Well, what I wanted to talk about for a few minutes is the various efforts that are going on in public and behind the scenes by the Fed and other government officials to guard against a free-fall in the markets...

- Former Clinton advisor George Stephanopolous on Good Morning America 

Last week's post served as an introduction to the President's Working Group on Financial Markets, better known to the public as the Plunge Protection Team.

It seemed good this week to spend a little more time on the same subject, as the existence and the activities of this organization are perhaps the most important, least understood and most underreported factors driving financial markets today.

Financial markets such as the New York Stock Exchange are presented to the public as the very essence of free market capitalism.  But in the opinion of this writer, the reality is something quite different. 

Far from being a place where buyers and sellers meet to determine fair value for financial assets, today's financial markets are a rigged game designed to mislead the public about the true nature of the financial condition of the West.

Some may wonder why a Christian blogger would delve into the subject of the Plunge Protection Team (PPT).  It seems on the surface as if it's a bit conspiratorial, a topic more appropriate for some tin foil hat blogger than for someone intent and spreading the light of truth.  But to see the discussion of the PPT in this light is, at least in my view, a serious mistake.

That the PPT is a real entity with real power is a very easy matter to prove.  The case that it has been and is being used by the powers that be to prop up favored markets and suppress those out of favor, though circumstantial in nature, is quite strong.

Exposing such chicanery is among the most important tasks a Christian financial writer can undertake.  As University of Austin finance professor John Griffin recently noted, the Bible's command to "Have nothing to do with the fruitless deeds of darkness, but rather expose them," can be applied to outing the lies and fraudulent activities of powerful financial and governmental interests in the same way it can be applied to other evil deeds. 

With that in mind, let's take a closer look at the PPT.    

The Establishment of the Plunge Protection Team

Perhaps the most sensible place to begin our discussion of the PPT is with Executive Order 12631 of March 18, 1988.  You may find it here in the Federal Register.  But since it's only a few hundred words long, I'll reproduce it in full below.

Executive Order 12631--Working Group on Financial Markets

Source: The provisions of Executive Order 12631 of Mar. 18, 1988, appear at 53 FR 9421, 3 CFR, 1988 Comp., p. 559, unless otherwise noted.

By virtue of the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America, and in order to establish a Working Group on Financial Markets, it is hereby ordered as follows:

Section 1. Establishment. (a) There is hereby established a Working Group on Financial Markets (Working Group). The Working Group shall be composed of:

(1) the Secretary of the Treasury, or his designee;

(2) the Chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, or his designee;

(3) the Chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission, or his designee; and

(4) the Chairman of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, or her designee.

(b) The Secretary of the Treasury, or his designee, shall be the Chairman of the Working Group.

Sec. 2. Purposes and Functions. (a) Recognizing the goals of enhancing the integrity, efficiency, orderliness, and competitiveness of our Nation's financial markets and maintaining investor confidence, the Working Group shall identify and consider:

(1) the major issues raised by the numerous studies on the events in the financial markets surrounding October 19, 1987, and any of those recommendations that have the potential to achieve the goals noted above; and

(2) the actions, including governmental actions under existing laws and regulations (such as policy coordination and contingency planning), that are appropriate to carry out these recommendations.

(b) The Working Group shall consult, as appropriate, with representatives of the various exchanges, clearinghouses, self-regulatory bodies, and with major market participants to determine private sector solutions wherever possible.

(c) The Working Group shall report to the President initially within 60 days (and periodically thereafter) on its progress and, if appropriate, its views on any recommended legislative changes.

Sec. 3. Administration. (a) The heads of Executive departments, agencies, and independent instrumentalities shall, to the extent permitted by law, provide the Working Group such information as it may require for the purpose of carrying out this Order.
(b) Members of the Working Group shall serve without additional compensation for their work on the Working Group.
(c) To the extent permitted by law and subject to the availability of funds therefore, the Department of the Treasury shall provide the Working Group with such administrative and support services as may be necessary for the performance of its functions.

So what can we glean from this short but not so sweet E.O.? 

For one, it's a high-powered group.  As Section one tells us, it is comprised of the Secretary of the Treasury, the Chairman of the Federal Reserve, the Chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Chairman of the Commodities Futures Trading Commission. 

In fact, one would have a hard time coming up with a higher powered group of financial overseers than the officers referred to above. 

But it's not just the group's power that's impressive.  It's also highly secretive.

Consider the US Treasury Department, home to a powerful and secretive group known as the Exchange Stabilization Fund (ESF).  The ESF was, as it were, born in monetary sin and shapen in financial iniquity, the seed capital of which was extracted out of the hides of the American public by the iniquitous Gold Reserve Act of 1934.  As Investopedia notes,

The Gold Reserve Act of 1934 is an act that took away the title of all gold and gold certificates that were held by the Federal Reserve Bank.  The Gold Reserve Act of 1934 made the trade and possession of gold a criminal offense for the citizens of the United States.  Sole title of this gold was given to the U.S. Treasury.  It was not until 1975 that Americans could again own or trade gold.

Article 1 Section 10 of the US Constitution reads, "No state shall...make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts," but the after less than 150 years, the federal government decided it was proper to criminalize the possession of real money.  In this writer's opinion, that's about all you need to know to properly assess the authoritarian character of the members of Congress who drafted the legislation and of Franklin D. Roosevelt who signed it in to law.  

Worth noting is that Gold Reserve Act completed the transfer of wealth from the American people to the federal government that had begun the previous year with Executive Order 6102, which required Americans to turn in, "all gold coin, gold bullion, and gold certificates now owned by  them to a Federal Reserve Bank."  Roosevelt's Executive Order required that this be done by May 1, 1933, with criminal penalties of a, "$10,000 fine or 10 years imprisonment, or both."

"The main rationale behind the order," Wikipedia notes, "was actually to remove the constraint on the Federal Reserve which prevented it from increasing the money supply during the depression."  In other words, the Fed couldn't rob people effectively enough when they had gold in their possession.  First they had to take the gold, then the powers that be could go about the nefarious business of plundering the people.

Once the government had the gold, it didn't take long for them to finish their act of robbery.  Another feature of the Gold Reserve Act (GRA) was that it revalued gold.  Prior to the passing of the GRA, gold was valued at $20.67 per ounce.  The GRA set the price of gold at $35 per ounce, meaning that upon its passing, Americans immediately suffered a loss of about 69% on the gold forcibly taken from them by the FDR's 1933 Executive Order. 

Question: So if the American people lost 69% on their gold, did that wealth just disappear?  Answer: Of course not! The stolen wealth was merely transferred to the Treasury where it was used as seed capital for the ESF.

As Wikipedia rightly notes, "The resulting profit that the government realized funded the Exchange Stabilization Fund established by the Gold Reserve Act of 1934."

The ESF has now been in business for 84 years, making it one of the longest running and egregious criminal enterprises in Washington D.C.  And given the many outrageous crimes committed daily in the Swamp, that's saying quite a lot.

The Federal Reserve, the central bank of the United States, while more in the public eye than the ESF, still manages to operate to a large extent in secrecy.  Several attempts have been made to audit the Fed over the years, but to date, the Fed has successfully resisted all attempts to open its books to public scrutiny. 

Then Fed Chairman Janet Yellen's letter to House Speaker Paul Ryan and Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi is instructive on this point.  In her letter dated November 16, 2015, Yellen objected to auditing the Fed, saying that subjecting the Fed to an audit would, "politicize monetary policy decision...undermine the independence of the Federal Reserve," and was, "based on the false premise - that the Federal Reserve is not subject to an audit." 

While the Fed may be audited in some sense as Yellen argues, it's not the type of thoroughgoing audit Ron Paul and Rand Paul have argued for over the years. 

Yellen, as Fed Chairmen before her, and doubtless as those who will come after her such as current Fed Chairman Jay Powell, was jealous to guard the Fed's "independence."  Translated into plain English, she wants to continue the ability of the Fed to serve the interests of the financial elite, principally the big banks that own the Fed, at the expense of the American people.   

Evidence of the PPT's Handiwork

For our purposes, I will not go in to a great deal of technical detail in an attempt to prove the case that the PPT manipulates markets.  Rather, I shall rely on quotes from those who would know.  Considering that these quotes come from highly placed and well-qualified individuals, their comments deserve serious consideration.

The term Plunge Protection Team can be traced to a 1997 article in the Washington Post of the same name.  According to the piece, "The government has a real role to play to make a 1987-style sudden market break less likely."  So just how does the PPT do this? Well, the article doesn't say specifically.  It talks about ensuring communication between government agencies remains open.  But does mere communication help stabilize markets in the midst of a crisis? Imagine the following conversation:

            Treasury Secretary:  Hey, the S&P's off 5% already and it's only 11am!!  What do you think?

            Fed Chairman:  Yep, darn if it's not.

Talk, as they say, is cheap.  And very obviously stabilizing markets requires more than just talk.  Implied, though not explicitly stated, is that the Fed and probably the ESF will intervene in the financial markets to produce the sort of "almost miraculous" recovery that occurred the day after 1987's Black Monday.  After all, no one can see what the Fed or the ESF are doing with their vast financial resources.  "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain," is not just a famous line from the Wizard of Oz, it's the M.O. of these two groups.  And they both have better curtains than did the wizard. 

In short, of course the Fed and the ESF are rigging the markets.  The Washington Post all but said so back in 1997.  "But," as the cheesy infomercials like to put it, "wait, there's more!"

Consider the statement at the top of this post by George Stephanopoulos on Good Morning America.  I've seen the date of his appearance as alternatively September 17, 2000 and September 17, 2001.  If it was the later, this was the first day that the NYSE reopened after 9/11.  In either case, this Clinton insider very clearly hints at governmental intervention in the financial markets to "guard against a free-fall."

The quote from Stephanopoulos continues, "the Fed in 1989 created what is called the Plunge Protection Team, which is the Federal Reserve, big major banks, representatives of the New York Stock Exchange and other exchanges and they have been meeting informally so far, and they have a kind of an informal agreement among major banks to come in and start to buy stock if there appears to be a problem."

In 2015, Dr. Pippa Malmgren who actually served on the PPT and whose father was a high level presidential advisor and scholar made this telling remark," [T]here's no price discovery anymore by the market...governments impose prices on the market."

The New York Post's John Crudele has written critically of the PPT for years.  Typical of his work is this story from 2014, " 'Plunge protection' behind market's sudden recovery."

In 2007, Crudele expressed his frustration with the lack of transparency by the US Treasury on the workings of the PPT, writing,

After a year and a half of stalling, the US Treasury finally complied with The Post's requests for information about The President's Working Group on Financial Markets - delivering 177 pages of crap. 

In essence, the Treasury's Freedom of Information  officials said that the Working Group - affectionately nicknamed the Plunge Protection Team - doesn't keep records of its meetings. 

How interesting and convenient!

PhD. economist Paul Craig Roberts, former Undersecretary of the Treasury under Ronald Reagan and former Wall Street Journal Associate Editor, is another highly placed individual whose written extensively on the activities of the PPT.  In his article "Do Financial Markets Still Exist?" he wrote, "For many decades the Federal Reserve has rigged the bond market...and for about a century, central banks have set [rigged] interest rates...It appears that...the Fed is rigging the stock market by purchasing S&P equity index futures in order to arrest stock market declines driven by fundamentals."

In December 2008, widely watched market commentator Nouriel Roubini was quoted as saying, "The Fed (or Treasury) could even go as far as directly intervening in the stock market via direct purchase of equities as a way to boost falling equity prices."

Nouriel Roubini was formerly an advisor to New York Fed governor Tim Geithner, a major figure in the 2008 financial crisis.

Market analyst Charles Biderman commented in 2009 that while the market cap of US stocks soared by more than $6 trillion, "We cannot identify the source of the new money that pushed stock prices up so far so fast."

In the same article, Biderman quotes former Fed governor Robert Heller's 1989 Wall Street Journal opinion piece where Heller wrote,

Instead of flooding the entire economy with liquidity, and thereby increasing the danger of inflation, the Fed could support the stock market directly by buying market averages in the futures market, thereby stabilizing the market as a whole.

Do you think a former Fed governor just might know a thing or two about what it takes to rig the stock market? 

In a 2017 appearance on CNBC's Smart Money, "Legendary vulture investor Asher Edelman, the 1980's model for Gordon Gekko," argued that, in his view, the PPT was the only thing propping up the market.  He also expressed his concern about being in the market, saying that "I don't know when the plug is going to be pulled."

Finally, I come to my main man Dr. Ron Paul.  Paul has commented many times over the years on the activities of the PPT. In a May 4, 2018 appearance on CNBC's Futures Now, the good doctor had this to say,

I think the plunge protection team is alive and well.  I think they're involved and they do provide some protections.  The world is engaged in that type of maneuvering.  But eventually though, the market rules.

More examples could be provided, but I hope the above citations, all taken from prominent and respected people, will help the reader to see the PPT less as a myth or conspiracy theory and more as a reality, one which influences the public perception of the stock market and, hence, the entire US economy, and one that accomplishes this end by very dishonest, deceptive and immoral means.

Closing Thoughts

Investopedia, a mainstream, and in many ways helpful, provider of investment information, dismisses any notion of the PPT's manipulating markets as conspiracy theory.  As its article on the PPT puts it, "The name PPT was coined by the Washington Post in 1997.  Although the team had a viable purpose when initially created, conspiracy theorists suspected that the team was created to shore up, or even manipulate, the markets."

