(Editor’s Note: On September 25 we posted the story on the judgment of Siouxlands Presbytery finding Teaching Elder Greg Lawrence not guilty of charges brought against him on his theological view. Two documents have become public subsequent to the decision: The first was the actual charges against Lawrence which were published here on October 3. Below is the text of TE Lawrence’s plea of innocence, which of course carried the day in the trial.)

Brothers, I continue to be frustrated and /(to be honest) saddened that I have to continually repeat my statements that these charges do not in fact represent my true beliefs.

Some of the quotes used by the Prosecution could, I suppose, be taken in ways that the Prosecution takes them. But that they could be taken that way does not mean they should be taken that way. And I think I should be the one who gets to say what it is that I actually believe. Even if the Prosecution would mean x when saying y, does not mean that I mean x when I say y.

I have repeatedly stated my desire and willingness to be instructed and helped in my views of these (admittedly complicated) theological matters. But in this case we are not talking about views that I actually hold, teach, or defend.

On Charge 1:
That TE Lawrence holds, defends, and teaches a view of covenant theology that is contrary to the covenant works [sic] and covenant of grace distinction as set forth in the Westminster Standards.

I repeat, once more, my frustration with this charge. I came in good conscience to Presbytery with my views, and offered them openly and fully in a context where I was glad to be told whether or not such views were correct and/or acceptable. Presbytery declared, without complaint and in good order, that the views were not contrary to the Standards.

But now they are being used as a means of church discipline against me, some 8 years after being allowed. I cannot think of this as anything but shameful.

In any case, I do not hold or teach a view of covenant theology that is contrary to the distinction of the covenant of works and covenant of grace. I have repeatedly clarified that my issue lies with the terminology of “covenant of works,” and the notion of “merit” for Adam often associated with that terminology, along with the (non-Confessional) description of a “probationary period” for Adam in the Garden. I think there may be better ways of speaking of these matters, and that John Murray’s description, for instance, fits the biblical material better.

The Prosecution appears to imply that, because I am open to other ways of speaking of the nature of the covenant, that therefore I reject or undermine the distinction as set forth in the Standards. So the Prosecution seems to argue that because I am open to speaking of a unitary idea of covenant that has to do with the eternal and unchanging single plan of God to have a people for Himself; or because I can speak of an “octocovenantal” arrangement of successive covenants, that therefore I deny or hold a view that denies the distinction of the covenant of works/grace in the Standards. That is a non sequitur.

I can hold to all of the above: God’s single plan for his creation can be construed as a covenantal plan (an “eternal covenant”); God’s working out of this single plan can be construed as a matter of two covenants (one with Adam, one with Christ as distinct covenantal heads); and God’s working out of these two covenants can be construed as a process of successive covenants (with Noah, Abraham, Moses, etc.).

I affirm the covenant of works and grace distinction, as I have said many times. And because this is my true view, I plead not guilty to the charge.

On Charge 2:
That TE Lawrence holds, defends, and teaches a view of baptism in which the elect receive saving benefits such as union with Christ and new life by means of their water baptism contrary to the Westminster Standards.

The Standards themselves speak of the sacraments as “effectual means of salvation” and as “means of grace.” Baptism applies and exhibits (i.e. confers) the benefits of the new covenant to believers. These are stated in the very citations of the Westminster Standards asserted in the charge. Therefore, we take the Prosecution to mean the following:

That TE Lawrence holds a view of baptism in which the elect receive saving benefits by means of their water baptism alone.

If that is what is meant, then I deny the charge as not in fact what I believe. If this is not what is meant, then we ask for clarification in the charge.

I do not believe that baptism, considered apart from faith or the work of the Spirit, confers any saving benefits to anyone-not even the elect. But baptism considered apart from these things is a distortion of what baptism truly ought to be, and truly is. (It would be like considering the Gospel apart from the work of the Spirit or the necessity of faith: the preaching the Word is a human work, and yet is described as a means of salvation.)

