A Critical Examination of Their Inconsistencies, Doctrinal Priorities, and Institutional Motivations
For eight years, Confessional Bibliology stood as a public defense of the Textus Receptus and the Masoretic Hebrew text, providing arguments against the corruption of modern textual criticism and refutations of the arguments of its proponents such as James White. During that time, the two individuals who now operate ConfessionalBibliology.org demonstrated no issue with its content, its approach, or its unapologetic exposure of theological compromise in Reformed circles. They neither distanced themselves from the site nor voiced any concerns about its tone, its methodology, or the fact that its primary author was not an ordained elder.
Yet, the moment Confessional Bibliology exposed Lane Keister’s heresies and demonstrated that Mark Ward’s textual arguments logically lead to Arianism, these men suddenly found themselves in opposition—not to Keister or Ward, but to the very site they had tolerated and even solicited for conference promotion. Instead of responding theologically, exegetically, or confessionally, they resorted to church politicking and personal retaliation.
One of these men attempted to leverage denominational pressure to silence the critique of Keister, not on the basis of doctrinal refutation, but because he personally liked Keister and sought to protect his friend from scrutiny. The other took a different but equally indefensible approach, questioning whether or not the blog should exist at all because the author is not an elder—a claim that contradicts their own past actions, as they had previously solicited the blog for promotional support and had no qualms about non-elders publishing theological content when it served their purposes.
This abrupt change in posture exposes the true motivation behind their actions: personal loyalties and institutional reputation—not biblical fidelity. These men are not concerned with upholding the confessional text as much as they are concerned with controlling the narrative and preserving their standing in Reformed academic and ecclesiastical circles.
The Double Standard on Theological Discourse
Their opposition is rendered all the more absurd by their glaring double standard regarding who may engage in theological discourse. If they sincerely believed that only ordained elders should engage in the type of writing and critique found on Confessional Bibliology, they would have applied this standard consistently. But the historical record tells a different story:
- They had no problem allowing non-elders to engage in theological discussions about textual criticism in their own publications.
- They actively promoted and published a book defending the confessional view of Scripture—written by a non-elder.
- They previously had no concern about who authored theological material, provided that the material aligned with their own positions.
If their newfound principle were legitimate, they would have condemned or rejected this book on the same grounds they used to attack the critique of Keister and Ward. Instead, they endorsed, published, and promoted the work.
Thus, their sudden opposition to a non-elder writing on Confessional Bibliology is not principled, but convenient. It is an opportunistic and dishonest tactic used to delegitimize a voice they find inconvenient while maintaining the illusion of theological consistency.
In reality, their appeals to church polity are not an expression of genuine ecclesiastical conviction, but a weapon wielded selectively—embraced when it serves their interests and discarded when it does not. This is an unsurprising turn of events familiar with the way elders in the OPC previously dealt with godly elders who rightly expressed criticism of Aimee Byrd’s doctrine on male and female relationships. Let us not forget that the OPC Presbytery destroyed the ministries of godly men, even preventing the ordination of some, simply because they voiced legitimate concerns over the pro-adultery position of Aimee Byrd.
The Promotion of a Theological Heretic
While they were actively working to suppress a faithful defense of Scripture, one of these men simultaneously offered public praise for David Bentley Hart (DBH)—a theologian notorious for his rejection of biblical orthodoxy. The praise focused on:
- “Expansive knowledge across many fields and disciplines.”
- “Massive vocabulary.”
- “Intellectual spanking he gives to the ‘new atheists.’”
This is the same David Bentley Hart who:
- Denies biblical inerrancy.
- Holds to an Originistic interpretation of Scripture that distorts foundational Christian doctrines.
- Teaches apocatastasis—the restoration of all things to their original state, which includes the notion of universal reconciliation, a doctrine explicitly condemned as heretical by the early church.
- Denies the eternal punishment of the wicked, rejecting the biblical doctrine of hell in favor of universal salvation.
How is it that these men find it acceptable to promote a theological heretic?
The inconsistency is not accidental—it is revelatory. Their opposition is not grounded in a principled theological position but in social and academic positioning.
- When a non-elder critiques Keister and Ward’s theology, they attempt to suppress him.
- When a non-elder defends the confessional text, they endorse him.
- When an actual heretic distorts fundamental Christian doctrine, they publicly commend his intellect and writing while glazing over the damnable heresies he promotes. They even go so far as to praise his refutation of “new atheists” knowing full well this could lead some of their flock to interact with his work with their guard. This is even more foolish on their part as their are godly men, such as Dr. Greg Bahnsen, who have produced multiple series refuting atheism.
This exposes a troubling set of priorities: They are more concerned about who is speaking than what is being said.
The Underlying Motivation: Academic and Social Prestige
The pattern of behavior exhibited by these men reveals that their ultimate concern is not theological fidelity, but academic and social positioning. Their actions are not driven by a commitment to biblical truth, but by a desire to maintain institutional respectability. This becomes evident in three ways:
- They engage modern textual critics in collegial dialogue rather than treating them as heretics who blaspheme the Holy Spirit by claiming that the Church has been deceived for millennia about the text of Scripture.
- They hesitate to rebuke false teachers sharply (Titus 1:13) but are quick to rebuke those who expose their inconsistencies.
- They prioritize their standing within The Academy over uncompromising doctrinal fidelity.
These men are not reformers in the tradition of Luther, Calvin, and Knox who were willing to be cast out for the sake of truth. They are institutional men, who care more about being seen as respectable than about taking a bold stand for the faith.
This explains their soft engagement with textual critics, their reluctance to issue strong rebukes, and their passive-aggressive erasure of those who refuse to compromise.
“For they loved the praise of men more than the praise of God.” (John 12:43)
The Verdict: Institutional Politicians, Not Biblical Elders
The men behind ConfessionalBibliology.org have demonstrated that they are not principled theologians, but institutional opportunists who selectively apply theological arguments to serve their own reputations. Their misuse of Presbyterian polity, intellectual dishonesty, and double standards prove that their true loyalties are not to biblical truth, but to their status within academic and ecclesiastical circles.
Unless they repent—not merely of their inconsistencies, but of their fear of man, their obsession with academic credibility, and their willingness to suppress truth for the sake of personal relationships—they will be remembered not as defenders of the confessional text, but as men who sought the approval of scholars over the approval of Christ.
If they refuse to change course, their legacy will not be one of faithful stewardship, but one of compromise, double standards, and political maneuvering. They will be known—not as defenders of the truth—but as men who betrayed it to protect themselves.