Now where would anybody get such an absurd idea?  As the quotes above demonstrate, it's not whackadoo weirdo conspiracy theorists who are the ones talking about the PPT's market manipulations, it's of the most mainstream, most connected, most market savvy voices out there who believe this.  

If the PPT is, in fact, manipulating financial markets, and it is the conviction of this author that this is what is happening, the PPT and its constituent organizations such as the US Treasury Department and the Fed are guilty of violating any number of Biblical and Constitutional principles of government.

The origins of the Fed and of the ESF should immediately alert anyone jealous of his liberty that these groups are up to no good.  The Fed's origin can be traced to a secretive meeting on Jekyll Island, Georgia in November 1910.  The ESF was created by open fraud on the part of Congress and the Roosevelt administration with the cooperation of the previously mentioned Federal Reserve.

The Bible demands open meetings, but the Fed and the ESF love the darkness and will not come to the light,  lest their evil deeds be exposed. 

Such agencies, based as they are on lies and theft, never can bring forth good fruit.  As Jesus said in his Sermon on the Mount, "A bad tree bears bad fruit."  And if the Fed and the ESF work evil on their own, what shall we expect when they combine forces in the PPT? 

Is it much of a stretch to suppose that such agencies, having worked financial evil on their own, would produce even more evil when they combine forces as part of the PPT? 

Should Americans expect transparency and honesty from such bad actors?  Or would it be more reasonable to expect that they, like the rulers of the Gentiles in Jesus' day, would "lord it over" the people.

In the opinion of this writer, the answer very obviously is the latter.  And one of the ways these organizations "lord it over" the American people is to continually give them a false picture of the real economy by rigging markets to support the official narrative that everything in the economy is awesome, that the stock and bond markets are safe and stable and the best places for your money, and that you should never consider being so foolish as to put your money elsewhere such as gold and silver.    

This official rosy scenario was encapsulated in Janet Yellen's comment in June 2017 when she said that another 2008 like financial crisis is not likely "in our lifetime."

To this I would reply, that really depends on whose lifetime you're talking about.

(To be continued...)

"There's no price discovery anymore in the market...governments impose prices on the market."

- Dr. Pippa Malmgren, former member of the President's Working Group on Financial Markets

When I began writing this series on the 2008 Global Financial Crisis (GFC), the 10th anniversary of which we marked last month, it seemed best to provide the reader with some context.

After all, we're marking the 10th anniversary of the event, which for many people seems like ancient history already.  So there's that.  But more importantly, to really understand the GFC and the Great American Bailout of 2008, a little history certainly helps provides some perspective. 

The crash of 2008 did not happen in a vacuum.  Rather, it was the inevitable result of prior decisions, some of which could be traced back to the 1987 Black Monday crash that wiped out over 22 percent of the value of the Dow Jones Industrial Average in a single day. 

Other contributing factors could be traced further back to the  1920's and 1930's, the years immediately preceding and following the stock market crash of 1929.  Just as the 1920's roared in large part due to excessive money printing by the Federal Reserve,  the party ended in 1929 when the Fed, attempting to reduce the money supply that had created a financial bubble, instead crashed the stock market. 

The 1930's saw unprecedented governmental regulation of the financial markets and of the economy in general, the effect of which was to prolong the  economic misery far longer than was necessary.  During that decade, economist John Maynard Keynes supplied the needed intellectual justification for all this governmental regulatory interference in his 1936 book titled The General Theory.

In Keynes twisted world, it was savers who were causing all the problems in the industrialized economies of the West.  What was needed was more debt.  And if people wouldn't go into debt on their own volition, then their governments needed to step up and do the spending for them. 

Finally, one could trace the 2008 crisis back to the progressive era of the early 20th century, specifically, the creation of the Federal Reserve in the United States. 

For the purpose of this series, it is not my intention to cover the creation of the Fed, the Great Depression or Keynesian economics in great detail.  For our purposes, it is sufficient to note them here.  Lord willing, I hope to address these topics in future series. 

In last week's installment, we left off discussing the October 1987 stock market crash, an event that has come to  be known as Black Monday.

As part of our discussion, we noted that on the Tuesday following the big Monday crash, things were looking pretty shaky for major US markets.  But just when things looked their worst, an event occurred which some observers described as almost miraculous, a huge and unexpected rally in the futures market that jump started a rally in the major market indices.   

Some attributed the rally, "to a mysterious burst of bullish sentiment."  Such an explanation seems strained to this author.  Why, in the midst of the worst market crash in history would there be a "bust of bullish sentiment."  One of the basic rules of stock trading is to avoid attempting "to catch a falling knife."'  If the market's tanking, let it tank and buy once it appears a bottom has formed.

More realistic is  the view of some traders who chalked up the rally to manipulation of the futures market by a few major firms. 

Although the article from which I drew this history, a Pulitzer Prize winning piece from the Wall Street Journal, did not specifically mention governmental or central bank intervention, it is the opinion of this author that ultimately it was the federal government in conjunction with the Fed that "saved" the day.    

One of the reasons for my opinion is Executive Order 12631 which was signed by then President Ronald Reagan in March 1988, just a few short months after the big crash of October 1987.  It established what is officially known as the President's Working Group on Financial Markets, a group better known by its more informal name, the Plunge Protection Team. 

It is to this Executive Order that we now turn our attention.

Yes, Virginia, There Is a Plunge Protection Team

For many people who follow financial markets, the existence and activities of the Plunge Protection Team (PPT) are considered something of a conspiracy theory. 

If someone were to go on a major financial channel and state that the government is manipulating the financial markets by means of the PPT, he would be greeted with howls of laughter in much the same way as if he'd announced he'd just returned from being beamed up to an alien mother ship where he'd visited with Elvis. 

In other words, to speak of the PPT is to court being labeled a tin foil hat wearing whackadoo.  If you don't believe me, check out this 2008 clip from CNBC. 

Taken in the midst of the GFC, most of the six (six!) CNBC commentators can barely contain their disdain for their one loan guest who dares suggest the PPT was involved in a couple of big ramp ups in the S&P during October 2008. 

   <iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/X06kz9dzXho" frameborder="0" allow="autoplay; encrypted-media" allowfullscreen></iframe>

There are several noteworthy comments made by the CNBC crew.  I've listed the times of each comment for your convenience.

0:56 - One of the commentators makes a weak attempt to refute the guest by suggesting he had his days mixed up.  Scott Nations, the man making the claims that the PPT had interfered in the S&P on 10/10 and 10/28 2008, had said that 10/10 was on a Friday.  The CNBC host can be heard saying, "that was Thursday, right?" She comes back again at the 1:16 mark and asks the question again. 

The answer is no, it was not a Thursday.  10/10/2008 was on a Friday, just as the guest said it was.  He wasn't confused at all. 

1:30 - Bank of America Chief Economist Mickey Levy makes an appearance.  He shakes his head and grins when asked if the government's out there manipulating the market.  His response to this question is, "Absolutely not," and calls a discussion of this "silly."

3:30 - Guest Scott Nations asks the skeptical CNBC crew for their explanation of two shocking and unexplained moves up in the S&P index on 10/10 and 10/28.  None of the smirking hosts rises to the challenge.

3:51 - CNBC host Joe Kernan raises the question of the 3:51 mark whether legislation would be needed for the government in intervene in the markets.  Skeptical host Steve Liesman admits, "No, I suppose they [the government] could do that." Indeed they could.

4:22 - Perhaps most disappointing are the comments by Rick Santelli.  Santelli is one of the few individuals on CNBC who seems to be relatively sound in his views on economics and politics, but he falls into mocking the claims of the guest as though his claims about the PPT were the stuff of tabloid headlines. 

4:56 - Veteran UBS Director of Floor Operations Art Cashin seems to almost dismiss the very existence of the PPT.   After Joe Kernan likens belief in the PPT as the stuff of conspiracy theory,  Cashin replies that talk of the PPT is "black helicopter crap."

For those who may not know him, Art Cashin is one of the best known and most respected names on Wall Street, having become a Member of the NYSE in 1964 at the age of 23.  What he says carries weight, which is the likely reason CNBC brought him into the discussion to pile on their badly outnumbered guest. 

It is the opinion of this author that guest Scott Nations was thrown to the lions, as it were, not because he was wrong in what he said, but precisely because he was right. 

As has become more and more apparent in recent years, the job of the mainstream media is not, as many people suppose, to inform the public.  Rather, the MSM serves as the propaganda arm of powerful governmental and private interests - call it the Deep State or the establishment if you will - who want the public as ill-informed and dumbed down as possible, all the better to continue robbing us blind.

If you watched just the above segment on CNBC, you'd come away with the impression that anyone who so much believes in the existence of the PPT is a raving lunatic.  And to suggest that the PPT manipulates markets?  Well, that's simply off the charts madness. 

But the truth is far different.  Not only is the PPT a real government entity, as can easily be shown, but there's ample evidence to suggest that it is used to manipulate financial markets, just like Scott Nations stated in his CNBC interview.

Of course, the existence and the activities of such a group raise troubling moral questions.  By what Constitutional, not to mention, Biblical right does the government interfere in the workings of the free market?  Do not the activities of such a group artificially create winners and losers?  Does not the work of the PPT create market distortions which must be corrected, and will not these corrections be painful?

In short order, the answers are: Government has no right, either Constitutionally or Biblically to intervene in the markets; Yes, the PPT's activities artificially create winners and losers, and the proper term for these activities is theft; Yes, the PPT distorts the market in ways that will require a painful correction at some point.   

(To be continued...)   

I was talking to my stockbroker today and I said, "Waiter!"

- Jay Leno, October 1987

Jay Leno's opening joke on the Tonight Show got a huge laugh from the audience, and with good reason.

That may sound a bit odd, but you need to consider the context. You see, his wisecrack came within days of the Monday, October 19, 1987 stock market crash, an event that has come be known as Black Monday.

On that fateful day, the Dow had dropped over 22%, a record one day percentage plunge exceeding even the big one-day percentage plunges that marked the 1929 stock market crash, and people were in the mood for some good comic relief.

To give a sense of what people were thinking at the time, TheStreet ran an article last year marking the 30th anniversary of Black Monday. In his piece, author Michael Brown noted, "Many thought the crash was the start of the next Great Depression and the headlines of the day reflect it."

As it turned out, no Great Depression ensued. In fact, things got back to normal pretty quickly. Today, Black Monday is considered something of a one-off oddity. An interesting piece of investing trivia to be sure, but not something terribly relevant for today.

What does Black Monday have to do with the 2008 financial crisis?

You may be wondering at this point why I'm dragging Black Monday into a discussion of the 2008 financial crisis. What's October 1987 have to do with our current situation?

In the opinion of this author, the answer is quite a lot. Allow me to explain.

A month after Black Monday, James Stewart and Daniel Hertzberg penned a Pulitzer-prize winning article for the Wall Street Journal titled "Terrible Tuesday: How the Stock Market Almost Disintegrated A Day After the Crash."

The focus of their piece was not on Monday plunge, but on the events of the next day, Tuesday, October 20. They opened their article by writing, "A month ago today, the New York Stock Exchange died. But within an hour or two, it was raised from the dead."

So just how was the stock market resurrected on Tuesday when all seemed lost? The article's subheadline provides the answer. It reads, "Credit Dried Up for Brokers And Especially Specialists Until Fed Came to Rescue."

Stewart and Herzberg give more details in their article, writing, "Only the intervention of the Federal Reserve, the concerted announcement of corporate stock-buy-back programs, and the mysterious movement - and possible manipulation - of a little-used stock index futures contract saved the markets from total meltdown."

So there you have it. The V-shaped recovery - a "V-shaped" recovery is a term used by financial types when talking about a sharp plunge in value followed by a rapid recovery, so called because the price chart of a stock or stock index goes nearly straight down and then straight back up producing a v-shape on the chart - that occurred after Black Monday was orchestrated by the Federal Reserve System (henceforth, The Fed), which is the name of the Central Bank of the United States.

And just who was it who was running the Fed at the time? It was none other than rookie Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan, a man then little known but someone who would go on to become perhaps the most famous Fed Chairman of them all.

It is not my intention here is go into great detail about Mr. Greenspan, his previous life as an Ayn Rand devotee and supporter of the gold standard, the philosophical about face he pulled to become counterfeiter in chief during his 18 years as Fed Chairman, and his subsequent attempt to rehabilitate his image following his retirement.

While these are things worth commenting on, for our purposes I would prefer instead to draw your attention to another noteworthy aspect of his career: that of an activist central banker. Many consider Greenspan to be the first of the modern, activist central bankers, the man who set the "gold standard" for central bank interventions in the economy to which today's central bankers look for guidance.

If Stewart and Herzberg are to be believed, it was the Fed under Greenspan's guidance that bailed out the stock market in 1987. In their article, they bring up three principal items that prevented a stock market meltdown following Black Monday, intervention by the fed, a concerted announcement of corporate stock buy-buybacks, and market manipulation.

In the opinion of this author, Stewart and Herzberg may have been more accurate if they had simply mentioned intervention by the Fed which consisted of orchestrated announcements of stock buy-backs and manipulation the stock market behind the scenes through asset purchases.

