Below is the text of the official Charges and Specifications that were brought against TE Greg Lawrence in Siouxlands Presbytery. As previously reported, last month he was found not guilty of each of these charges. (A separate story will contain the findings of the Presbytery in coming to that conclusion.)

Charges and Specifications

In the name of the Presbyterian Church in America, the Presbytery of the Siouxlands charges TE Gregory Lawrence with holding, defending, and teaching doctrinal views which are consistent with Federal Vision Theology, and that strike at the vitals of religion and the fundamentals of the system of the Westminster Standards (Jer. 1:17; Mt. 28:20; 2 Thess. 2:15; 1 Tim. 4:16; Tit. 1:9; Jude 3) against the peace, unity, and purity of the Church, and the honor and majesty of the Lord Jesus Christ, as the King and Head thereof.

SUMMARY OF THE FACTS

1. At the 67th meeting of the Presbytery of the Siouxlands, January 23-24, 2003, Gregory Lawrence was approved for ordination. As part of his trials for ordination, candidate Lawrence submitted a paper entitled, Covenant of Works: Toward a more Biblical Understanding of Covenant, which was subsequently approved by Presbytery.

2. At the 74th meeting at the Presbytery of the Siouxlands, April 2005, the motion was adopted “to establish a study committee of the Siouxlands Presbytery for the purpose of studying the controversy concerning ‘The New Perspective on Paul’ (NPP), Norman Shepherd (NS), and Federal Vision Theology (FV) and submit a report to presbytery.”

3. At the 79th meeting, January 2007 at Living Hope PCA in Tea, SD the study committee on NPP, NS and FV presented its report as a series of affirmations and denials which was subsequently adopted with a 13-9 vote. The following conclusion was received with the report: “The proponents of these views [meaning NPP and FV] are outside the system of doctrine of the Westminster standards and do contradict the Scriptural teaching.”

4. At the 35th meeting the General Assembly, June 2007, the Report of the Ad Interim Study Committee on Federal Vision, New Perspective, and Auburn Avenue Theology was received. The report included nine declarations and five recommendations. Three of the recommendations are listed below:

2) “That the General Assembly remind the Church, its officers and congregations of the provisions of BCO 29-1 and 39-1 which assert that the Confession of Faith and the Larger and Shorter Catechisms of the Westminster Assembly, while ‘subordinate to the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, the inerrant Word of God,’ have been adopted by the PCA ‘as standard expositions of the teachings of Scripture in relation to both faith and practice.’”

3) “That the General Assembly recommend the declarations in this report as a faithful exposition of the Westminster Standards, and further reminds those ruling and teaching elders whose views are out of accord with our Standards of their obligation to make known to their courts any differences in their views.”

4) “That the General Assembly remind the Sessions and Presbyteries of the PCA that it is their duty “to exercise care over those subject to their authority” and “to condemn erroneous opinions which injure the purity or peace of the church” (BCO 31-2; 13-9).

5. At the 83rd meeting, April 24-25, 2008, TEs Wes White and Brian Carpenter requested the formation of a 31-2 judicial commission to investigate TE Gregory Lawrence with respect to views held reportedly akin to Federal Vision Theology. The request was declined.

6. At the 84th meeting, September 26-27, 2008, at the New Covenant PCA in Spearfish, SD, TE White and RE Terry Alstiel complained that Presbytery was in error in not doing a judicial investigation into the teaching/views of TE Lawrence. The complaint was rejected by a vote of 18-12.

7. On February 25, 2009, TE White complained to the General Assembly that the Presbytery erred in not investigating the views of TE Lawrence. A panel of the SJC recommended to the SJC that the complaint be sustained (Judicial Case 2008-14), and the SJC accepted the recommendation in October, 2009.

8. At the 86th meeting, April 23-24, 2009, at Black Hills PCA, Rapid City, SD, Presbytery formed an investigative committee consisting of TEs Kevin Carr, Lane Keister, Joshua Moon, and Wes White, and REs Milt Werkema and Kent Brobst to “conduct a BCO 31-2 investigation as to whether or not TE Greg Lawrence holds or is preaching/teaching views with respect to the Covenant of Works or other doctrines associated with the so-called Federal Vision Theology that are contrary to the doctrinal standards of the PCA.”

