Tuesday, January 1, 2008

Bag o’ Snakes

Here’s another update from the FVists’ “members only” war room, otherwise known as the Biblical Horizons yahoo group. It’s a rather lengthy email exchange, I’ll let you figure out the context. As you read it, notice that five years ago they were already in an “us vs. them” mode. Also notice the way that they strategize (when they’re not backstabbing) about how to advance their doctrine, and notice who keeps them together as a faction. The FVists are not “teachable,” they have an agenda and they intend to impose it:

From: “John Barach”
Date: Wed Dec 31, 2003 11:58 am
Subject: Sproul Jr. on Auburn Avenue

BHers —

Here’s Sproul Jr.’s latest discussion of the Auburn Avenue stuff.

John


From: Jeff Meyers
Date: Wed Dec 31, 2003 12:49 pm
Subject: Re: [bibhorizon] Sproul Jr. on Auburn Avenue

Once again, I ask: what the hell is Jr. saying? He was in a fog all through the conference and he’s still wandering in it, IMHO.

JJM


From: “jeffrey steel”
Date: Wed Dec 31, 2003 1:03 pm
Subject: Re: [bibhorizon] Sproul Jr. on Auburn Avenue

I said the exact same thing Jeff about jr. He makes the vein on my forehead pulse so I guess he’s in the same camp since that is how we measure theological validity is by pulsing veins. Does he expect us to take him seriously?

Jeff

The Rev. Jeffrey H. Steel+

E.B. Pusey “Because perseverance is so difficult, even when supported by the grace of God thence is the value of new beginnings. For new beginnings are the life of perseverance.”


From: “Mark Horne”
Date: Wed Dec 31, 2003 12:54 pm
Subject: RE: [bibhorizon] Sproul Jr. on Auburn Avenue

Guess #1, aside from Robert Barnes’ utter insanity he is has noticed by recent piece by Hodge defending RC priests as Gospel Ministers for the purpose of baptism.

Basically, not only is Thornwell right, but anyone who disagrees is an enemy of the Gospel. Wright is the paper target but Hodge is the intended victim.

Mark


From: James Jordan
Date: Wed Dec 31, 2003 3:39 pm
Subject: Re: [bibhorizon] Re: Sproul Jr. on Auburn Avenue

RCJr. follows papa in making anti-romanism the sine qua non of true Christianity, IMO. We were talking a few years ago, and he said Romanists aren’t Xians and aren’t saved because they don’t believe in justification by faith alone. I said that we aren’t saved by believing in justification in faith alone, but by faith in God, whether we understand the ins and outs of it or not. This was clearly a new thought, as I could tell by his face. Evidently it was a new thought that he did not accept. IMO the idea that you can only be saved if you understand that justification is by faith alone is heresy. It’s weird for someone who believes in paedocommunion to hold to such shit.

JBJ


From: James Jordan
Date: Wed Dec 31, 2003 3:47 pm
Subject: Re: [bibhorizon] Re: Sproul Jr. on Auburn Avenue

Tim is right, and let me remind us that this is a private list and what I wrote below is not to be repeated. And, to clarify, I was not calling RCJr a heretic, just making the point that he really does not in practice believe you have to believe in justification by faith to be saved. I’m mainly disappointed, is all. Barnes refused to sell my Brief Reader’s Guide to Revelation at the Ligonier Conference on Preterism, even though my book was fully in line with their position, simply because I’m “controversial.” I was not too controversial to work for Ligonier for 5 years, but that was before he came on board, I guess.

JBJ


From: Jeff Meyers
Date: Wed Dec 31, 2003 4:08 pm
Subject: Re: [bibhorizon] Re: Sproul Jr. on Auburn Avenue

Yeah, sure, but this is a private list and he’s not on it.