Since 1987, market intervention by central bankers in concert with governments has grown to the point that one insider has stated flatly, "there's no price discovery anymore by the market...governments impose prices on the market."

Now one may be tempted to reject the idea of central bank and government intervention in financial markets as just a lot of undocumented conspiracy theory with no basis in anything resembling fact.

To this I would respond that not only do central bankers and governments have both the motive and the methods for interfering in financial markets, but the evidence that they do is overwhelming.

[caption id="attachment_4664" align="aligncenter" width="413"] A chart taken from Stewart and Herzber's November 20, 1987 Wall Street Journal article showing the "miraculous" jump in the Major Market Index future contract (circled).  Many believe this was the catalyst for the rapid recover of the stock market from Black Monday's sharp selloff.[/caption]

Take, for example, the 1987 Wall Street Journal article cited above which clearly states the Fed's role in propping up the market.

Later in the same article we find the following,

Tuesday, [October 20, 1987] 12:38 p.m. With the closing of the Big Board [the New York Stock Exchange] seemingly imminent and the market in disarray, with virtually all option and futures trading halted, something happened that some later described as a miracle: In the space of about five or six minutes, the Major Market Index futures contract, the only viable surrogate for the Dow Jones Industrial Average and the only major index still trading, staged the most powerful rally in its history. The MMI rose on the Chicago Board of Trade from a discount of nearly 60 points to a premium of about 12 points. Because each point represents about five in the Industrial average, the rally was the equivalent of a lightening-like 360-point rise in the Dow. Some believe that this extraordinary move set the stage for the salvation of the world's markets.

How it happened is a matter of conjecture on Wall Street. Some attribute it to a mysterious burst of bullish sentiment that suddenly swept the markets. Some knowledgeable traders have a different interpretation: They think that the MMI futures contract was deliberately manipulated by a few major firms as part of a desperate attempt to boost the Dow and save the markets (emphasis mine).

...statistics supplied by the Board of Trade lend circumstantial support to the thesis that the index was driven upward by a small number of sophisticated buyers...

...the market got another important psychological boost: the announcement of stock buybacks by major corporations...

..."It looks like there's almost a get-together on the part of corporate America to prop up the market," Stanley Abel, a consultant specializing in buybacks, observed that day.

...On Wednesday, Americans woke to newspaper headlines proclaiming the largest rise in the Dow's history

Note how the sudden rise in the MMI index is explained by some as a "Mysterious burst of bullish sentiment." As with theology, so with finance, when someone starts talking about "mysteries," one would do well to be skeptical.

No profit seeking trader in his right mind would plow money into a futures market while the entire financial system was locking up. In trader's lingo, doing this is like catching a falling knife. It's best just to let the knife fall and pick it up once it's hit the floor.

In the opinion of this author, the traders had it right. The Major Market Index contract was manipulated up, almost certainly with the Fed and/or the Exchange Stabilization Fund supplying the capital for the purchases.

Going back to the question I posed earlier, What does Black Monday have to do with the 2008 financial crisis?

I would answer the question this way. There's an old saying, you can't tell just one lie. Tell a lie, and you'll find you have to cover it up with another lie, then another, then another.

And as with lies, so it is with market interventions. You can't do just one. One intervention inevitable begets another intervention. And not only that, but as with lies, the market interventions must get bigger the longer they go on.

Interfere in the financial markets and you'll soon find you have a tiger by the tail. You can't hold on. But at the same time, you can't let go either. It's not an enviable place to be.

This is the import of the Terrible Tuesday interventions for our current situation. It is the contention of this author that the massive interference of the Fed and possibly other government entities in the 1987 stock market crash set the precedent for, and indeed required, the increasingly large interventions that follow in the years leading up to 2008, and indeed which continue to the present moment.

The Bible tells us "Thou shalt not bear false witness" and "Thou shalt not steal." These are commands of God, part of the summary of the moral law contained in the Ten Commandments. And these commands apply to all men everywhere at all times, central bankers and government officials receive no special exception.

It is the contention of this author that by interfering in markets to make them appear better than what they are, central bankers and government officials are lying to the public. Further, their clandestine use of public funds to effect these market manipulations are nothing other than theft.

But there's an even more fundamental problem here than just lying and stealing by central bankers and the politicians who love them.

The more fundamental issue is the immorality of central banking itself.

It is not this author's contention that things would be better if only we had better, more honest central bankers. It is this author's contention that central banking - all of it, both in theory and in practice- has no warrant in Scripture, no warrant in the Constitution and represents perhaps the most serious threat to the remaining liberties of the American people and the citizens of other Western nations of any institution in the modern world.

Not only does central banking create artificial distortions in the economy, distortions which enrich the well-connected few at the expense of the many, but it enables the growth of government, both of the welfare state and of the warfare state, to a degree that would be impossible in a system of honest money.

Lord willing, next week we shall trace the activities of the Fed, specifically its increasing interference in the financial markets in the years between 1987 and 2008, showing how the activities of Alan Greenspan, Ben Bernanke and others set the stage for the 2008 financial crisis, the after effects of which continue to envelope the United States and the West, and for that matter, the entire world to this present day.

"I just lost $30,000," replied the shaken caller after a long pause.

It was the fall of 2008, and I had just started work for a large financial services firm as a 401(k) telephone representative.  Little did I know when I took the job a few months earlier that the US, and much of the Western, world, was on the cusp of what many would come to view as the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression of the 1930's. 

The Dow and S&P both were selling off hard, day after day, week after week.  People were scared. 

Many of the panicked calls that I took were people who wanted to know what the balance of their 401(k) account.  In some ways, this struck me as a bit odd.  After all, it was 2008 and the internet had established itself as a staple of American life over a decade earlier.  "Why don't these people just go online?," I wondered to myself.

In retrospect, perhaps one reason people called was that, rather than just watch as the computer screen displayed years of hard won retirement savings evaporate as the morning dew, they just wanted to talk to someone.  That's certainly understandable.

Ten years on, much of the American public thinks of the 2008 crisis, if they think about it at all, as a ancient history.  Just last week, the Dow hit a new record high and seems to be headed higher still. 

President Trump tweeted out back in June, "In many ways this is the greatest economy in the HISTORY of America and the best time EVER to look for a job!"

American consumers seem to agree.  According to the August results from The Conference Board Consumer Confidence Index, consumer confidence is closing in on a new record high. The record of 144.7 set in May 2000 is just a chip shot away from the August 2018 reading of 133.4.  Considering that the Consumer Confidence Index dates back to 1967 and that this is a widely watch data series, a new record high in this index would represent a significant achievement. 

If we look at the employment picture, everything appears to be headed in the right direction as well.  The Washington Post reported in May, one suspects a bit grudgingly, that The U.S. now has a record 6.6 million job openings.  

According to the article by Heather Long, "The United States now has a job opening for every unemployed person in the country, a sign of just how far the nation has turned around from the recession that cost so many Americans their jobs nearly a decade ago."

Signs of economic success are so abundant that, as CNBC reports, "[Former] President Barak Obama has entered credit-taking mode on the economy."  

Politicians aren't the only ones talking victory laps either.  Former Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke, Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson and New York Fed President Timothy Geithner - the principal architects of the 2008 bailout of the financial system - gathered earlier this month at a forum in Washington D.C. to justify their actions of ten years ago.

According to CNBC's report, "We stepped in before the banks had collapsed and we did some things to fix the financial system which are very hard to explain because they are objectionable things," Paulson said.  "In the United States of America there's a fundamental sense of fairness that the American people have. ...You don't want to reward the arsonist."

"However," the article continues, "they [Bernanke, Paulson, and Geithner] said doing nothing would have caused the economy to capsize.  They acknowledged that some of the terms were distasteful, but they were necessary given the options at hand."

In essence, the big three argued that they had to do evil that good might come, a line of thinking condemned in the Scriptures but one that is all too commonly used by vested political and financial interests in midst of financial crises to convince a wary the public to go along with their latest scheme to enrich themselves at the people's expense.

Indeed the moderator of this forum was Andrew Ross Sorkin, who, as the CNBC article notes, wrote the 2010 book Too Big To Fail, The inside story of how Wall Street and Washington fought to save the financial system - and themselves.  described as a chronicle of the 2008 crisis from the inside.  I have not read this book, but the subtitle does, I think, let the cat out of the bag on the true motives of the bailout.

Unlike the unctuous self-justifications of JP Morgan's CEO Jamie Dimon, who recently argued that JP Morgan's actions during the financial crisis were done "to support our country and the financial system," Sorkin's subtitle at least admits the too big to fail meme was all about bankers and politicians saving themselves, not the country.

This is not to fault politicians and bankers for having a sense of self-preservation.  The Scriptures tell us that no man ever yet hated his own flesh, and this certainly includes those who run the political and financial systems. 

No.  The fault of bankers and politicians is not in their having a sense of self-preservation, it's that they lie and steal to get what they want.

In capitalism, in a free market economy, in a nation governed by the rule of law, there is no such thing as too big to fail.  In capitalism, banks have a God given right to make money...and a God given right to lose it. 

But in our decadent, late stage of empire society, dominated as it is by crony capitalists and their supporting cast of politicians, the Wall Street masters of the universe believe themselves entitled to never ending profits, while losses, well, those are for the little people to bear.

It is the opinion of this author that the intertwined political and financial systems of this country, rather than reflecting anything remotely like a Christian ethic, have become the embodiment of what Jesus talked about when he took his disciples to school for their arguing about who was the greatest. 

According to Jesus, "The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship [lord it over] them, and those who exercise authority over them are called 'benefactors. ' "

It would be impossible to find a better description of the words of Bernanke, Paulson, Geithner and Dimon than these.  First, they conspired to rip off the American taxpayer by forcing machinations such as the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) through Congress as well as the Federal Reserve's Quantitative Easing (QE) program, about which the American people had no say at all, since it was decided upon by the Federal Reserve, an unelected body, paid for by private banking interests, that does not answer to the public. 

TARP and QE were tools of a corrupt and inept financial and political elite, which they used to keep themselves ensconced in power at the expense of ordinary Americans.  To put it another way, they lorded their power over the American people. 

And, as if that weren't bad enough, they then have the gall to turn around and act as if their actions were for the good of the country rather than for themselves.  That is to say, they claim that, in the end, they're really our "benefactors."

And if you think the QE and TARP from 2008 is the end of the bailout road, think again.  Wall Street Insiders reports that during the forum mentioned above, Tim Geithner, "called the effort to combat financial instability a 'forever war.' "  So we have more bailouts to look forward to.  Strangely, this rhetoric is similar to what the advocates of the Global War on Terror say about their efforts, which today have proven largely ineffective. 

Question, if your war on terror, financial instability or whatever has no end in sight, doesn't that suggest you don't know what you're doing?  Can anyone imagine George S. Patton saying such a thing?  Just asking.

Enough of this nonsense!

It is the contention of this author that, contrary to all the self-congratulatory talk about how well the economy is doing, there are abundant signs that all is not well in the US economy.  In fact, one could even argue that we're in the midst of a slow-motion crash, but one that is concealed from public view by money printing, market manipulation and propaganda, what one market observer has called Management of Perspective Economics (MOPE).

Further, it is this author's contention that, not only have the machinations of the political and financial elite not helped to bring stability to the financial system, they actually are the cause the current instability and all but guarantee a future crisis far bigger than the one in 2008. 

Lord willing, it is my intention over the next few weeks to bring the light of Scripture to the 2008 financial crisis.  It is my hope to take a look at what was done then, where we are now, and where we're headed as a result of the decisions that have been made.     

So the king of Israel said to Jehoshaphat, "[There is] still one man, Micaiah the son of Imlah, by whom we may inquire of the LORD; but I hate him, because he does not prophesy good concerning me, but evil" (1 Kings 22:8).

The First Amendment deals with the issues of free speech and the freedom of religion.  It's not an accident that these two concepts are linked.  For Christianity, and it was Christianity that the framers of the Constitution had in mind, is a religion of the Word.  "How can they hear without a preacher?" was Paul's rhetorical question to the Romans.  The obvious answer is that unless men are free to preach the Gospel, sinners never will hear of salvation by belief alone in Christ Jesus. 

Christianity's emphasis that salvation comes only by understanding, and agreeing with, the propositions of Scripture, requires that men be able to speak that truth freely.  Hence it is every Christian's concern that the liberty to speak and to discuss the Word of God not be inhibited by legal restrictions. 

And because Christians are commanded to treat others as they themselves would like to be treated, one of the implications of Christianity is that all should enjoy to right to freely discuss their ideas without fear of legal sanction.  In a Christian society, there are no such things as thought crimes.  We leave that mistaken notion to the Marxists, the fascists, and other authoritarians.

Christianity is not, as the ACLU would like you to believe, hostile to free speech.  Rather, it is it's only source and guarantor. 

Because free speech is both an implication of Christianity and necessary to its propagation, the maintenance of free and open discussion is of great importance to Christians.  Likewise, when free speech is threatened, it is incumbent upon Christians to come to its defense. If, when the free speech comes under attack, Christians remain silent, we do so, not only to our shame, but to our own harm as well.

It is with these thoughts in mind that I undertook to write about the deplatforming of Alex Jones and other prominent conservative and libertarian thinkers last week, and it is why I'm writing about it again this week.  Whatever one may think of Alex Jones, Mark Dice, Diamond and Silk, Daniel McAdams and Peter Van Buren - whether you love them, hate them, or never watch them, it matters not - the fact that these individuals and others have been the targets of an apparently coordinated attack by Big Tech is a matter of great concern. 

