical richness. This reductionism diminishes the confession’s role as a comprehensive guide to Reformed theology.
B. Why This is Bad Hermeneutics
Good hermeneutics requires a holistic approach that considers the full scope and purpose of a text. The WCF was designed to articulate a unified, theologically rich understanding of Scripture and its doctrines. Keister’s reductionism:
- Misrepresents the Confession: It portrays the WCF as less authoritative and less comprehensive than it truly is.
- Erodes Doctrinal Stability: By isolating the confession from its historical and theological roots, he weakens its ability to provide clear guidance for the church.
4. Hermeneutical Implications for Preaching
Preaching demands faithful interpretation of Scripture and confessional standards. Keister’s flawed hermeneutics reveal critical failures in his approach to both.
A. Lack of Faithfulness to Scripture
- 2 Timothy 2:15: “Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.”
Keister’s reinterpretation of Matthew 5:18 to deny textual preservation shows a failure to rightly divide the Word of God. His approach undermines confidence in Scripture’s authority and integrity.
B. Failure to Shepherd the Flock
- Acts 20:28: “Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God.”
Preaching requires feeding the flock with sound doctrine. By promoting subjective interpretations, Keister leaves the flock vulnerable to error and doctrinal instability.
C. Theological Instability
- James 3:1: “My brethren, be not many masters, knowing that we shall receive the greater condemnation.”
Teachers are held to a higher standard of accuracy and accountability. Keister’s hermeneutical failures disqualify him from the high calling of teaching and preaching.
5. Why Lane Keister is Unfit to Preach
A. A Failure of Hermeneutical Integrity
Preaching requires interpreting Scripture and confessions with integrity, rooted in their historical, theological, and biblical context. Keister’s approach reveals a disregard for this essential principle.
B. A Pattern of Doctrinal Compromise
Keister’s rejection of verbal plenary preservation and dismissal of historical Reformed writings reflect a broader pattern of doctrinal instability and compromise.
C. A Betrayal of His Ministerial Calling
By promoting flawed hermeneutics and subjective interpretations, Keister fails to fulfill his calling to protect and edify the church with sound teaching.
6. Final Exhortation
Lane Keister’s hermeneutical errors not only undermine his credibility as a teacher but also pose a serious threat to the doctrinal integrity of the church. Unless he repents and commits to a biblically faithful hermeneutic, he cannot fulfill the biblical qualifications for a preacher or teacher.
- 1 Timothy 3:2: “A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach.”
The requirement to be “apt to teach” includes the ability to handle the Word of God and confessional standards with accuracy and integrity. - Titus 1:9: “Holding fast the faithful word as he hath been taught, that he may be able by sound doctrine both to exhort and to convince the gainsayers.”
Keister’s failure to hold fast to the faithful Word disqualifies him from this sacred duty.
The church must demand better from its teachers and preachers. As Jesus warned, “If the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch” (Matthew 15:14). A return to sound hermeneutics is essential to safeguard the church’s faithfulness to God’s Word and confessional truth. Soli Deo Gloria.