9. At the 87th meeting, September 2009, at First PCA in Hinckley, MN, the investigative committee recommended with a vote of 4-2 that “the Presbytery find that there is strong presumption of guilt that TE Lawrence is teaching contrary to the Standards in a way that strikes at the fundamentals of the system and/or the vitals of religion in his doctrine of baptism.” The committee recommendation was rejected 24-13.

10. At a called meeting held in October 20, 2009 at Watertown, SD with 31 presbyters present, TEs Carpenter, Lane Keister, Art Sartorius, and White presented two complaints against Presbytery’s action of exonerating TE Lawrence. The Presbytery sustained the complaint by repenting of “acting in haste.” It appointed a new committee consisting of TEs Chad Brewer, Kevin Carr, Chris Harper, and Luke Herche, and REs Kent Brobst and Dustin Rothwell to continue the investigation.

11. At the 88th meeting, January 22, 2010, held in Watertown, SD, the second investigative committee recommended by a 6-0 vote that it find strong presumption of guilt with regard to TE Lawrence’s “preaching/teaching views…with respect to doctrines associated with the so-called Federal Vision theology that are contrary to the doctrinal standards of the PCA.” TE Lawrence subsequently requested a committee of instruction before the Presbytery take action. TE Lawrence’s request was granted and an instruction committee of Minnesota TEs was appointed (BCO 31-7). The committee would confer with TE Lawrence and help clarify his statements with regard to the nine declarations of the General Assembly’s Ad Interim Committee Report of 2007, and report at the 90th meeting on September 23-24, 2010 with action to be taken on the second investigation committee at that time.

12. At the 89th meeting, April 22-23, 2010, at Foothills PCA in Sturgis, SD, the instructional committee gave a provisional report on its work with no action taken.

13. At the 90th meeting, September 23-24, 2010, at Faith PCA in Grand Forks, ND, the instructional committee gave its report which was received as information. The second investigative committee reported. After considerable deliberation, strong presumption of guilt was found with regard to TE Lawrence’s teaching. TE Kevin Carr was appointed prosecutor and a panel of judges was appointed to hear the case. No date or deadline was set by Presbytery.

WITNESSES AND/OR DOCUMENTS:
1. RE Jock McGregor
2. TE Wes White
3. TE Gregory Lawrence
4. TE Guy Prentiss Waters
5. General Assembly’s Report of the Ad Interim Study Committee on Federal Vision, New Perspective, and Auburn Avenue Theology (RAIC)
6. Report of the first 31-2 Investigative Committee of TE Lawrence (CR1)
7. Report of the second 31-2 Investigative Committee of TE Lawrence (CR2)
8. Report of the Instruction Committee of TE Lawrence (IC)

CHARGES AND SPECIFICATIONS

CHARGE 1 – REGARDING THE COVENANT OF WORKS

That TE Lawrence holds, defends, and teaches a view of covenant theology that is contrary to the covenant works and covenant or grace distinction as set forth in the Westminster Standards (WCF 7:2-3; WLC 20-22, 30-34; WSC 12, 20; Jer. 31:31-34; Rom. 7:9, 10:5-10; Gal. 3:10-12; Phil. 3:8-9).

SPECIFICATIONS TO CHARGE 1:

1. At the 67th meeting of Presbytery, TE Lawrence was approved for ordination. Along with that approval, came the acceptance of his theology paper for his ordination trials on the covenant of works. Setting aside the issue of the propriety of receiving that paper, it is clear today that TE Lawrence’s view of covenant theology is decidedly out of accord with the Westminster Standards. The Report of the Ad Interim Committee on Federal Vision, New Perspective, and Auburn Avenue Theology says in its first declaration (RAIC, 2235):

a. The view that rejects the bi-covenantal structure of Scripture as represented in the Westminster Standards (i.e., view which do not merely take issue with the terminology, but the essence of the first/second covenant framework) is contrary to those Standards.

2. TE Lawrence states in his paper on the covenant of works (CR1, 34):

God relates to his creation covenantally, this relationship is grounded in the covenantal relationship of love among the persons of the Trinity…The designation of God’s covenant with Adam as being a “covenant of works” is unfortunate and not felicitous. The testimony of Scripture is that God’s covenant with Adam is not radically different, rather the beginning of God’s covenantal dealings with His creatures.