If Christians stand by and say nothing while Apple, Spotify, Facebook, and Twitter deplatform Alex Jones simply because they don't like what he says, they should not be surprised when these same organizations target them for deplatforming at some point in the future when it becomes politically expedient to do so.

Now, some may argue that these are private companies, and private companies have the right to regulate what is said on their own platforms.  I agree.  But that said, I am also of the opinion that there is more to this situation than private businesses simply running their social media platforms in the way they see fit. 

A strong circumstantial case can be made that the deplatforming of conservative and libertarian voices - a deplatforming that has been going on for some time and one which has recently picked up steam - is really a joint venture of between privately owned social media enterprises and the Deep State, the permanent, unelected government that largely runs the country the way it wants to, regardless of what politicians happen to be in power.

Lord willing, I shall make that case in a future installment.  But for today, I'd like to dig a bit deeper into the Scriptures to show just how strong the Biblical support for free speech is.

Examples from the kings of Israel and Judah

"You are the man!" These were the crushing words of Nathan the prophet when he confronted King David with his sins of adultery and murder. 

David is described in the pages of Scripture as a man after God's own heart.  But as students of the Bible know well, David almost inexplicably fell into deep sin, committing adultery with Bathsheba and then having her husband, Uriah the Hittite, murdered to cover up his sin. 

But when the Lord sent David's friend Nathan to confront him, what was David's reaction?  Did David say, "How dare you speak to me this way!  Don't you know who I am?  Why, I'm the Lord's anointed!  Off with your head!"?

No, he did not.  What was his reaction to Nathan's words?  Scripture tells us, "So David said to Nathan, 'I have sinned against the LORD' " (2 Samuel 12:13). 

David did not punish  the prophet for confronting him with his sin.  That is to say, David believed in free speech.  In fact, it almost seems as if David were relieved that Nathan said what he did, for David repented of his egregious sins and was forgiven by God. 

Another incident from David's career is illustrative as well.  When David was on the run from Absalom,  a certain Shimei came out to curse him while he and his men were travelling.  As Shimei cursed, one of David's men spoke up and said, "Why should this dead dog curse my lord the king?  Please, let me go over and take off his head!"  To which David responded, "So let him curse." 

David could easily have put an end to the cursing but did not.  As the Scripture reports, "And as David and his men went along the read, Shimei went along the hillside opposite him and cursed as he went, threw stones at him and kicked up dust" (2 Samuel 16:13). 

Shimei, it would seem, put on quite a show.  Yet David let it go on.  Not that he couldn't have ended it any time he wanted.  But David perceived that the Lord had ordered Shimei to do what he did and accepted the rebuke. Once again, David supported free speech.

David, of course, was not the only Hebrew king to be confronted by one of the prophets.  But not all of them reacted the same way David did.  Some repented, others became enraged that anyone would dare question their authority.

In fact, the reaction of a king to prophetic criticism, that is to say, the degree to which a king supported free speech, could almost be seen as a litmus test for what kind of man he was, whether he was a good and godly king, or a scoundrel. 

Consider the quote at the top of this post.  The quoted words are those of King Ahab of Israel, who, as the Scriptures tell us, "did evil in the sight of the LORD, more than all who were before him" (1 Kings 16:25).

And as we would expect from a man who despised the Word of God, unsurprisingly, Ahab also had a problem with free speech.  Unlike David, Ahab did not, in general, react well when confronted with speech that contradicted him.

For example, Ahab openly expressed his hatred for the prophet Micaiah.  And why did Ahab hate Micaiah?  Ahab tells us plainly it was Micaiah's prophesying against him. 

Micaiah was already in jail when Ahab expressed his hatred for the prophet to Jehoshaphat.  We don't know exactly the reason Micaiah was locked up, but, given Ahab's words, it likely was due to something the prophet had said to Ahab on an earlier occasion. 

When Ahab finally did drag Micaiah out of prison, so he could weigh in on Ahab's plans to attack Syria, the prophet foretold Ahab's defeat and death.

And what was Ahab's reaction to the bad news?  "Put this fellow in prison, and feed him with bread of affliction and water of affliction" (1 Kings 22:27).

Ahab, unlike David, did not believe in free speech.  In Ahab's eyes, Micaiah had committed a crime by not telling the king what he wanted to hear and was deserving of punishment. 

As a follow up, when King Jehoshaphat, a godly man and Ahab's ally, returned to Jerusalem after the military debacle against Syria, he too was confronted by a prophet named Jehu.  Jehu said to the king, "Should you help the wicked and love those who hate the LORD?  Therefore the wrath of the LORD is upon you.  Nevertheless good things are found in you, in that you have removed the wooden images from the land, and have prepared your heart to seek God" (2 Chronicles 19:2,3). 

Scripture does not record Jehoshaphat's reaction to these words of rebuke, but given the overall positive view that Scripture takes of his reign, the most reasonable conclusion is that he accepted the words of the prophet and repented. 

King Ahab's wife, the remarkably wicked Queen Jezebel, didn't believe in free speech either.  For it was she who killed the prophets of the Lord.  Those who survived her purge did so as a result of the faithful actions of Obadiah (1 Kings 18:13). 

Or consider the case of King Jeroboam of Israel.  He's the one who instituted idolatry as the state religion of the Northern Kingdom.  When the king had set up a golden calf and was prepared to burn incense on an altar he had built, Scripture tells us that a man of God confronted the king and prophesied against him. 

Jeroboam reacted by calling for his arrest.  Clearly, Jeroboam did not believe in free speech.  It should come as no surprise, either, that his reign is viewed in the pages of Scripture as decidedly negative.  The Bible tells us, "After these event Jeroboam did not turn from his evil way, but gain he made priests from every class of people for the high places; whoever wished, he consecrated him, and he became one of the priests of the high places.  And this thin was the sin of the house of Jeroboam, so as to exterminate and destroy it from the face of the earth" (1 Kings 33, 34).

Worth noting here is that Jeroboam not only disdained free speech, but he also violated the principle of the separation of powers as established in the Law of Moses.  According to the Law, priests only were to sacrifice to God, but Jeroboam did not hesitate to combine the role of priest with his role as king. 

If we were to couch this in constitutional terms, we would say that Jeroboam did not respect the separation of church and state as required in the Antiestablishment clause of the First Amendment.

In effect, evil King Jeroboam trashed both major provisions of the First Amendment, if I may use such an anachronism.  In the first place he prohibited free speech in that he called for the arrest of the prophet sent by God to rebuke him, and in the second in that he involved the civil government in religion in a way that was unlawful.

One last example of the attack on free speech in the Old Testament is worth exploring, the case of Jeremiah.  Jeremiah exercised his prophetic ministry in the final years of the Southern Kingdom.  It was a troubled time for Judah and Jerusalem, as the specter of coming the Babylonian captivity casts its shadow across the pages of the book that bears the prophets name.  Jeremiah's message was as simple as it was unpopular with the power brokers in Judah:  Surrender to the Babylonians and it will go well with you; Resist, and you will die.

Scripture records at least two serious attempts to deplatform and kill Jeremiah during his ministry.  After preaching a particularly unpopular sermon in the court yard of the temple, Scripture tells us, "So the priests and the prophets and all the people heard Jeremiah speaking these words in the house of the LORD.  Now it happened, when Jeremiah had made an end of speaking all that the LORD had commanded him to speak, to all the people, that the priests and the prophet and the people seized him, saying,  'You will surely die!  Why have you prophesied in the name of the LORD, saying, 'This house shall be like Shiloh, and this city shall be desolate, without an inhabitant'?' And all the people were gathered against Jeremiah in the house of the LORD."  The princes of Judah also piled on Jeremiah, saying, "This man deserves to die!  For he has prophesied against this city, as you have heard with your ears" (Jeremiah 26:7-9, 11).  Jeremiah was able just barely to avoid his deplatforming and death, when he convinced the people and the princes and the elders that he spoke for the LORD. 

Some of the elders even cited an earlier example in Judah's history when a prophet named Micah of Moresheth prophesied the destruction of Zion in the days of Hezekiah.  These elders asked, "Did Hezekiah king of Judah and all Judah ever put him to death?"  The answer was, of course not.  Hezekiah was a righteous king and his tolerance for unpopular speech is evidence of his faith. "Did he [Hezekiah] not fear the LORD and seek the LORD's favor?," asked the elders. 

Some time later, after Jeremiah had been imprisoned, the prophet was faced with a second serious attempt on his life.  The princes of Judah complained to the king that Jeremiah's message of "defect to the Babylonians and you shall live!" was weakening he resolve of the men defending Jerusalem and demanded, "Please, let this man be put to death."  King Zekediah agreed to turn Jeremiah over to the princes, who lowered him into a well, and leaving him there to die. Jeremiah survived this second deplatforming attempt when an Ethiopian court eunuch organized a rescue party to pull him out. 

It's been said that the principle of free speech does not exist to enable us to talk about the weather.  Free speech is about protecting unpopular speech.  Today we looked at a few examples from the Old Testament and found that the godly kings did not punish the prophets who brought bad, that is to say, unpopular news, but rather supported their right to speak the truth.  These kings supported free speech and didn't believe in shooting the messenger.  Wicked kings, on the other hand, would go to extreme measures to silence their critics.  In this respect they acted very much like liberal critics in the mainstream media, in government and the heads of Big Tech companies.  These individuals prefer to silence alternate viewpoints by deplatforming their critics rather than fairly debate the issues with them.

This attitude, so prevalent among academics, government officials and Big Tech executive represents a toxic mixture of intellectual cowardice, institutional hubris and power.  It needs to stop. 

Next week, Lord willing, we shall take a look at the implied support of free speech found in the New Testament. 

(To be continued...)

"We are going to have to rebuild within this wild-wild-west-of-information flow some sort of curating function that people agree to,"  said then President Obama in Pittsburgh in October 2016. 

The President continued, "There has to be, I think, some sort of way in which we can sort through information that passes some basic truthiness tests and those that we have to discard, because they just don't have any basis in anything that's actually happening in the world."

In the opinion of this author, those are some of the most chilling words any president has ever spoken.  In all but name, Obama called for the government to establish a 1984 style ministry of truth.  Perhaps more chilling, not many people took notice or seemed to care.  

Perhaps the lack of attention could be chalked up to the timing of Obama's remarks, made, as they were, less than a month before the most contentious presidential election in recent memory.

In light of the events of the last two years, and especially those of last week, a week that saw the coordinated takedown of Alex Jones by the biggest social media platforms, it's this author's contention that Obama's statement ought to be seen as a declaration of war by the deep state on internet free speech. 

Now someone may say, "I don't like Alex Jones, he's just so over the top."  Others, perhaps who aren't into social media or who don't follow politics or economics or just aren't into alternate news sources, may yawn and think this has nothing to do with them.

Christians, particularly American Christians, concerned as they ought to be with maintaining freedom of religion may be tempted to pass over Jones' very public, Big Tech deplatforming as having no direct bearing on their ability to preach the Gospel of Jesus Christ or to openly worship. 

But it is the contention of this author that ignoring what happened to Jones would be a serious mistake for anyone, Christian or not, who cherishes liberty, limited government, and the ability to think and to speak freely and without fear of punishment, either from the civil authorities or key private institutions.

So just what was done to Alex Jones last week that prompted this essay?  For that matter, who is Alex Jones and why should Christians care about what happened to him?

According to a piece on ThinkProgress, "Alex Jones was dealt a series of blows on Monday when Apple and Spotify decided to remove nearly all of Infowar's podcasts, and Facebook banned several of his pages." These bans followed the lead of YouTube, which just a few days earlier pulled all of Jones' Infowars channels except The Real News with David Knight.

As seems to be the standard operation procedure with such bans, the reasons given by the tech companies were rather vague.  The article continues with a comment from an Apple spokesman who is quoted saying, "Podcasts that violate these [hate speech] guidelines are removed from our directory making them no longer searchable or available for download or streaming." 

In a post explaining its actions against Jones, Facebook said, "Earlier today, we removed four Pages belonging to Alex Jones for repeatedly posting content over the past several days that breaks those Community Standards."  As with Apple, we see a vague reference to "Community Standards" and "hate speech" but no specific examples of what was said that prompted Facebook's act of removing the Infowars pages or explanation of why these statements were so egregious that they required the banning in the first place.    

But lest one suppose that Infowars is uniquely the target of big tech tyrants, there have been many other casualties, not just last week, but over the past two years since Obama's call for "truthiness tests."

For example, in an email to supporters of the Ron Paul Institute, Executive Director Daniel McAdams related his recent experience of being banned from Twitter for having the audacity to tweet support for a friend whose Twitter account had been permanently banned.

For those unfamiliar with McAdams, alone with being Executive Director of the Ron Paul Institute, he's a former Congressional staffer for Ron Paul and Ron Paul's co-host on the daily Ron Paul Liberty Report.  From my observation, Mr. McAdams, far from being over the top or deliberately provocative, conducts himself as a gentleman and a scholar, none of which prevented him from feeling the wrath the masters of the Twitter universe.

