Cardiphonia

I queued up this post under the title “influence and control” because this brother clearly nails it, but as I reread his comments last night, its tone struck me as identical to John Newton’s Cardiphonia: The Utterance of the Heart (which I have not read in years, so forgive me if my memory’s off!).

Keith LaMothe is an extremely confused Wilson devotee who, on a regular basis, can’t reconcile his teacher’s teaching with his teacher’s actions. Despite this, he still submits to his teacher’s instruction. For example, he posted elsewhere that he won’t visit this site because I am an “anonymous accuser” and “not accountable,” which demonstrates that he doesn’t know the difference between a statement of fact and an opinion. It also demonstrates that Wilson has hornswoggled him into believing that he is accountable.

Nevertheless, Pastor Bob Bordow has gently and patiently addressed some of Mr. LaMothe’s concerns vis-à-vis the Bhagwan, and as an eyewitness to the Wilsoneesh’s anti-Christian gospel, his hostile pubic relations with the local community, and his hardcore recruitment of outsiders to move to Moscow, I bear witness that his statements are true.

Todd Bordow said,
December 6, 2007 at 6:26 pm

The FVers love baptism because it enhances their desire for control. DW and his ilk are all about control and influence. Talk of sola fide and pointing people directly to Christ takes control out of their hands. Talk of the sacrament’s efficacy places control back into the hands of the clergy who administer the sacrament, and into the hands of legalists who want to control their own salvation. Why do you think on his blog DW points more people to the Supper and its blessings than to Christ himself through faith? RC’s love the Supper because it enables them to control people and keep their churches full. That is why the RC’s banned the Word but baptized all day, to protect their power and influence. It is no coincidence that FVers are also theonomists of some sort and paedo-communionists. Theonomy justifies their desire to speak rabbinically on every issue, whether the arts, history, literature, cooking, etc. . . thus promoting themselves and your need to heed their wisdom on every possible issue — control. And paedo-communion is a way to say to all true Christians: “Leave your churches and come to us, your churches are not truly feeding your children — we will feed them so they do not starve”; thus the cult mentality of influence and control. Men like DW will always write statements that can be orthodox only to keep their influence. Only the naïve fail to see through the charade. The “covenant” is their newfound means to sound orthodox but keep people bound — when questioned on anything, say it is “covenantally true” without needing to clearly define its meaning. But those who deny the covenant of works in the front door simply want to bring it in the back door. In this system Christ does not fulfill the demands of the covenant for us as our representative, he only helps us fulfill the conditions ourselves, thus the RC position. At least the RC’s are honest about it. In all the FV’s books about Christian living, the underlying principle is still one of law — blessings for obedience, curses for disobedience — not of true grace. They simply don’t get the gospel. Yes, the Pharisees were correct about the resurrection opposed to the Sadducees, but so what? they were still enemies of the truth. DW may be right on a few cultural issues and the Trinity, but so what? a Pharisee is a Pharisee and dangerous to the sheep.

Blessings,

Todd Bordow
Pastor — Covenant Presbyterian Church of Fort Worth (OPC)

Todd Bordow said,
December 7, 2007 at 9:44 am

Keith,

In answer to your question about a particular sermon of DW affirming sola fida or “looking to Christ,” consider the words of Machen as he summarizes the problem with the Judiazers in Galatia, and that may answer your question. Remember you must look beyond certain words to the whole system a man is propagating, including how faith is defined and how blessings come from God in this system, realizing that inconsistencies are par for the course with false teachers.

The Judaizers agreed with Paul about many things: they agreed in holding that Jesus was the Messiah; they seemed to have no quarrel whatsoever with the deity of Christ; they believed in the resurrection of our Lord from the dead. Moreover, they even held, no doubt, that a man must believe in the Lord Jesus Christ if he is to be saved. But their error lay in holding not only that a man must believe in the Lord Jesus Christ if he is to be saved, but that he must also do something else, namely, keep at least a part of the law of God.

The really essential thing about the Judaizers’ contention was not found in those particular “works of the law” that they urged upon the Galatians as being one of the grounds of salvation, but in the fact that they urged any works in this sense at all. The really serious error into which they fell was not that they carried the ceremonial law over into the new dispensation whither God did not intend it to be carried, but that they preached a religion of human merit as over against a religion of divine grace.

Salvation according to those Judaizers is attained partly by the grace of God and partly by the merit of man. So the error of the Judaizers is a very modern error indeed, as well as a very ancient error. It is found in the modern Church wherever men seek salvation by making Christ master in the life instead of by trusting in His redeeming blood. This is just a different way of exalting the merit of man over against the Cross of Christ, it is an attack upon the very heart and core of the Christian religion.

Blessings,

Todd Bordow
Pastor — Covenant Presbyterian Church of Fort Worth (OPC)

Todd Bordow said,
December 7, 2007 at 10:45 am

Keith,

Not pretending to know what’s in your heart, Christians are drawn to DW types for a variety of reasons. Men naturally tend to like the emphasis on male headship in these movements, thus all the marriage difficulties I have counseled from men who think of their wives in OT categories, and women with a poor understanding of submission. Christian parents love their children, and DW sells his anti-public school, paedo-communion classical model as a way to ensure that your kids grow up unstained and faithful. It doesn’t work that way, but it’s a good sell. Some are just political conservatives who despise liberals, and desire a conservative law-abiding society, so they are drawn to DW’s post-mil vision of one kingdom in this world. The pride in Christians is always drawn to movements who speak of the majority of churches as churches in declension and under God’s judgment, except them, that is, thus the desire to be counted among the law-abiding faithful blessed by God, explaining how many pack up and move to Moscow to be among the truly blessed and faithful. All cults cultivate this mentality. As a young, sincere, zealous Christian I was also drawn to these movements and these leaders, until I grew up and saw it for what it was and how it hurt so many people. Since the gospel is so simple, and since the gospel is the power of God to save and sanctify, and since all true churches preach this simple gospel to some extent, why the draw to Moscow? The gospel, or something else?

Blessings,

Todd Bordow
Pastor — Covenant Presbyterian Church of Fort Worth (OPC)

Todd Bordow said,
December 7, 2007 at 5:57 pm

To see behind the DW movement you must see a love of this world and a dissatisfaction with suffering for Christ and waiting for glory. Like the Pharisees, the DW crowd wants a different Christ than the one who appeared on the earth. The true Christ rejected the desire to make him an earthly king; the true Christ rejected the plea to settle a legal dispute, Jesus stating that was not his ministry. The true Christ loved sinners and was respectful to them; only antagonistic toward the Pharisees. The DW crowd is antagonistic toward unbelievers, seeking their defeat, in the name of course of the Lordship of Christ, but a type of lordship that Christ himself rejected for this age.

The DW crowd mocks suffering for Christ and waiting for glory, using catchphrases like “Gnostic” and “escapism” for those whose passion is saving souls opposed to changing this culture into DW’s vision. The DW theology, like classic liberalism, does not deny individual salvation, but lowers its importance; individual salvation becomes a means to an end, earthly victory and influence; mocking the true Christ and his spiritual kingdom.

If you want to know the difference between true Christianity and this pseudo-Christianity, read anything by DW and then read Geerhardus Vos’ sermon on heavenly-mindedness. See what Vos says about those who see salvation as a means to an earthly end. I would also recommend Machen’s Christianity and Liberalism and so how much in common DW has with the old liberals.

Blessings,

Todd Bordow

Memo to Pastor Bordow:
Don’t let yesterday’s love fest fool you. You have publicly identified the Bhagwan’s modus operandi and his false teaching, which means that he will retaliate against you.

Thank you.