3. TE Lawrence furthermore states (CR1, 35):

Arguably, the Confession operates under the paradigm of a “covenant” as an agreement or pact….The resulting paradigm allows the distinction in the Standards between what is variously referred to as a “covenant of works” or “covenant of life” with the “covenant of grace.” This is in opposition to the very act of creation.

4. TE Lawrence argues for a view of covenant theology sometimes called monocovenantalism. He says (CR1, 37-38):

The unfortunate result of that designation “covenant of works” coupled with the imbibed law presents a paradigm in which righteousness is through works (footnote 11)….This paradigm could unfortunately depict Adam as potentially in a position to “earn” something before God.

5. TE Lawrence states further in footnote 11 of the CR1, 37: “Although I believe this concept is communicated in the Confession and unfortunately picked up by some in their theological system or paradigm.” He continues on page 38:

A further result of designating God’s covenant with Adam as a “covenant of works” has been the necessary requirement of the notion of a probationary period.

6. TE Lawrence’s denial of the covenant of works as understood in the WCF leads to his denial of the works/grace distinction in footnote 23 on page 41:

I use this terminology [of covenant of grace] as the WCF does, but in doing so I am not implying my approval of the “works”/“grace” distinction.

7. TE Lawrence summarizes his view of covenant theology in the following manner (CR1, 42):

The question that arises is: does the prelapsarian Adamic covenant “fit” this model? Can we speak of an Adamic covenant as a precursor to the “covenants” that follow, all of which make up the one covenant? Adam was created “in covenant” with God. The very nature that he was given life, not to mention the trees in the garden to eat from, reveals the grace of God. Adam, as was stated above, was called to acknowledge God and live by His grace. The promises to Adam impose on him certain obligations which He was to fulfill. The fact that His disobedience resulted in the wholesale “exile” of his descendents into sin does not necessitate a postlapsarian new and different covenant. Furthermore, such a designation maligns God’s sovereign plan and purpose for humanity. If God’s purpose, in creation, is to create a mature bride for His Son, then “the fall” would not radically change that purpose. It is not as if God’s plan was upset or His purpose changed. The covenant of works/covenant of grace dichotomy implies a distinction in God’s means and mode of achieving His purpose. Conversely, an understanding of one covenant in two stages fits nicely with the plan and purpose of God revealed in Scripture. Finally, the covenant of grace construed as a “second” covenant (W.C. VII.3; WLC 30) conceals the primacy of the eternal covenant among the persons of the godhead upon which God’s covenant with man is built. Thus, rather than dichotomization and division, God’s relations with man are built and flow from His inter-Trinitarian relations and form one historical covenant in two stages (Old Covenant/New Covenant).

8. During the committee’s interview with TE Lawrence, he indicated that he still affirmed his position taken in the covenant of works paper (CR1):

Q: Greg, I’m going to presume that you don’t have any, and that you stand by your paper?

GL: I’m going to presume that as well, yes.

9. In an e-mail exchange included with the Second Investigative Committee report (CR2) and found in appendix C of the minutes of the 88th meeting of Siouxlands Presbytery, TE Lawrence responds to the following point: “We here Greg saying that he believes in a mono-covenantal understanding of covenant theology.” TE Lawrence’s respond incorrectly delineates the Confession’s view of bi-covenantalism:

I affirm the bi-covenantal structural of Scripture….I have stated, ‘Biblically, I believe it is proper to speak of a bi-covenantal arrangement (Old Covenant and New Covenant), an octo-covenantal arrangement-a veritable progression of ‘new’ covenants-(Adamic, Noahic, Abrahamic, Mosaic, Davidic, Remnant, Restoration, New), or even an (amorphous?) “mono-covenantal” arrangement in the Trinity into which we were created to live and move and have our being” (CR2, lines 242-251).

CHARGE 2 – REGARDING THE BENEFITS OF BAPTISM TO THE ELECT

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 (WCF 27.1; 28.1; WSC 91, 92, 94; WLC 165, 168; Matt. 3:11; Acts 2:41, 10:44-48, 16:31-34; Rom. 4:11; 1 Pet. 3:21).