McAdams' Twitter account has since been restored, but the restoration came with an odd, Orwellian twist to it.  McAdams wrote,

Twitter also did something to Scott [McAdam's is referencing Scott Horton, Horton, a libertarian writer, also was banned for voicing his support for fellow libertarian Peter Van Buren,  the same thing that got McAdams in hot water] and me that was positively Stalinist: when we tried to log in to our [Twitter] account while suspended, we were greeted with our "offending" Tweets, the message was clear:  you must admit how wrong you were and remove it yourself.  I told a colleague about this strange demand and his response was chilling...and accurate:

That's giving the game away for them, Stalin face, deniability for them by making you self incriminate...communitarian policing to the extreme, psychological reframing, behaviorist modification...just like they would do to a child in school.

Neither Scott nor I bit.

The suppression of accounts, which seems to happen only to conservatives and libertarians, rarely if ever to socialists, is not limited to outright deletion.  It's not uncommon for social media platforms to engage in the practice of shadow banning. 

So just what is shadow banning?  Let's quote one of the leading experts on the practice, Twitter itself.  "The best definition we found is this:  deliberately making someone's content undiscoverable to everyone except the person who posted it, unbeknownst to the original poster."  

According to Vice News, Twitter had engaged in the practice of shadow banning, not on various fringe personalities, but on some of the biggest names in the Republican party.  On July 26, Vice reported that "Twitter appears to have fixed search problems that lowered visibility of GOP lawmakers."

So who were these lawmakers?  "Those affected included RNC [Republican National Committee] Chair Ronna McDaniel, Republican Reps. Mark Meadows, Jim Jordan, Matt Gaetz, along with Andrew Surabian, Donald Trump Jr.'s spokesman and former Special Assistant to the President."

These are not by any means obscure individuals, but some of the most powerful and best known Republicans.  Twitter claims that the problem with the accounts was "a side effect attempts to clean up discourse on its platform." 

The Vice article goes on to describe the shadow ban technique used on the Republicans as "[A] shift that diminishes their reach on the platform - and it's the same one being deployed against prominent racists to limit their visibility.  The profiles continue to appear when conducting a full search, but not in the more convenient and visible drop-down bar."

What is more, the supposed "side effect" of Twitter's efforts was limited to Republicans only, as there were no reports of this happening to Democrats.  As Vice notes, "Democrats are not being 'shadow banned' in the same way, according to a VICE News review.  McDaniel's counterpart, Democratic Party chair Tom Perez, and liberal members of Congress - including Reps. Maxine Waters [in what came close to a call for physical violence against Trump administration officials, Maxine Waters recently called on her supports to "push back" on Trump staffers if they saw them in public], Joe Kennedy III, Keith Ellison, and Mark Pocan - all continue to appear in drop-down search results.  Not a single member of the 78-person Progressive Caucus faces the same situation in Twitter's search." 

To make matters worse, Twitter responded to criticism of its practice of shadow banning by issuing a denial that sounded a whole lot more like an admission of guilt.  Said Twitter, "We do not shadow ban.  You are always able to see the tweets from accounts you follow (although you may have to do more work to find them, like go directly to their profile).  And we certainly don't shadow ban based on political viewpoints or ideology."

But what is shadow banning if not making people "do more work to find" tweets by those out of favor with the powers that be?

And Twitter's denial that they shadow ban based on political viewpoints seems threadbare in the face of Vice News' findings reported above.

And, oh yeah, Vice News, far from being a conservative bastion,  is a liberal publication. With that in mind, their reporting that prominent Democrats were not subjected to the same treatment as their Republican counterparts can be seen as an admission against interest.

But as notable as the above deplatformings are, they are not the only examples of the tech left bringing down its heavy hammer on those who dare voice opinions at odds with the received government / mainstream media narrative. 

Trump supporters Lynnette Hardaway and Rochelle Richardson, better known as Diamond and Silk, testified before Congress about how they were censored on Facebook and demonetized on YouTube.

So what did they mean by censored and demonetized?  In the case of Facebook, the sisters claim that, beginning in September 2017, their 1.4 million followers stopped being notified about new posts.  This is similar to Twitter's shadow bans in that, while Facebook allowed Diamond and Silk to post content, they made it harder for people to access their content. 

As for the charge of demonetization, that's something YouTube does to videos its algorithms are programmed to recognize as "not advertiser friendly," that is to say, videos by conservatives and libertarians that challenge the liberal mainstream media news narrative, are actually interesting, and attract a large audience of unfashionable people sporting unfashionable opinions, who have the audacity to ask unfashionable questions of their supposed betters.  That is to say, videos liked by the dreaded deplorables. 

To demonetize a video means YouTube makes it ineligible for advertisers to sponsor it.  Since YouTube content providers receive advertising revenue from the ads that run on their videos, YouTube is depriving popular YouTubers of advertising revenue when their videos are flagged as not being advertiser friendly.

During their Congressional testimony, USA Today reports that Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee questioned Diamond and Silk on what role Congress could have in telling private entities how to manage their platforms.

Good grief! Since when did the Democrats ever see any successful private entity they didn't want to tax and regulate into the ground?  And now, when YouTube is doing their dirty work of censoring their opponents for them, suddenly we're to believe they've had an epiphany, having discovered wonders of laissez faire economics and limited government?  What hypocrisy! Spare me!

For some of the best, not to mention most entertaining, Congressional testimony you'll ever see, check out this video from Mark Dice which shows Diamond and Silk unloading on Congressman Hank Johnson (D, GA).   

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/DgehKvd25lc" frameborder="0" allow="autoplay; encrypted-media" allowfullscreen></iframe>

And speaking of Mark Dice, he's another YouTuber and one of the biggest voices among alternate media conservatives.  He has 1.3 million followers on YouTube, yet routinely has his videos demonetized, considered as they are by YouTube, not advertiser friendly.

So how have conservatives responded to all this cyber harassment?  In many cases, not well at all. 

Echoing the Congressional Democrats, one inadequate conservative response has been to take the position that, since Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, et. al. are private companies, their decision to ban Jones, Diamond and Silk, Mark Dice and others is simply an example of private businesses exercising their property rights.  Therefore, no one has the right to complain.  The message?  Just stop complaining, shut up and go start your own version of Facebook already!

In an op-ed piece in the New York Times last week, establishment conservative and never-Trumper David French said as much when he took issue, not with the tech left's banning of Alex Jones, but they way in which they did it.  The "loathsome" Jones and his "loathsome" content should be banned, says French, but Twitter, Facebook and YouTube got it all wrong by booting him for hate speech.  They should have deep sixed him on the basis of libel and slander laws.  

One major problem with French's position is that, as Lord willing I hope to develop next week, one can make a strong circumstantial case that the selective banning of conservative voices is not merely a matter of private companies legally exercising control over their own product, but very likely is the result of their collaboration with the deep state.  In other words, the Big Tech's jihad against conservatives is really a case of the merger of [deep] state and corporate powers, which is the very definition of fascism.

A second problem with French's position is that, not only does he come off in his New York Times op-ed as a rather snooty movement conservative, it never seems to occur to him that someday he may find himself shadow banned or deplatformed in the same way Alex Jones was, a man for whom French has nothing but contempt.  Perhaps Mr. French needs to go back and reread Martin Niemöller's famous poem, First they came...      

Another weak argument used by some conservatives is to say that big tech's censoring of Republicans is a First Amendment issue.  But the First Amendment applies to Congress - Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.  Since Congress has not passed a law abridging free speech on Facebook, YouTube and Twitter, arguing on First Amendment grounds seems like an unpromising line of attack.

Finally, there are calls by some to threaten the big techies with antitrust lawsuits.  Admittedly this is tempting, but this would be a mistake.  Not only are antitrust laws a product of the regulatory state which Christians should eschew, but they actually can work in favor of the businesses being regulated. 

As James Corbett argued in a recent video, the tech left's banning of conservatives is part of a larger chess game Corbett refers to as Problem, Reaction, Solution.  Corbett believes that antitrust regulation of big tech will not weaken, but actually strengthen the grip of the current crop of Silicon Valley billionaires on the social media market just as it strengthened John Rockefeller's grip on the oil market 100 years ago. 

Corbett makes a compelling case that the tech left has deliberately provoked conservatives in the hopes that they will react by calling for the one thing the tech industry craves:  government regulation.  And why do they crave regulation?  It helps them stamp out up and coming competition.

One of the most misunderstood aspects of government regulation is that big business actually likes it.  Established big businesses have the resources to cope with regulations in a way that start ups do not.  Government regulations actually act as an entry barrier for entrepreneurs by imposing costs on them at a time when they are most vulnerable and perhaps lacking the legal sophistication and the money to comply with a complex set of laws.

In other words, Facebook and the others are scared of becoming the next My Space or America On Line, as well they should be, and see governmental regulation of the industry as a way to keep this from happening.   And not only that, but they want to trick you into doing the job for them, first by creating a problem, thus provoking you to react, and then helping Congress write the laws that will regulate and protect, not you, but them. 

Now you may be asking yourself, so what does any of this have to do with Christianity.  The answer is, quite a lot.  Christianity is a religion first, not of the deed, but of the Word.  And that Word must be heard to be believed.  If Christians cannot freely write and speak the truth of God's Word, then they are in for serious problems indeed. 

It is not accident that it is Protestant West that pioneered free speech and where it to this day has the most support.  But free speech is under aggressive assault today, and not just from the tech left.  Lord willing, we shall explore this and other related issues in future installments of this series. 

(To be continued...)

From time to time I've written in this space about the collapse of Western Civilization that we so going on around us all on a daily basis. And in this author's opinion, there is perhaps no better illustration of this collapse than the rise of the Lesbian, Gay, Bi-sexual, Transgender (LGBT) movement over the last several decades.

I make this observation as a Christian, and those who do not believe the Bible may be tempted to dismiss my view as personal bias. But interestingly enough, at least one prominent lesbian scholar is in agreement with this view. As this 2015 article from cnsnews.com notes, "Best-selling feminist author, social critic and self-described "transgender being" Camille Paglia said in an interview last month that the rise of transgenderism in the West is a symptom of decadence and cultural collapse."

Paglia is quoted in the article saying, "Nothing…better defines the decadence of the West to the jihadists than our toleration of open homosexuality and this transgender mania now."

The article continues, "Paglia went on to talk about her book Sexual Personae and how the emergence of transgenderism signifies the end of Western culture. 'Now I am concerned about this…In fact, my study of history in Sexual Personae, I'm always talking about the late phases of culture.'

'I was always drawn to late or decadent phases of culture. Oscar Wile is one of the great exponents of that in the late 19th century. He's one of my strongest influences from my earliest years. An I found in my study that history is cyclic, and everywhere in the world you find this pattern in ancient times: that as a culture begins to decline, you have an efflorescence of transgender phenomena. That is a symptom of cultural collapse.'

'So rather than people singing the praises of humanitarian liberalism that allows all of these transgender possibilities to appear and to be encouraged, I would be concerned about how Western culture is defining itself to the world.' "

These are good comments by Paglia.  In fact, what this feminist lesbian has to say about homosexuality and transgender mania is actually closer to the mind of Christ, and far more interesting, than what falls from the lips of many supposed ministers of the Gospel of Jesus Christ when they speak on these subjects. 

The wide-spread acceptance of homosexuality and other deviant behaviors in the West is a flashing red warning signal that our civilization is in deep trouble. It's so obvious that even a feminist lesbian scholar is able to see the problem. But for all that, there are many who name the name of Christ who are either unable or unwilling to grasp this simple and obvious truth.

Proving that God condemns homosexuality, or what the King James Bible calls sodomy, is the theological equivalent of a slam dunk. That is to say, it's not hard at all. But as a minister friend once said to me in conversation, "When we go wrong, it tends to be over simple things." He was right. So in the spirit of re-stating what was obvious to prior, more Christian generations, let us review what the Bible's devastating condemnation of homosexuality.

• Genesis 18:20-21 And the LORD said, "Because the outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is great, and because their sin is very grave, I will go down now and see whether they have done altogether according to the outcry against it that has come to Me."
• Genesis 19:13 "For we will destroy this place [Sodom], because the outcry against them is has grown great before the face of the LORD, and the LORD has sent us to destroy it."
• Leviticus 18:22 You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination.
• Leviticus 20:13 If a man lies with a male as he lies wit ha woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them.
• Deuteronomy 22:5 A woman shall not wear anything that pertains to a man, nor shall a man put on a woman's garment, for all who do so are an abomination to the LORD you God.
• Deuteronomy 23:17 There shall be no whore of the daughters of Israel, nor a sodomite of the sons of Israel.
• 1 Kings 15:11-12 And Asa did that which was right in the eyes of the LORD, as did David his father. And he took way the sodomites out of the land…
• 1 Kings 22:42, 43, 46 Jehoshaphat was thirty and five years old when be began to reign…And he walked in all the ways of Asa his father; he turned not aside from it, doing that which was right in the eyes of the LORD…And the remnant of the sodomites, which remained in the days of his father Asa, he took out of the land.
• 2 Kings 22:1, 2 and 23:7 Josiah was eight years old when he began to reign…And he did that which was right in the eyes of the LORD…And he brake down the houses of the sodomites, that were by the house of the LORD.
• Isaiah 1:9 Except the LORD of hosts had left unto us a very small remnant, we should have been as Sodom, and we should have been like unto Gomorrah.
• Romans 1:26-27 For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even t heir women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.
• 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God.
• 1 Timothy 1:8-10 But we know that the law is good if one uses it lawfully, knowing this: that the law is not made for a righteous person, but…for fornicators, for sodomites…
• Jude 6-7 And the angels who did not keep their proper domain, but left their own abode, He has reserved in everlasting chains under darkness, for the judgment of the great day; as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities around them in a similar manner to these, having given themselves over to sexual immorality and gone after strange flesh, are set forth as an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal file.