Speaking of Roman Catholics, after I spent a few months reading all of Walker Percy’s novels, I’m now most of the way through Flannery O’Conner’s works. I’ve yet to read her letters and I’m just now finishing her wonderful collection of essays and lectures Mystery and Manners. Wow, what a woman! If this RC chick is not in heaven, I don’t want to be there. A sample:

“Today’s audience is one in which religious feeling has become, if not atrophied, at least vaporous and sentimental. When Emerson decided, in 1832, that he could no longer celebrate the Lord’s Supper unless the bread and wine were removed, an important step in the vaporization of religion in America was taken, and the spirit of that step has continued apace. When the physical fact is separated from the spiritual reality, the dissolution of belief is eventually inevitable.”

Every page of Mystery and Manners is full of great stuff like this. See you in heaven, Fannery, baby!

JJM


From: “Steve Wilkins”
Date: Wed Dec 31, 2003 4:15 pm
Subject: Re: [bibhorizon] Re: Sproul Jr. on Auburn Avenue

Here’s my off the cuff, unthoughtful analysis:

It seems that things are going to get hotter now that R.C. Sr. has come out against the “evil empire” (Shepherd/Wright/AAPC). It has certainly emboldened Robert Barnes (indeed, seemingly overnight he has been transformed into the theological equivalent of Rambo, no?) and that puts Jr. in a bad spot. I expect he will be forced to side more and more with Pop. (thus, he offers us this mumbled, jumbled “amen” to Robert’s rant.)

R.C. Sr’s opposition has given credibility to the Webbs/Morecrafts of the world and will solidify the doubts of many who up to now have been sitting on the fence. All in all, probably bad news for the good guys.

sw


From: Tommy Lee
Date: Wed Dec 31, 2003 4:31 pm
Subject: Re: [bibhorizon] Re: Sproul Jr. on Auburn Avenue

Sorry to ask something that seems obvious to everyone else, but where would one find Robert Barnes’ rant?

Thanks,

TL


From: “Steve Wilkins”
Date: Wed Dec 31, 2003 4:42 pm
Subject: Re: [bibhorizon] Re: Sproul Jr. on Auburn Avenue

Tommy,

This is what was sent to me:
sw

From Robert Barnes

The post leading to Dr. Leithart’s blog led me to thinking a bit about the New Perspective on Paul matter.

Every book in the New Testament (except for Philemon, I think) has a concern about false doctrine. And considering the existential situation of persecution, and considering the nature of written communication during that time (the necessary economy of words), this cannot be overlooked and must provide a meaningful nudge to us in this matter — and all matters relating to our emphasis on the purity of our faith.

What the NP controversy has revealed is that I am a disgusting knowledge glutton. If I appreciate some of what you are saying, I will, in an unlimited and non-critical fashion, fill myself with your goods. I will mute my voice against you and your reasoning; just give me a little more. I will pan through gallons of your mud for that one nugget about NT Palestine I didn’t know or some grace-acknowledging rabbi. I will appreciated your defining the boundaries of covenant implications (by error, but still), but your excesses bother me not. I will be happy with a re-aligning the nexus of justification by faith alone from the traditional central Lutheran position to a rightly positioning it as one of several organs feeding our Christology, but I will not be too bothered by your romantic Romanism.

I was wrong. And I think every one of you who continue reading/hearing the Auburn Avenue crowd in a spirit of unmolested charity are wrong, too. I have been guilty (and I suspect many of you are, too) of the same sort of damage to the English language as John Robbins does, only in reverse.

Quoting Jane:

“It would be interesting some time to sit John Robbins down and have him defend, in light of scripture, his implicit working ‘proposition’ that all writings must be analyzed in their most negative possible sense and the most negative possible implications must be drawn from them, in order for ‘truth’ to be served and ‘discernment’ to be exercised.”

I have been doing the same thing in reverse. I have turned away from my duty as a teacher and an elder by allowing the bad AA logic, irresponsible reading of Scripture, and apparent goal of union with Rome (yes, I said it) to go by unmolested by Scripture and reason.