SPECIFICATIONS TO CHARGE 2:

1. The Report of the Ad Interim Committee on Federal Vision, et. al. states: “Confusing this ‘union with Christ’ with visible membership in the body of Christ through outward profession or sacramental expression is a serious error and endangers our church’s faithful testimony to the Gospel essential of justification by faith alone” (2214, lines 24-27). Furthermore, in declaration 6, the RAIC states that “the view that water baptism effects ‘covenantal union’ with Christ through which each baptized person receives the saving benefits of Christ’s mediation, including regeneration, justification, and sanctification, thus creating a parallel soteriological system to the decretal system of the Westminster Standards, is contrary to the Westminster Standards” (RAIC, 2235).

2. TE Lawrence believes that saving benefits are accrued to the elect at baptism. He states in his sermon on Romans 6 (CR1, 27-28):

In baptism we are united to Christ and as such the benefits that He has wrought have been applied to us….Paul says in baptism you have been united to Christ, the new Adam, in such a way that you identify with him in his death and you identify with him in his new life and resurrection, so that you, people of God, have new life. You have been united to Christ and his benefits, therefore, are for you. And this is wrought in baptism, Paul says.

3. TE Lawrence furthermore affirms in his Romans 6 sermon (CR1, 28-29):
Baptism itself is an entrance into new life….This new life that is wrought through me, Jesus is saying, through My life, death, and resurrection will be poured out – this new life, which on a grand scale is the fulfillment in the midst of history of the promises of god (sic) is applied individually in baptism to you. One must be born again by water and Spirit, born into the kingdom of God.

Now, this might make you a little uncomfortable, but I think that virtually the same point is made by Paul in Romans 6 that we just looked at. In Romans 6, united to Christ in baptism, in His death in His resurrection, we are united to Him that we might have what? Newness of life (CR1, 29).

4. TE Lawrence clearly is referring to the rite of baptism in this sermon (CR1, 29):

All these things I have presented speak predominantly of the privileges accrued at baptism—not on any claim we have, but on the work of God in Christ. None of these passages speak of our role in baptism but of what God says and what God does in this rite.

5. TE Lawrence again states in his sermon on Romans 6 (CR1, 30):

One way of testing my overriding thrust that baptism is about what God says about us, not what we say about God is for you to go through the Scriptures and see if there is anywhere that Scripture addresses us, or challenges us in this sort of way—Are you really a Christian? Are you really saved? Are you really elect? Does that sort of language ever come to us, either in the OT or the NT? I would propose that as always and everywhere in Scripture there is a strong statement to those who are part of the Church and who have been made part of the church, particularly in the New Covenant by way of baptism, that the blessings of God are theirs and that in light of those blessings they are to live a certain way.

6. TE Lawrence adds adoption to the above saving benefits and insists that one is “born from above” through baptism (CR1, 31):

What I think is Biblical/sacramental/covenantal/paedo-baptist model, whatever you want to call it, salvation is by grace through faith. Baptized into the name of Christ, I am a child of God, I have been born from above on account of what God has said and done in my life. This should give us assurance of God’s grace and favor.

7. When asked for further clarification by the first investigative committee regarding the benefits conveyed to the recipient in baptism, TE Lawrence stated in the Answers to our Questionnaire (CR1, 49):

Baptism is the initiatory rite by which we are united to Christ and thus granted new life (Matt. 28:18-20; Titus 3:5; Romans 6:3-4); brought into fellowship of His body, the church (Ephesians 4:4-6; Gal. 3:27); cleansed of our sins (1 Cor. 6:11); all of which is a gracious work of God the Father through the Son, by the Holy Spirit.

CHARGE 3 – REGARDING THE BENEFITS OF BAPTISM TO THE NON-ELECT

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 (WCF 27.1; 28.1; WSC 91, 92, 94; WLC 165; Matt. 3:11; Acts 2:41, 10:44-48, 16:31-34; Rom. 4:11; 1 Pet. 3:21).

SPECIFICATIONS TO CHARGE 3:

1. The first investigative committee pursued the matter regarding the reprobate receiving saving benefits at baptism. TE Lawrence responded to the following question (CR1, 62):

Q: So, does that happen [that is, the receiving of certain saving benefits] to everyone who’s baptized with water?

GL: At least in some measure, those benefits are granted to those who are baptized….

2. In another question and answer set, TE Lawrence responds (CR1, 62):

Q: Why Greg would you insist that there would be of necessity any sense in which the child is united to Christ through baptism?

GL: Ask that question again, please.

Q: Why would you insist, I think you’re insisting, that by saying that, in some sense, baptism unites us to Christ, and I would presume you mean our children as well…

GL: Absolutely.