While this list may not be exhaustive, it does cover the most obvious references to homosexuality in Scripture. And I would ask the reader, after looking over this list, do you think the Bible has a positive or a negative view of homosexuality? This isn't difficult. It's not a trick question.  It doesn't take a theologian of the caliber of Martin Luther of John Calvin to figure it out either.  The obvious answer is that the Scriptures clearly and unequivocally condemn homosexuality.

Homosexuality is not a lifestyle. Homosexuality is not a thing to be proud of. Neither is it a civil right.

Homosexuality is sin. And a particularly heinous sin at that.

Today's post represents the third in a series of posts about my time as a student at Knox Theological Seminary (KTS) in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. I originally wrote about KTS and the controversy concerning Warren Gage in a 2008 book published by the Trinity Foundation titled Imagining a Vain Thing: The Decline and Fall of Knox Seminary.

In the ten years that have elapsed since I wrote the book under the guidance of the late Dr. John W. Robbins, my conviction that what I wrote was correct remains unchanged. I stand by the book, all of it.

That said, ten years is time enough for further reflection, and it seemed good to me to write a series of posts to share with readers some of the big-picture lessons that can be taken from the disaster that overtook KTS in the fall of 2007.

A Danger of Unsound Eschatology

There is no other head of the Church but the Lord Jesus Christ; nor can the Pope of Rome, in any sense, be head thereof; but is that Antichrist, that man of sin, and son of perdition, that exalts himself, in the Church, against Christ and all that is called God.

- Westminster Confession of Faith, 25.6

One of the myths advanced by Dr. Gage during my time at KTS was the idea that the Reformation had little to say about eschatology. In the Introduction to the John-Revelation Project (JRP) Gage makes the following claim, "It is instructive that Martin Luther questioned the canonicity of Revelation, lamenting that a "Revelation" should reveal, and John Calvin, who commented on every other book of the Bible, glaringly omitted commentary on the Apocalypse. The children of the Reformers have fared little better. And it is time to ask why?"

This is statement is propaganda in at least three ways. In the first place, although Luther did question the canonicity of Revelation, in the end he did accept it. Second, Revelation is not the only book John Calvin omitted from his commentary on the Bible. There were a number of books on which Calvin did not comment such as Judges, Ruth, and 1&2 Samuel. Third, there have been numerous commentaries written on Revelation by Protestants. For example, Isaac Newton (yes, that Isaac Newton), John Gill, E.B. Elliott to name just a few. In fact, it probably would shock most early 21st century Protestants just how much has been written by earlier generations of Protestants on Revelation in general and the identification of the papacy as the Antichrist in particular.

For example, the statement above is the original wording of the Westminster Confession of Faith (WCF) when it was published in 1648, but was excised in a 1903 revision of the WCF by the PCUSA - the PCUSA was and is the mainline Presbyterian denomination is the United States - and today it is a rare thing indeed for a Presbyterian church to use a version of the Confession with this language.

In the 1903 revision, the PCUSA replaced the historic language of the Confession with the following, "The Lord Jesus Christ is the only head of the Church, and the claim of nay man to be the vicar of Christ and the head of the Church, is unscriptural, without warrant in fact, and is a usurpation dishonoring the Lord Jesus Christ.

Many years ago when I first began to get serious about studying Reformed theology, I purchased a version of the WCF published by the PCA, a more theologically conservative organization than the PCUSA. The language of 25.6 in their version runs thus, "There is no other head of the Church but the Lord Jesus Christ. Nor can the Pope of Rome, in any sense, be head thereof."

The most obvious difference between the original version and its newer counterparts is the identification of the Pope or Rome as "Antichrist, that man of sin, and son of perdition."

Today it's considered bad manners and theologically incorrect to call the Pope of Rome Antichrist. But our Protestant forebears were no so ashamed. Consider the following quotes:

• This teaching shows very forcefully that the pope is the very Antichrist. He exalts himself above Christ and opposes Him, because he will not allow Christians to be saved without his power, which nevertheless is nothing and is neither ordained nor commanded by God...Just as we cannot worship the devil himself as Lord and God, so we cannot put up with his apostle, the pope, or Antichrist, in his regime as head or lord (Martin Luther, What Luther Says, 34).
• Daniel (Dan. 9:27] and Paul [II Thess. 2:4] foretold that Antichrist would sit in the Temple of God. With us, it is the Roman pontiff we make the leader and standard bearer of that wicked and abominable kingdom (John Calvin, Institutes, 4.2.12).
• Yea, we doubt not to prove the kingdom of the Pope to be the kingdom and power of Antichrist (John Knox).
• This chapter [Revelation 15] is a preparation to the pouring out of the seven vials...and of the destruction of antichrist; and it is said to be a sign "in heaven", where John was called up, and where he had his visions; and it was "another", a different one from that in (Revelation 12:1) which represented the downfall of Paganism, but this the downfall of Popery; and it is a very "great" one, it is expressive of great things, as the fall of Babylon the great, or the judgment of the great whore... (John Gill, Commentary on Revelation)
• [S]o the antichrist here mentioned is some usurper of God's authority in the Christian church, who claims divine honours; and to whom can this better apply than to the bishops of Rome, to whom the most blasphemous titles have been given, ad Dominus Deus noster papa - Our Lord God the pope; Deus alter in terra - Another God on earth; Idem est dominium Dei et papae - The dominion of God and the pope is the same?
• It is the bounden duty of every Christian to pray against Antichrist, and as to what Antichrist is no same man ought to raise a question. If it be not the popery in the Church of Rome there is nothing in the world that can be called by that name (Charles Spurgeon).

One could multiply such quotes as the sand of the sea, but the sample above should serve to convince the reader that the conviction that the office of the papacy was the Antichrist of the Apostle John was widespread from the dawn of the Reformation until the end of the 19th century.

Today, such convictions is almost never heard. And if it is spoken, it's done so in a hushed whisper so as not to attract any attention.

One reason for the decline in understanding of the office of the papacy as Antichrist is the success the Jesuit eschatological schemes of preterism and futurism have had in supplanting the source eschatology of the Reformation.

Preterism is the view that the Bible teaches Antichrist came and went in the past and that there is today no Antichrist on earth. It was developed during the Counter-Reformation by Jesuit Luis de Alcazar.

Futurism, on the other hand, holds that Antichrist is yet to come. This program was developed by Jesuit Francisco Ribera and is the majority report among America's Dispensationalists.

But the historical stance of the Reformation on Antichrist is Historicism. Historicism holds, among other things, that Antichrist has been with us in the past, currently is at work, will be destroyed in the future.

Unsound Eschatology can be just as dangerous as any other unsound doctrine. To the degree Protestants have allowed the Jesuits to do their thinking for them, to the extent Protestants have absorbed the end times theories of the Babylonian Harlot, to that degree they have rendered themselves ineffective soldiers of Christ and set themselves up to be duped by hucksters such as Warren Gage.

(To be continued...)

As a continuation of last week's post, I'd like to look a few more larger lessons that can be drawn from the events surrounding the decline and fall of Knox Theological Seminary (KTS).  As a student at the school in the fall of 2006, my stay there, however brief, allowed me to witness part of the drama firsthand. 

Last week, I outlined a couple lessons, the first of which was that God is faithful to his people, sometimes in unexpected ways.  As a personal testimony to this, I related how my stay at KTS allowed me to meet John Robbins and, with his guidance, to write the manuscript for what would become the book Imagining a Vain Thing:  The Decline and Fall of Knox Seminary. To that point in my life, it never once occurred to me that I would ever be an author.  The fact that this actually happened is something that still to this day strikes me with amazement.  I didn't go to seminary planning to write a book.  I had gone there to study for the ministry.  But God had a different plan.

A second lesson Christians can take from the problems at KTS is the danger Roman Catholic trained faculty pose to Protestant institutions of learning.  Dr. Warren Gage, the central figure in the decline and fall of KTS, nominally was a Presbyterian, but his cast of mind was distinctly Roman Catholic.  In part this can be attributed to the fact that he took his Ph.D from the University of Dallas, a Roman Catholic school.  But Dr. Gage is certainly not the only professor at a Protestant school to have received his professional training at a Roman Catholic or Jesuit university.  These Romanist trained teachers pose a genuine threat to the doctrinal soundness of the Protestant colleges and seminaries where they are employed. 

But as important as these lesson are, they are not the only ones that can be taken from the unfortunate events at KTS.  So let us move on to continue some additional points.

A Tale of Missed Opportunities 

I recently watched a series of YouTube videos on commercial air disasters.  The author of the videos used a flight simulator together with on screen text to describe the events leading up to the crashes.  One of the common threads running through  the accounts of the various disasters is that it wasn't just one problem that caused the crash.  Generally, it takes a series of mistakes to occur in a particular sequence for a disaster to take place.  If any one of the factors had been different in a particular scenario, the crash probably wouldn't have happened at all.

From my knowledge of the events at KTS, it seems to me that this same principle can be applied to crashing seminaries as well.  In the case of KTS, there were a number of opportunities - opportunities stretching from the time Gage was under consideration for a teaching position at the school right up until the time when he and his faction formally gained control of the school - for Biblically sound professors, board members and donors to have acted to put a stop to Gage's nonsense.   But, as far as I am aware, no serious attempt to do this was undertaken until the problem had grown so large as to be too little too late.  And even when a serious attempt to remove Gage was undertaken, those pushing for his removal flinched, all but ensuring their defeat.

For example, as part of my research into KTS while writing the book, I found that Dr. D. James Kennedy - Dr. Kennedy was the founder of KTS and was still the Chancellor of the school when I attended there in 2006 - did not want to hire Gage.  Some at school wanted to bring in Gage to develop what become known as the Christianity & Culture (C&C) program  at the school.  As it was described to me at the time I applied to KTS, the C&C program was a Christian great books program where influential books would be read in light of the teachings of Scripture.  For example, in the one class I had in this series we read Plato's Republic.        

Dr. Kennedy was skeptical of the whole idea behind C&C, fearing, rightly as it turned out, that the program would turn into a sort of Trojan Horse, where instead of the culture being judged by the Bible, the Bible would be judged by the culture.  But for all his objections, both to the C&C program in general and to the hiring of Dr. Gage in particular, those in favor of both prevailed upon Dr. Kennedy and the decision to move forward was made.  Had Dr. Kennedy stuck to his guns, perhaps KTS would still be a sound seminary. 

Dr. Gage began teaching at KTS in the fall of 2002 and had already been at the school for four years when I arrived in 2006.  I was astounded at how unbiblical his teaching was, but, at least on the surface, it seemed that everyone thought he was great.  It wasn't until I began my research on the book  that  I learned that Dr. Gage had had his hand slapped a few times over the years for his distinctively unreformed doctrine, but no serious effort had been made to remove him from his teaching position.  Had Gage's unorthodox ideas received the scrutiny they deserved, perhaps he could have been removed from the school before he caused serious, lasting damage.  But this was not done, and his leaven was allowed to go on leavening the whole KTS lump for years until it was too late. 

Even up until the fall of 2007, KTS still had the opportunity to right its listing ship.  Prompted by a student complaint, Dr. R. Fowler White conducted an investigation into Gage's classroom teaching, an investigation which concluded that Gage was guilty of 1) teaching contrary to the Westminster Confession that individual passages of Scripture had more than one meaning, and 2) disparaging logic and systematic theology.  These charges were spot on, and when the evidence for them were presented to the Executive Committee of the seminary's Board of Directors, the decision was made to terminate Gage's employment.  Had the Executive Committee's decision stuck, KTS may have survived intact.  As it turned out, the full Board of Directors of KTS shied away from taking this decisive step, instead electing to suspend Gage with full pay for the remainder of the fall 2007 semester. 

As it turned out, the Board's failure to take decisive action against Gage was the last chance KTS had to recover its reputation for doctrinal soundness.  Taking full advantage of his reprieve, Gage appealed his suspension to the Session of CRPC.  Not only did Gage succeed in having his suspension reversed, but he also was able to oust those on the Board and Faculty of the school who had opposed him.  Had the Board of KTS stood its ground and fired Gage when it had the chance, in this author's opinion the school's subsequent history very likely would have been much different.  This was a tragic missed opportunity.

The story of the decline and fall of KTS is a cautionary tale of what can happen when individuals fail to take advantage of the opportunities God provides to take a stand for the truth.  Scripture enjoins us to, "mark them which cause divisions and offenses contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned, and avoid them," but this is easy to ignore.  In our sinfulness we fear men, we fear the loss of our jobs and reputations more than we fear God. This author is certainly aware of his own failings in this regard, so it is not my intention to point a finger at others while exempting myself.  That said, KTS's fall from being among the most doctrinally sound reformed seminaries is - as is the case with many airliner disasters - the tale of multiple missed opportunities  that, when taken together, ended up spelling disaster.