I have to stop grieving the Holy Spirit and start participating with Him in my sanctification in this area by repenting of this sin of intellectual gluttony, of refusing to turn away from a filthy trough and refusing to lovingly make a Big Deal over the bunch of hockey coming out of AA.

I’m not sure if adding more public rhetoric to the situation will help either me or them. But I am sure that I am grieved that better people aren’t making a bigger deal out of this mess. Presbyteries need to swing into action NOW and start discipline against those who publicly boast that they no longer keep the truths to which they have vowed.

If you think about it, just that last point alone should make those who are on the fence concerning NP start to wonder about the integrity (yes, I said it) of those who are pushing the NP agenda.

Regardless, I repent. Let us pray for men like Ligon Duncan, who is reasonably voicing concerns about this movement, that he will be strong and courageous. Let us pray for men like R.C. Jr., who is in an unusual spot of influence, that he will be wise in his counsel to those in the movement. Let us pray that presbyteries will begin discipline, God’s way of cleansing the church of false doctrine.

Robert Barnes


From: “John Barach”
Date: Wed Dec 31, 2003 5:10 pm
Subject: Re: [bibhorizon] Re: Sproul Jr. on Auburn Avenue

Maybe I’m behind the times, but where has RC Sr. spoken out against us miscreants?

John


From: “Steve Wilkins”
Date: Thu Jan 1, 2004 8:17 am
Subject: Re: [bibhorizon] Re: Sproul Jr. on Auburn Avenue

Well, maybe I’m misremembering but it seems that I heard that R.C. SR came out against us at a recent Ligonier conference . . . . no? or yea?

sw


From: “jeffrey steel”
Date: Thu Jan 1, 2004 8:33 am
Subject: Re: [bibhorizon] Re: Sproul Jr. on Auburn Avenue

I believe it was a conference in the northeast somewhere during a question and answer session. I believe he said that the NPP was probably the most dangerous doctrinal error that we are facing today or something like that. I could be wrong. Did he tie NPP to Norm Shepherd then too? Where does AAPC fit into that?

Jeff

The Rev. Jeffrey H. Steel+

E.B. Pusey “Because perseverance is so difficult, even when supported by the grace of God thence is the value of new beginnings. For new beginnings are the life of perseverance.”


From: “Dale Courtney”
Date: Thu Jan 1, 2004 9:14 am
Subject: Re: [bibhorizon] Re: Sproul Jr. on Auburn Avenue

It was Peter’s blog from 19 Dec that set them off:
“Strange Doings”

Pax,
Dale


From: “Dale Courtney”
Date: Thu Jan 1, 2004 9:42 am
Subject: Re: [bibhorizon] Re: Sproul Jr. on Auburn Avenue

See: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/bibhorizon/message/25171

Commenting on the Ligonier Conference in D.C. at the end of October:

During questions and answers, he was asked what is the most dangerous doctrine in the Evangelical camp these days, and he answered, “New Perspectives on Paul.” He also named Norman Shepherd too.

Pax,
Dale


From: “dpcassidy”
Date: Thu Jan 1, 2004 12:31 pm
Subject: Re: [bibhorizon] Sproul Jr. on Auburn Avenue

There’s no fog there now, judging from what he’s written. He is agreeing with Barnes and suggesting (implicitly) that all should heed his warnings. In addition he is connecting the RCC to AA and that will of course only inflame things further. Generally one doesn’t dog the Westminster Assembly as ‘weak’ and get along well in Presby circles.

I suppose RC Sr. will soon come out with a book highlighting the dangers of the NPP. Since Shepherd used his work as something of a foil at the SCCCS confernce [sic], I hope he will first write on his differences with him . . . which is of far greater significance, at least to little ol me, in the present debate (on the covenant of works, nature of imputation, etc.) than Wright or Sanders or Dunn on Second Temple Judaism. Sproul Sr carries a lot of influence because of his widely used publications and I imagine that such will be the vehicle of choice to take the debate to the ‘public, man and woman in the pew’ level. JMO.

Now if we could just get everybody to read the latest issue of Credenda. . . .