Q: Why would it be necessary that you insist that they be united in any sense? Why is it necessary that at the moment of baptism they are united to Christ?

GL: Because I think that‘s the way that Scripture speaks when it speaks of in baptism being united to His death and resurrection.

3. During the interview, the committee sought to understand how TE Lawrence regarded the sacramental union—the relationship between the sign and the thing signified (CR1, 64):

Q: Let’s put it this way, the resurrection, or being united into the death and resurrection of Christ, does that pertain to the thing signified or to the sign, in Rom. 6 for instance?

GL: I would not distinguish.

Q: But that raises the question, then, if you don’t distinguish, then if everybody does get that at the water sign, then everybody does get the thing signified at the same time, right? Is that what you‘re saying?

GL: Yeah. By virtue of the rite of baptism, to some degree they become recipients of those benefits, in terms of their union with Christ.

4. Again TE Lawrence responded in the interview (CR1, 64):

Q: Do you, are you familiar with the language of sacramental union, the distinction that the Confession makes between the sign and the thing signified?

GL: Yeah, in my understanding, in reading Calvin, I‘ve understood that distinction to be one to emphasize the union of the sign and the thing signified. So, generally that’s not my preferred way of speaking but in terms of my understanding of the sign and the thing signified, I do not separate the two in Romans chapter 6.

Q: So both sign and thing signified accrue to everyone who receives the sign?

GL: Yes, and yet the parameter that I’ve put on it is that that doesn’t mean that water is a free ticket to heaven. And maybe I’m not being clear enough, and I need to distinguish terms…

Q: So you would be happy saying that someone who eventually falls away can be united to Christ’s death and resurrection?

GL: Yes.

5. TE Lawrence was asked to respond to a questioner from the first investigative committee. Question 6 under “Election and Covenant” asked: “Is perseverance the only difference between decretally elect and non-decretally elect within the church? Is it possible for a person to have their sins forgiven, to be justified, and yet to fall away from this grace?” (1CR, 48). TE Lawrence responded:

The fundamental difference between the decretally elect and the non-decretally lect is that the non-decretally elect are not decretally elect.

Taking God’s word at face value, it is possible for a person chosen for temporary membership in the covenant to have their sins forgiven and yet to fall away from the grace of God (Galatians 5.4). We are to view and treat members of the covenant as justified. But this forgiveness and other blessings are not identical for the regenerate (unto life eternal) and those who are not regenerate and do not persevere in God’s covenant.

CHARGE 4 – REGARDING PERSEVERANCE AND APOSTACY

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 (WCF 3.6, 3.8, 11:5, 17.1; WLC 64-66, 68, 79; Isa. 54:7-8; John 5:24-25, 10:25-30; 1 Cor. 1:8-9; Phil. 1:6).

SPECIFICATIONS TO CHARGE 4:

1. TE Lawrence’s view that saving benefits accrue to the elect and reprobate alike at baptism places him in the position of teaching that some who receive such saving benefits do fall away in contradiction to the doctrine of the perseverance. In his sermon on Hebrews 6, TE Lawrence teaches the following (CR1, 15):

The contrast, then, in this passage, is between maturity in Christ and destruction. This is a warning to the people of God. Those who have been enlightened are those who have been enlightened with the truth of the Gospel of Jesus Christ and respond to it. Those who have tasted of the heavenly gift are those who have walked with Christ, loved Him, and sought to serve Him. Those who have been partakers of the Holy Spirit and partakers of the heavenly calling – the heavenly gift – have themselves known the new life that is theirs in Jesus Christ. A metaphor is being used here that we as the Church are like the earth which has been watered. And again, we can think back to Edenic passages. New life has sprung from the ground – new life has been granted.

2. TE Lawrence furthermore states (CR1, 18):

It is being taken for granted in this passage that you, Church of Jesus Christ, and the original hearers of this letter have experienced the grace of God. What is called into question here and in other places is if they and we will continue in that grace. Hebrews Chapter 6 teaches the possibility of real apostasy. Some people do indeed fall away, and it is a real fall from grace. Apostates lose something they actually possessed. Apostasy is so terribly heinous precisely because it is sin against grace.