In a Dispute, the More Consistent Party Will Prevail, the Less Consistent Will Lose

"The logical and psychological principle that explains this whole tragic farce is this: When two parties accept the same premises, the more consistent party will prevail in the long run, and the less consistent party will not.  That is why the Bible is replete with warnings about the 'world,' 'the wisdom of the world,' and 'human tradition.' There can be no compromise of sola scriptura." 

The words quoted above are from a private email to me from John Robbins during the writing of my book on KTS.  The specific context of these remarks from John came in response to some disturbing discoveries I had made about the theological position of Gage's opponents.  As it turned out, the very people who rightfully criticized Gages for his fanciful typology and wanted to see him suspended from KTS actually agreed with Gage on an important point about typology.  This agreement prevented them from launching the vigorous attack on Gage's typology that the circumstances required.      

The point of agreement among Gage and his critics was this:  it is possible to discern type / anti-type relationships in Scripture by means other than explicit statement. 

In his 2006 book Lamb of God, Dr. Robert L. Reymond discussed typology and approvingly quoted Geerhardus Vos' comments in his Biblical Theology where he wrote, "the mere fact that no writer in the N.T. refers to a trait as typical, affords no proof of its lacking typical significance" (22).  In a footnote on the same page, Reymond wrote, "Bishop Herbert Marsh's dictum in his Lectures on the Criticism and Interpretation of the Bible (London, 1838), 373, that the interpreter should regard as Old Testament types only what the New Testament expressly declares to be so seems to me to be extreme and without scriptural warrant."

Herbert Marsh was a 19th Church of England Bishop for whom Marsh's dictum is named.  In his book Lectures on the Criticism and Interpretation of the Bible, Marsh wrote,

Whatever persons or things, therefore, recorded in the Old Testament, were expressly declared by Christ, or by his Apostles, to have been designed as pre-figurations of person or things relating to the New Testament, such persons or things, so recorded in the former, are types of the persons or things, with which they are compared in the latter. But if we assert, that a person, or thing, was designed to pre-figure another person or thing, where no such pre-figuration has been declared by divine authority, we make an assertion, for which we neither have, nor can have, the slightest foundation. And even when comparisons are instituted in the New Testament between antecedent and subsequent persons or things, we must be careful to distinguish the examples, where a comparison is instituted merely for the sake of illustration, from the examples, where such a connexion is declared, as exists in the relation of a type to its antitype (372-373).

This is Marsh's dictum:  The Bible must explicitly state types and anti-types.  Dr. Reymond tells us this is without scriptural warrant.  And yet, Marsh's dictum, does not leave us in uncertainty as to whether a type / anti-type relationship exists, which, as we shall see below, is a major advantage over Vos' approach. 

Reymond continues his quotation from Vos, adding, "Of course it is inevitable that into this kind of interpretation of O.T. figures an element of uncertainty must enter.  But after all this is an element that enters into all [extra-biblical] exegesis" (brackets in Reymond's text).  By quoting Vos as he does, Reymond admits that engaging in typology apart from the explicit statements of Scripture leads to uncertainty, yet he advocates Vos' typology anyway, while at the same time rejecting Herbert Marsh.  Such a position does not seem consistent with a Reformed approach to the interpretation of Scripture. What is worse, this approach to typology made it very difficult for Gage's critics to take him on, seeing that both sides agreed that typology was some mysterious thing that could be understood only by rejecting logic and embracing uncertainty.     

Although Dr. Reymond - while I was a student at KTS and throughout the time of the 2007 controversy over Warren Gage, Dr. Reymond held the title Professor of Systematic Theology, Emeritus at KTS - was not, as far as I am aware, himself directly involved in the Gage controversy on either side, his rejection of Marsh and support of Vos' speculative typology was echoed by Gage's leading critics.  As Dr. E. Calvin Beisner wrote in a blog post, "Anyone who thinks the former Knox board's decision to suspend Dr. Gage was because he was teaching Redemptive-Historical hermeneutics or Typology clearly does not know the facts.  His chief theological critics at Knox - (now former) board members R. C. Sproul, Rick Phillips, and Cortez Cooper, and faculty members Robert Reymond, Fowleer White, and I - all affirm and use RH and T and admire it in Vos and many others."

Perhaps no other statement from the Gage controversy better sums up the reason for the failure of Gage's opponents.  Gage believed that type / anti-type relationships could be discerned by use of literary patterns, intuition and imagination.  Gage's opponents believed that types and ant-types could be determined by some form of uncertain speculation.  Both sides agreed that Marsh was wrong.      

In the end, Gage's critics agreed with him that types could be determined in some touchy-feely, irrational fashion.  Their main complaint seemed to be, not that Gage used his "poetic imagination," his intuition and literary patterns to find types and anti-types in the Scriptures - Gage's method was in direct contradiction of the Westminster Confession of Faith 1.6 which posits only the explicit statements and necessary inferences of Scripture are binding on Christians; Gage also violated the single meaning clause in Westminster Confession of Faith 1.9 -   but that he simply went too far for their taste.  Doing so make Gage's critics appear weak and uncertain.  As a result, not only did they lose the argument, but they deserved to lose it. 

On the flip side of things, I must grudgingly admit that, as obviously heretical as Gage's teaching was, he had the courage of his convictions and never wavered from them.  Gages was a heretic, but he was a consistent and bold heretic.  His critics were inconsistent and weak.    

The more consistent side will prevail in the long run and the less consistent will lose.  That is one of the big lessons of controversy at KTS.  So what does this mean for us?  Let us make sure that we fight the Lord's battles in the Lord's way.  There's no reason to give an inch to false teachers.  In any theological controversy, we must pray to God that he would grant us the knowledge and the wisdom not merely to oppose false teaching, but to do so thoroughly, boldly and with logical consistency.   Doing so doesn't mean we will win every battle.  But we will win the war.   

(To be continued...)                  

This past week I had the privilege of recording a podcast interview with two new friends and brothers in Christ, Tim Shaughnessy and Carlos Montijo, the hosts of the Semper Reformanda Radio podcast. 

The subject of our interview was a book I wrote - unbelievably for me to think this, ten years ago - titled Imagining a Vain Thing:  The Decline and Fall of Knox Seminary.  As the title states, the subject of the book is about the events that transformed Knox Theological Seminary (KTS) in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, a school founded by D. James Kennedy and subject to the session of Coral Ridge Presbyterian Church (CRPC), from a school noted for its fidelity to Scripture to an institution that speaks forth quite a different message. 

In the book, I recounted the events in some detail.  Here, I'll give you the short version, which runs something like this:  Contrary to Dr. Kennedy's best judgment, in 2002 the school hired Dr. Warren Gage to teach Old Testament and head the schools new Culture and Christianity program.   Dr. Gage, who had recently taken his Ph.D from the Roman Catholic University of Dallas, had a distinctly unreformed view of hermeneutics and typology, ideas which he had expressed very clearly in his doctoral dissertation.  Further, Dr. Gage carried these ideas over into this teaching at KTS. Although the school officially backed Gage's distinctive, and Roman Catholic influenced, teaching, there was an undercurrent of resistance. 

In May 2007, a graduate of the school approached Dr. R. Fowler White with her concerns about Gage, prompting an investigation by Dr. White into Gage's teaching.  The report resulting from White's investigation concluded, correctly I must emphasize, that 1) Gage taught, contrary to the Westminster Confession of Faith, that individual passages of Scripture have more than on meaning, and 2) he regularly disparaged logic and systematic theology in the classroom.

As a result of the report's findings, the Executive Committee of the KTS Board of Directors wanted to terminate Gage's employment at the school.  This was the correct decision, which it had stuck, likely would have saved KTS.  Unfortunately, the full board voted to suspend Gage with full pay rather than to fire him.  During his time away from the school, Gage was supposed to "contemplate his willingness to subordinate himself fully to the doctrinal standards of the Seminary and the P.C.A.," according to a letter written by R.C. Sproul, Interim Chairman of the Board of Knox Seminary, to the Session of Coral Ridge Presbyterian Church.      

But instead of taking time to think about, and repent of, his many glaring theological errors, Gage, a trained lawyer with many years of practice to his credit,  used this opportunity to overturn his suspension by making appeal to the Session of CRPC.  Gage's five years at the school had allowed him to insinuate himself into the KTS community, and, with the help of his supporters, not only was he able to have his suspension reversed, but, quite remarkably, was able to oust all those who had opposed him, both on the Board of Directors and among the faculty. 

After the remarkable events in the fall of 2007, Dr. Gage went on to teach at KTS through the 2013-2014 academic year, retiring from the school in the spring of 2014.  One ironic twist to the story is that during this nearly seven year period, Gage went on to serve as Dean of Faculty at the school that had once seen fit to fire him.

In addition to the book and the 2014 Trinity Review I wrote at the time Gage retired, I have on occasion published blog posts on KTS  (see here, here and here).  But until last week's interview, admittedly it's been a while since I've publically commented on, or privately thought much about, KTS.  Yet after talking to Carlos and Tim, I realized that there are some aspects of my time at KTS that are worth reviewing.  Specifically, I believe there are important general lessons that Christians can take from my experience at seminary and the larger events that upended KTS back in 2007.  I'd like to take this occasion to set them forth.

God is faithful in ways that aren't always immediately clear   

When in August 2006 I uprooted my life to move to Fort Lauderdale and attend KTS, I did so with the intention of studying for the ministry.  It was a goal that I had thought seriously about for a number of years leading up to my decision to attend seminary.  I confess that I was slightly terrified at the thought of making the move, but it seemed that God was calling me and now was the time to act.

When a little over four months later  I found myself packing a U-Haul to return to Cincinnati, I was more than a bit disappointed.  A goal, a dream that I had held for many years was coming to an end, and that before it had really ever begun.    

But on my way from Fort Lauderdale to Cincinnati, I know that I  would be passing through east Tennessee, where John Robbins of the Trinity Foundation lived and worked.  I'd wanted to meet John - I call him John, not to give you the impression that I was part of some inner circle, but because that's how he preferred to be called  - for a long time, and this was the best opportunity that I was likely to get. 

Well, long story short, I was able to arrange with John to stop by his house on the way back.  I parked my U-Haul in a gravel turnaround at the bottom of the street where he lived and a few minutes later, a blue car (at least that's how I remember it) pulled up with John in it dressed in (I think) jeans, work boots, a flannel shirt.  His appearance was more that of a lumberjack than the brilliant scholar he was.  I hopped in his car and road with him the short distance to his house, where we sat and talked in his study for about three hours about KTS.  It was as if I'd known John for years and I'd just met him.

I remember him saying that he was familiar with Gage's work as the KTS website had for some time prominently featured The John-Revelation Project, Gage's magnum opus on typology based upon his University of Dallas doctoral dissertation.  John told me that for some time he had considered writing about Gage's work, which he aptly described as, "Some of the most bizarre stuff I've ever seen."  Coming from John who had founded The Trinity Foundation 30 years earlier and had spent the ensuing decades refuting all manner of strange and heretical teaching, this was saying quite a lot indeed.   

Then came the kicker.  "Would you like to do the job?" John asked me.  "I knew he was going to ask me that!" I thought to myself.  Excited, intrigued and a bit daunted, I replied, "Yes." 

Here I was, some guy with hardly any formal training in theology or philosophy or, for that matter, even a graduate degree of any sort, being commissioned to critique the work of a Ph.D. seminary professor. "God help me," I thought to myself.  And he did.

As a bit of an aside, it's worth noting that John Robbins, among many other admirable qualities, was possessed of a sense of humor.  As I was leaving his basement study and having earlier noticed a New York Yankees pennant on the wall, I commented to him, "John, there's really only one thing I disagree with you on."  "What's that?," he asked me.  "You're a Yankees fan," I told him.  "I've always thought of them as the evil empire."  John got a good laugh out of that.    

Well, by God's grace and with John's editing skill, I went on to write that critique of Gage's bizarre theology, which also ended up being a post mortem on KTS following the blow up in the late summer and fall of 2007.  What had begun as a paper expanded to a book.

When the book came out in, if I recall correctly, late August or early September 2008, it was a bittersweet time for me.  While I was thrilled to see the book in print, I was grieved that John, the man who had commissioned me for the job and who had been my mentor and friend throughout the writing process, had died of an illness just a few weeks earlier.  What was going to happen to his work?  Would it be forgotten?  Would The Trinity Foundation even survive? These questions and others were very much on my mind.  

After some time of reflection and prayer, it seemed to me that the best way to honor John's memory would be, as far as I was able, to continue his work.  But how?  It was then that I began to think of about the then relatively new medium of blogging.  It was about six months after my book was published that I wrote my first blog post on Lux Luxet, a blog that has continued to this day. 

Time would fail me if  I recounted all the blessings that have accrued to me over the years since as a result of the blog.  But the big takeaway that I'd like to leave you with is that God has been faithful to me in a remarkable way that I never could have imagined after my "failure" at seminary way back in 2006.  Dropping out after the first semester, in part because I could see where the school was headed due to its tolerance of Gage and his false teaching, seemed like as disaster at the time.  But - and take it from this natural pessimist - God is faithful to his people and works all things to their good, even if it doesn't seem that way in the midst of our disappointments and difficulties.