DC


From: James Jordan
Date: Fri Jan 2, 2004 8:09 am
Subject: Re: [bibhorizon] Re: Sproul Jr. on Auburn Avenue

One thing that hit me last night, and is probably olde news: These accusations that Wright has left the Reformation isolate the accusers not only from “us” but from the whole evangelical world, as far as I can see. NTW gets asked to ETS, is “answered” by Moo, but neither Moo nor anybody else in mainstream evangelicalism seems to be accusing him of rejecting basic protestantism, of rejecting just. by faith. Not that I’ve read everything coming out of evangelical circles! Are others besides Calvinistic extremists accusing him of departing from evangelical faith, or is this kind of rhetoric 98% limited to the Presby and Ref. worlds?

JBJ


From: burke
Date: Fri Jan 2, 2004 8:40 am
Subject: Re: [bibhorizon] Re: Sproul Jr. on Auburn Avenue

Steve Wilkins wrote:

R.C. Sr’s opposition has given credibility to the Webbs/Morecrafts of the world and will solidify the doubts of many who up to now have been sitting on the fence. All in all, probably bad news for the good guys.

sw

Which means, of course, the good guys are winning.

Burke


From: Douglas
Date: Fri Jan 2, 2004 10:06 am
Subject: Re: [bibhorizon] Sproul Jr. on Auburn Avenue

Morning, everyone

RCjr was just out here in Moscow a few weeks ago, checking out our Greyfriars ministerial program. They are thinking of doing something like that back at Highlands. We had him to dinner and had a great time, with Nancy even teasing him briefly about his Auburn 03 talk. He is in good fellowship with us. I gave him a copy of the latest Credenda, which had just come out, and he was appreciative (it seemed to me). I agree with (I think it was) Jeff, who said that he is by no means in heresy-hunt mode.

With regard to his Razormouth piece, I differ with him, but we have to be careful not to polarize in predictable ways. TRs can make me nuts, but that is nothing compared to what RC monkeyshines do to me. If we sit around scratching our ecumenical beards in discussions with people who think Mary is a functional goddess, and then slam the door on people who have a few chapters of the Westminster Confession wound tight around their axle, then we are straining at gnats and swallowing camels. Three metaphors wound tight around my axle!

My counsel would be for everyone to guard their virginity. NT Wright says lots of cool things that I do appreciate. But at the same time, his applications to the contemporary world outside appear to me to incredibly naive, and right in line with whatever Ted Turner thinks. And when he is Archbishop of Canterbury someday (as I think he will be), what will he do with women priests, and homosexuals? From what I have seen thus far, I honestly do not know. Reading the bottom line on the eye chart is not that impressive if you can’t read the big E.

Be cautious. Be wary. Keep some distance. If BH stuff, and Norman Shepherd’s stuff, and Auburn stuff, and NPP stuff gets all jumbled together in the public mind, and then a high profile guy within that jumble ordains a homo, then the next word we hear will be “checkmate.”

Cordially,

Douglas Wilson


From: “Mark Horne”
Date: Fri Jan 2, 2004 9:55 am
Subject: RE: [bibhorizon] Sproul Jr. on Auburn Avenue

I must have missed something. I thought Wright had condemned homosexuality.

In any case, I agree with you on proximaty [sic] and all that but I already know that the maryolators are heretics. I’m just sick of being denounced as one by my own brothers and of witch-hunting judicial process in the PCA. Your assurance about RCjr don’t really explain his column and especially his endorsement his slanderous friend.

As someone who is virtually a nobody in his denomination, and thus feels somewhat vulnerable since I now realize it is all about clout, this stuff looks quite dangerous. I simply don’t view the RCs as that sort of threat.

Well, God is my shield and defender. But that’s the worry that creeps through my somewhat less-than-trusting mind.