We are wholly consecrated to God because we are baptized into the faithful Son. And though there is a distinction between the sign and the thing signified, there is no separation of them (which is what I meant when saying that I would not “distinguish” the two in Romans 6). Baptism into Christ confers eternal life to the elect, even if its efficacy is not limited or tied to the moment it is administered. But again, none of these things come through baptism alone, apart from faith.

Baptism is an effectual means of salvation by the blessings of Christ and the working of the Spirit. Without these things attending, baptism is more an effectual means of judgment than of salvation.

Thus I plead not guilty to this charge.

On Charge 3:
That TE Lawrence holds, defends, and teaches that the reprobate receive at baptism union with Christ, new life, and forgiveness of sins in some sense thus creating a parallel soteriological system contrary to the Westminster Standards.

I still maintain that this charge is far too vague for a reasonable plea to be entered, and the only conclusion to be that the Prosecution means one of the following:

(1) The Prosecution must show that there is no sense at all in which union with Christ (e.g.) can be asserted of the reprobate as something “received at baptism”.

If this is what is meant, then I do not believe the Prosecution stands on firm ground either with respect to the Confession (which does not make such a claim) or the Reformed tradition, much less the Scriptures.

(2) But it seems more likely that the Prosecution means to charge me with holding that saving benefits are given to the non-elect in baptism, “in some sense.”

If this is what is meant, then I acknowledge the problem with the view as something contrary to the Standards, but it is not a view that I hold.

Baptism may and does bring even the non-elect into a life in the covenant (what is meant by “new life” in my use of the term). Through their baptismal and sacramental participation in the covenant, even the unregenerate are in a sense sanctified. But the circle of the covenant is larger than the circle of election.

Those who are baptized and made members of the covenant, if not elect, will fail to persevere and the benefits they receive are not “saving benefits”. But they nonetheless enjoy special privileges of belonging to the covenant people. This has been my view throughout, even if sometimes awkwardly expressed. (It is, we can all agree, not the easiest thing to describe.)

I ask for clarification from the Prosecution as to which of these two are to be the true understanding of the charge.

And I plead not guilty to the charge.

Charge 4:
That TE Lawrence holds, defends, and teaches the view that some can receive saving benefits and then lose them thereby overturning the doctrine of the perseverance of the saints contrary to the Westminster Standards.

In line with the above, I deny that I hold, defend, or teach this view. I reject that any receive the saving benefits of our effectual calling, and then lose them. The Lord is not contingent in his work upon men, and his saving works are done to the glory of his name and are completed as he desires. That some are temporary members of the covenant, and enjoy the special privileges and benefits of that membership, does not make them receivers of saving benefits.

Almost all of the specifications arise from a sermon on Hebrews 6 preached many years ago. I do believe that Hebrews 6 applies as a warning against apostasy, and that the benefits of Heb 6:4-6 are experiences of the common operations of the Spirit.

At no point does this jeopardize the doctrine of the perseverance of the saints. I hold to that doctrine, and in no case will I agree to assertions that I do not believe it. (Why I am not the authority on what I actually believe is still bizarre to me.)

Therefore I plead not guilty to this charge, as not expressing my true beliefs.

Charge 5:
That TE Lawrence holds, defends, and teaches the view that assurance is grounded primarily in baptism, contrary to the Westminster Standards, thus minimizing or denying the subjective grounds of assurance and the possibility of an infallible assurance.

I have never asserted that assurance is grounding “primarily” in baptism. I do believe assurance can and ought to arise from baptism, but do not believe this is somehow the primary ground of assurance (especially if that means minimizing the work of the Spirit testifying to our Spirit). In baptism what is offered and given by the Spirit is Christ and all his benefits. Surely Christ and all his benefits are a wonderful ground of assurance?

I have argued that baptism is a better means of deciding whether or not those in my congregation are a “Christian” than navel gazing. But “Christian” here is meant with reference to “covenant membership,” not decretal election.

In any case, I plead not guilty to this charge as not in fact what I believe.

Respectfully Submitted, TE Gregory Lawrence