Roman Catholic trained professors pose a real danger to Protestant colleges and seminaries 

As I mentioned above, Warren Gage received his Ph.D from the University of Dallas, a Roman Catholic institution.  This was no accident on the part of Gage.  For throughout my semester at Knox, he made it very clear, sometimes in obvious ways, at other times more subtly, that he had a clear case of what could be called papal envy.  As I recall, Gage had on his office door a medieval image of a pope on his throne that was doctored with a picture of Gage's own face. As I said, the man had papal envy, but this was a small thing compared to what he taught in the classrooms of KTS. 

The class that I had with Gage was Old Testament Survey.  Now one would suppose that a class titled Old Testament Survey would be focused on the Old Testament.  But this was not a safe assumption in Dr. Gage's OT class, for in it he aggressively pushed his major work titled The John Revelation Project (JRP) which, as you probably have gathered from the name, was all about the Gospel of John and the Book of Revelation.  I have archived the full text of the John-Revelation Project here for your reference. 

In the JRP,  Gage made very clear his dislike of the Puritans and love of Rome.  For example, Gage chided the Puritans, whining, "For it was our Puritan forebears who closed down the Elizabethan theater, fearing the nature of the theatre to explore the comedic imagination, which was suspected (especially in Shakespeare!) of undermining good morals."  Given the gross immorality of Hollywood and the entertainment industry in general, maybe the Puritans concerns about the theatre were well founded, but Gage takes them to task. 

On the other hand, while he felt free to chastise the Puritans, Gage was generous with his praise of the Roman Church-State and sought in his work to rescue the well-deserved bad reputation of this spiritual harlot.  Gage wrote, "On the other hand, this vindication of reformed soteriology against Rome is at the price of falsifying the unilateral and most common historical identification of the whore of Revelation within Protestant circles, which, consequently, becomes five full centuries of slander." Gage had this odd idea that the Babylonian Harlot of Revelation, not only did not represent the Church of Rome, but actually was a figure for God's people who were called from their spiritual harlotry and transformed into the chaste Bride of Christ.  In light of what Revelation says about the end of the Woman Who Rides the Beast - Revelation 17:17 says the woman will be made desolate and naked, have her flesh eaten and be burned with fire - this seems to be an extraordinary leap of logic.       

So you see, not only were the Puritans a bunch of Puritanical wet blankets for shutting down the theatre, but also they were slanderers for identifying the murderous Roman Church-State, an organization that had anathematized the Gospel of Jesus Christ and all who believed it, with Mystery Babylon of Revelation 17.    

That Gage would push this point of view in print and in the classroom should come as no surprise.  What else would you expect a Roman Catholic trained professor to do?  As John Robbins wrote, "Rome realizes what the central theological issue is, and Rome is moving deliberately and effectively to heal the wound inflicted on her in the sixteenth century by the preaching of the Gospel.  Rome apparently is finding plenty of eager dupes - useful idiots, Lenin called them - among the ersatz-evangelicals to accomplish its goal."  And one of those useful idiots was Warren Gage.  

Writing in the most recent Trinity Review, Tom Juodaitis commented, "It's no wonder the church is in the shape it is in this country, including the Reformed churches, because many of the professors at the seminaries which train the pastors have been trained at Roman Catholic and even Jesuit institutions.  I graduated from Covenant College, the college of the Presbyterian Church in America, and their current president earned his PhD in history from Loyola University in Chicago, and his Jesuit priest dissertation supervisor attended his inauguration service." 

After citing my experience with Roman Catholic trained Warren Gage, Juodaitis continues, "A search of the web sites of Reformed and Presbyterian and Conservative Baptist seminaries resulted in finding 16 professors who had Master or Doctorate degrees of extra doctoral work from the following Romanist or Jesuit institutions:  Catholic University of America Washington, D.C.), Loyola University (Chicago), St. Louis University (St. Louis), University of Dallas (Dallas), and University of Notre Dame (South Bend, Indiana)." 

He concludes, "Is it any wonder why the Reformed churches are having problems with the Gospel and moral issues?"  The obvious answer to this rhetorical question is, "No, it's no wonder at all.  In fact, it's to be expected."

Why, oh why, have the churches of the Reformation gone begging intellectual bread from the Romanists!?  Is there no balm in Gilead? Have we not over 500 years of solid Protestant scholarship - from John Wycliffe all the way up to Gordon Clark and John Robbins - on which to draw that we need to seek help from the Whore of Babylon, the Roman Catholic Church-State, to answer the great questions of our day?

Good grief!  When Israel and Judah turned to Assyria and Egypt for military help against their foes, was God well pleased with them?  Quite obviously he was not.  Why then do we expect God to honor our efforts when we go cap in hand to the Tiber seeking the aid of the Antichrist popes and their minions to advance the Gospel or to win the culture war or to stop abortion?  Ecumenism, what is it if not vanity and chasing after the wind?

(To be continued...)

For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made.

- Romans 1:20

If you've ever read a book or heard a lecture on Christian apologetics, there's a good chance Romans 1:19-20 were brought up.  Perhaps these verses were cited as proof that all men know God, so that no one could claim ignorance of God on judgment day.  That, of course, is true.  Responsibility is based on knowledge, and since God has revealed himself to all men, all men are accountable to him. 

Bible commentators, as well as the authors of the Westminster Confession, have identified two ways in which God reveals himself to men:  general revelation and special revelation.

Special revelation is identical with the 66 books of the Bible.  The Scriptures are God's written, propositional revelation, which principally teach us, "What man is to believe concerning God, and what duty God requires of man," in the words of the Shorter Catechism.    

But what about general revelation?  Just what is it that is meant by this term?  The most common answer is that general revelation is identical with nature.  We are told that when men look to the heavens and see the stars, or cast their eyes upon the majestic mountains they behold God's attributes and, to that extent, know him and are therefore rightfully held responsible by him, even if they have never so much as heard the name of Jesus Christ.

Here's one example of this line of reasoning.

Paul stresses the reality and universality of divine revelation, which is perpetual ("since the creation," v.20) and perspicuous ("clearly seen," v.20).  Divine invisibility, eternity, and power are all expressed in and through the created order...The invisible God is revealed through the visible medium of creation.  This revelation is manifest; it is not obscured but clearly seen (New Geneva Study Bible).    

The commentators manifestly argue that one can reason from visible creation to an invisible God, but does this really make sense?   On one hand, such an argument is appealing to Christians.  We believe in God and rightfully want others to share that belief.  But simply because we like the conclusion of an argument does not mean that it is a good argument.  This is the case even if the conclusion of argument - that there is an immortal, invisible all wise God who created and sustains the world - is true.

So what is the problem of reasoning to an invisible God from the visible world?  One of the most basic concepts in logic is that the conclusion of an argument cannot contain an idea that was not present in its premises.  In logic textbooks students often run across a model argument that runs like this:

Major Premise:  All men are mortal. 

Minor Premise: Socrates is a man. 

Conclusion:  Therefore, Socrates is mortal.    

Notice that the conclusion "Therefore, Socrates is mortal" contains the same terms - here we're talking about "Socrates" and "mortal" - that are found in the premises.  Logicians call this a valid argument.

But let's suppose someone made this argument,

Major Premise:  All men are mortal.

Minor Premise:  Socrates is a man. 

Conclusion:  Therefore, Socrates won a gold medal in Curling during the Winter Olympics.

The problem with this second argument is clearly seen, such that you probably don't need me to point it out to you.  Although neither of the argument's premises says anything about an Olympic gold medal in Curling, it shows up in the conclusion anyway.  This is an example of an invalid argument.  And it is an invalid argument, because the conclusion contains a term - won a gold medal in Curling during the Winter Olympics - that is nowhere found in the premises.  

This is the same problem with the argument that an invisible God can be deduced from visible creation.  We cannot reason from rocks, trees and oceans - all things which are visible to the eyes - to an invisible God.  To do so would be to violate the logical principle established above that an argument cannot contain terms not found in the premises. 

The same could be said for the claim that God's eternity can be clearly seen in creation.  Lakes dry up, living creatures die, and, at least is you listen to Al Gore, polar ice caps melt away to nothing.  Scientists even claim that stars have a life cycle, some ending up as supernovas, and others becoming white dwarfs.  If anything, the observation of nature could lead one to conclude that the god who created it, if indeed there is a god at all, is of limited power and may him/her/itself be mortal.   

But even though there are significant, manifest problems with the standard explanation of Romans 1:19-20,  it largely goes unchallenged by theologians.

John Robbins was one scholar who did challenge the standard explanation of Romans 1.  For him, the key was arriving at a correct definition of the term "the things that are made."  In the quotation from the New Geneva Study Bible cited above, the commentators take the line that the term "the things that are made" refers to the creation. 

But Robbins does not accept this.  He argues, persuasively I would add, that "the things that are made" does not refer to the heavens or to mountains or trees or whales, but to men themselves.  Men are "the things that are made," not general creation.  This is another way of saying that all men have innate knowledge of God. 

For your consideration, please see the transcript below, which I made this myself from the Trinity Foundation lecture "How Not to Do Apologetics:  Evidentialism" by John Robbins.   The excerpted portion begins at the 34:04 mark.

John Robbins on Romans 1:19-20

Please turn to the first chapter of Romans.  Romans 1, and I will begin reading, I believe it's verse 16, I don't have the citation down here.  Paul writes, "For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ, for it is the power of God to salvation for everyone who believes, for the Jew first and also for the Greek.  For in it t he righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith; as it is written, 'The just shall live by faith.'

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness; because what may be know of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them.   For since the creation of the world, His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened.  Professing to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man - and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things...who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever, Amen "

It is common to be told that this passage endorses the proofs for the existence of God, but if one reads it closely, one will see that that is not the case at all.  First, Paul wrote of the special revelation of the Gospel in verses 16-18.  Then in verse 19, he wrote that what may be known of God is manifest in them for God has shown it to them.  Again he wrote of revelation, no longer special, but a general revelation to all men.  Furthermore, this revelation is manifest in us, that is, it is innate knowledge.  It is not something we learn.  It is not something we discover by observation or reading Aristotle's philosophy.   

Paul agreed with John, who wrote in the first chapter of his Gospel, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God...In Him was life, and that life was the light of men..That was the true Light, which gives light to every man who comes into the world."

Paul continued in verse 20, "For since the creation of the world, His invisible attributes are clearly seen."  Now think about that for a moment.  Was Paul talking about sense experience?  Can invisible attributes be seen with the eyes, let alone clearly seen?  Of course not.  Paul immediately explained what he meant in the next phrase, "and are clearly seen being understood."  Seeing here, as it frequently does in Scripture, means intellectual understanding, not sense experience.  God's invisible attributes are understood, they are not red or green or blue.  Moreover, they are understood by the things that are made. 

And here we come to a word, a phrase in English, of things that are made, that the standard understanding of these verses requires us to interpret as the physical things around us, what Thomas called the sensibles, the sensibles.  But this is the same word in Greek, translated here as the things that are made, that Paul used in Romans 9:20, "But indeed, O man, who are you to reply against God?  Will the thing formed say to him who formed it, 'Why have you made me like this?' " And in Ephesians 2:10, "For we are his workmanship." The Greek word is of general extension and can refer to anything made.  It need not refer only to sensible objects.  And Paul actually uses it to refer specifically to human beings in this case.  We are the things that are made.  We understand for God has shown it to us, it is manifest in us, we are without excuse because we know the eternal power and Godhead, not by observing, inferring, arguing, and inducing, but simply because we're made in the image of God.

If the standard interpretation of this passage were true, it would overturn Paul's argument in Romans 1-3, that all men are without excuse.  If our knowledge of God and moral responsibility for sin depends and sense experience, then blind and deaf people would have neither knowledge of God nor actual guilt. If we gain our knowledge of God by looking at the heavens, then those who cannot see the heavens have no knowledge of God.  But Paul wrote that all men know God, and all men are sinners, because they deny and suppress that inescapable, innate knowledge.

Furthermore, if our knowledge of God, and hence our responsibility, depended on our ability to follow Thomas's and Aristotle's arguments for the existence of God, then few there be who know God, and few there be who are sinners.  Notice that in this passage Paul does not say anything about an argument for the existence of God.  He declares that all men know God innately and immediately.  It is knowledge that they are born with.  No, even before that.  If David was conceived in sin, and if sin presupposes knowledge of right and wrong, then David had knowledge in his mother's womb, even before he had eyes and ears.  Contrary to the standard Thomistic understanding of these verses, it does not matter that some people cannot see or hear.  It does not matter than they cannot follow an intricate metaphysical argument.  They all know God.  Therefore, that knowledge of God does not come as a result of sense experience or as the conclusion of an argument.

Closing Thoughts

This is a brilliant argument by Robbins, one that convincingly shows the term "things that are made" refers to men, not inanimate objects of creation.  Men have innate knowledge of God, not as a result of looking at the physical universe, but because Christ has enlightened the minds of all men with this knowledge. 

Some may think this is a small point.  But if Robbins is right, then the empirical apologetics of Thomas Aquinas, which is also the apologetics method of many folks in the Reformed camp, is without foundation in Scripture.

And at the same time the door is closed on empirical apologetics, Robbins' argument provides strong support for Scripturalist apologetics, namely the idea that we defend Christianity, not by proving the existence of God from an appeal to the physical creation, but with the Scriptures themselves. 

The Bible, and the Bible alone, is the starting point for the Christian system of thought.  As Robbins taught elsewhere, the 66 books of the Bible are the starting point of all knowledge and the axiom of Christianity. 

The Bible alone in the Word of God.