Mark


From: “Tim Gallant”
Date: Fri Jan 2, 2004 10:12 am
Subject: Re: [bibhorizon] Sproul Jr. on Auburn Avenue

Doug, a few points:
  1. I don’t think you personally are R.C. Jr.’s target; I think he basically sees you as within the pale. But he is questioning the company you keep (i.e. your fellow Monroe speakers). His suggestion is not that the other gentlemen are heretics, but that maybe they are Lutherans and aren’t “coming clean.” (Note: as always this a closed list. This is information that I have received from Sproul Jr in personal communication.)

  2. The Roman Catholic issue is much more complex than these sorts of men pretend. One of the supreme ironies in all of this is that it is Rome that theoretically have the infallible tradition, but many of Rome’s leading theologians are bending e.g. Trent every which way in order to be more biblical. (That doesn’t mean they are Protestants, but I think it does mean there are signs of hope.) Meanwhile, Presbyterians, continually shouting about Rome’s infallible tradition, act as if the Westminster Standards are inerrant and untouchable (actually, most of them think that their particular reading of the Standards are inerrant and untouchable). So which tradition is really irreformable? Somebody needs to expose this hypocrisy for what it is.


  3. The whole notion that we need to be sure our theology and exegesis is a self-conscious affront to Rome is a dead end. I happen to believe (very strongly) that the biblical picture is very much opposed to Rome’s received dogmatic tradition. But it is just because of my assurance on that point that I feel no need to construe things just to make sure. When we go that route, we are no longer sola scriptura, we have absolutized our own tradition.

    I would also add that the present treatment of Rome is at radical odds with the original view of the Reformers. Anybody who reads Calvin knows that he was deeply appreciative of Bernard. You can’t tell me that Calvin thought Bernard was in hell. Well, big news: Bernard, as Calvin well knew, was one of the most influential medieval figures in the promotion of the role of Mary. He was much more into Mariology than many modern Roman Catholic theologians. But now, meanwhile, we are supposed to measure our orthodoxy by whether or not we can judge whether recent RC saints (like Mother Theresa) are in hell. Give me a break.

  4. Tom Wright has been very clear on the issues of both women in office and homosexuality. He is unequivocably [sic] in favour of women in office; we’re well aware of that. On the other side, he is unequivocably [sic] clear that homosexuality is a grievous sin, and I really can’t see him ordaining homosexuals.
Nonetheless, I agree with you on the point that we need to avoid tying everything in to one person. I keep saying this too: my task is not to defend Wright or Shepherd on every point. I task is to pursue the truth of Scripture, the edification of the Church, and the glory of God. Involved in that is calling men to account for violations of the ninth commandment. But mostly my interest in defending Wright is not to show that he is 100% correct, but to show that a lot of his work is legitimately usable.

tim


From: “Rich Lusk”
Date: Fri Jan 2, 2004 10:15 am
Subject: Re: [bibhorizon] Sproul Jr. on Auburn Avenue

Glad to hear things are not as bad with Jr. as they seem. I still wonder: he may not be going on a heresy hunt himself, but what will be do with the heresy hunters do get to work? And why is he is so pro-Barnes if he still has an open mind about this stuff (since Barbes [sic] obviously doesn’t)? And why is he making anti-RCCism the touchstone of orthodoxy? Jr. just confuses me time and time again.

I hate to offer a “yeah, but. . .” to your post — since I think I agree with basically erverything [sic] you say. But here I go anyway. . . . .

I don’t know that NTW will ever have opportunity to be Archbishop of Canterbury (though I think he’d be a great choice), and yes, I do wonder if he has the fortitude to do the kind of discipline that needs to be done (and often isn’t done in the PCA and other Reformed circles either!). Nevertheless, if he did someday offer his approval to, say, a gay bishop, it would be easy enough to show how severely he had compromised his earlier position. It would be easy enough to demonstrate he had caved in. As of right now, NTW is firmly on the record as one who oppooses [sic] homosexuality as a proper use of our God-given bodies. If NTW changes his view, I will change my view of him. But I’m not going to distance myself from him just because he might someday disappoint me. That’s just not a healthy way of doing things in the church.