3. TE Lawrence explains the difference between those who persevere and those who do not (CR1, 19; cf. RAIC, 2229, line 33-2230, line 2):

We do acknowledge that there is a difference between those who persevere to the end and the grace they receive and those for a while taste, are illumined, and walk with God. Saul is an example here. There is a difference between Saul and David, and that difference is God‘s gracious preserving of David and granting him the grace to repent where Saul did not repent. Whatever grace reprobate covenant members receive is qualified by their lack of perseverance. The qualitative difference, however, is not in view in these passages. It is only manifest over a lifetime. It is not a distinction for us to meditate upon.

4. TE Lawrence outlines what he believes are the stages of apostasy from death to life to finally the loss of that life (CR1, 21):

The Bible consistently presents apostates as moving through three stages, with their final end worse than the beginning. We begin being spiritual dead in our sin, our trespasses, without hope and without God in the world. But we are then made alive, in a sense, in Christ and experience the blessings within the context of God‘s Church, God‘s people. Finally, apostates are those who forsake the Lord of the covenant and lose those blessings.

5. In the first Investigative Committee’s questioneer, it was asked, “Is it possible for a person to have their sins forgiven, to be justified, and yet to fall away from this grace?” TE Lawrence responded: “Taking God’s word at face value, it is possible for a person chosen for temporary membership in the covenant to have their sins forgiven and yet to fall away from the grace of God (Galatians 5.4)….But this forgiveness and other blessings are not identical for the regenerate (unto eternal life) and those who are not regenerate and do not persevere in God’s covenant.” (CR1, 48)

CHARGE 5 – REGARDING ASSURANCE

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 (WCF 3.8, 18:1-3; WLC 80; Rom. 8:16; 2 Cor. 13:5; 2 Pet. 1:10; 1 John 2:3, 3:14, 4:13, 5:13).

SPECIFICATIONS TO CHARGE 5:

1. The Westminster Standards recognize both objective and subjective grounds for assurance of saving grace. The objective ground is the “divine truth of the promises of salvation.” The subjective grounds are “inward evidence of those graces” and “the testimony of the Spirit of adoption witnessing with our spirits” (WCF 18.2; cf. WLC 80). The Confession does not place the ground of assurance in baptism as such but in God’s promise and the evidence of sanctifying grace.

2. However, TE Lawrence does place the objective ground in one’s baptism when
he says in his sermon on Hebrews 6 (CR1, 20):

These warning passages force us to come to grips with the strong covenantal language used in Scripture. Though you may not be imbibed in it yourself; many are stuck in a systematic theological perspective in which we only look at Scripture in terms of God’s decrees or election, or this is the popular Christian way of putting it, ‘Am I or is another person really a Christian?’ Covenantally, as the Scripture speaks, as the Bible speaks, it speaks to us pastorally. It speaks to us as a book to be used in God’s worship. It is a covenantal narrative which uses personal language to reveal to us God, His world, and His work. Thus, something like the question, “Are you, or am I, truly a Christian?” is never asked in Scripture. If you come to the font and have water poured, dipped, or if you’re immersed in it, you’re a Christian.

3. TE Lawrence also argues for baptism as the ground of assurance in his Romans 6 sermon (CR1, 31):

Baptized into the name of Christ, I am a child of God, I have been born from above on account of what God has said and done in my life. This should give us assurance of God’s grace and favor. This should give us an assurance of God’s grace and respond accordingly. Remember, there are privileges and there are responsibilities. In this regard, again John Calvin is his children’s catechism, though I think it is instructive for us, elicits these questions and responses. Calvin has the teacher ask, “My child are you a Christian in fact as well as name?” And the child is to respond. “Yes, my father.” The teacher: “How is this known to you?” The child: “Because I am baptized in the name of the Father and the Son the (sic) Holy Spirit.

4. TE Lawrence in elucidating this above comment further criticizes the subjective basis upon which the Confession teaches that assurance might rest (CR1, 31):

Put slightly differently, for those of us who struggle—for those of us who struggle—and there are some who really struggle with an assurance of God’s favor toward us—am I truly a child of God?—in His love toward us. We are not called to naval gaze. We are not called to look within ourselves and to wrestle and—no. Look to God in Christ. His love demonstrated on the cross—His love personally applied to us in baptism.

5. During the first Investigative Committee’s interview, TE Lawrence was asked, “Can true believers be infallibly assured that they are in a state of grace and that they shall persevere unto salvation?” TE Lawrence responded, “Yes, until they don’t.” (CR1, 66)