On the other issues, e.g., the ordination of women priests, his fondling admiration of the UN, etc, enough of us who like NTW’s work in other respects have already registered our dissent. I don’t hear anyone (even Jeff Steel! :-) ) simply going along with whatever NTW has said, as though it were handed down ex cathedra. I think all of us are reading him with some degree of critical discernment. And as our own discussions of the Iraqi situation have revealed, some of these are issues conscientious and faithful Christians can and will disagree on. If we made one’s view of the war a test of fellowship, we’d have to disband the BH list. So let’s keep perspective. NTW might not be at his best when it comes to present world politics, but I don’t really know anyone who has that figured out.

Many (like me) have felt the need to defend NTW because his views have been so twisted and distorted and misrepresented in the Reformed world. But defending a true reading of Wright — and the benefits that come from it — is a far cry from buying into his every last word, hook, line, and sinker.

I do agree that the jumble of BH, Shepherd, Wright, AAPC, etc. could pose us problems, since there are a lot of issues that need to be sorted out there and a lot of people who could potentially embarrass us. But I think these links are also inescapable to some extent, and are here to stay for the time being. After all, AAPC has had the cores guys in BH here to speak, we’ve had Shep, and we’re going to have NTW in ’05. The links aren’t imaginary.

RL


From: “cowley”
Date: Fri Jan 2, 2004 12:21 pm
Subject: Re: [bibhorizon] Sproul Jr. on Auburn Avenue

Doug, Tim, Rich. . . :

Thanks for these comments. I must be the only one on the list who totally understood RC’s total confusion. While he wandered all over, I think he was expressing the angst of the “TR” in process.

I understand the urge to defend NTW. I’ve done so a bit in private, trying to disuade [sic] folks that are so scared about him to put him in perspective (no pun intended). Generally, I don’t think we need to “defend him.” His project is so massive, and speaks for itself. Anyone who has the right to really worry about NTW needs to have lots more experience looking at his material and taking a shot for themselves at answering not the NPP, but the real radical unbelief that has afflicted the world of NT scholarship . . . up through the Jesus Seminar.

But, the problem is that folks have a sort of “smell-o-meter” alarm. We should always read critically, but USUALLY not unsympathetically. But, there are some we should read with great caution, and others we should read only in order to refute. To refute, we must, however, understand. Some, we should not read at all, without great special reason to do so (think of Dobson’s time on President’s Council re: Pornography! I was looking at a Jesus-Only tract the other day. First I was trying to see if there was some orthodox way to take his statements, as I went on my smell-0-meter when from yellow to red. I decided it was not worth reading further, because I had no just reason to do so. . . I was just dabbling. Now, reading Swedenborg (for me) is a somewhat dangerous task — so I only read it when called thereto for special reasons — to help a Swedenborgian out of it, or to write in refutation. Still, I try to read Sympathetically.

Well, reading Wright is a pleasure, and a joy, and the areas of concern are generally secondary, if not trivial. Most of the time it is a breath of fresh air. Sometimes it’s hard to understand, but my own personal smell-0-meter does not go past general caution. In fact, this whole AAPC has changed my angle on things. . . NOW I read guys like Spoul [sic] and Piper and such with a view to seeing how they are wrong on secondary points.

Doug is right that the guys publically [sic] Identified with AAPC are going to be percieved [sic] as part of a Jumble of issues.

My guess is that this will play itself out a lot like Theonomy. . . Folks will look at the Shepherd/Wright/NPP material with their smell-0-meters in Orange to Red, but then as things play themselves out, I think they’ll start seeing that the TRs are chasing their own tails, and some are trying to save the whole reformed world by following Kline down his own rabbit trails.

Should we “defend” Shepherd? Here is a man in our own “circles” whom I’ve never met. When there is false witness, I think we need to defend him. I’ve oft repeated the “I wish he could be clearer, but. . .” Now I try not to say that. I think unclarity may be one of his points — to make us think, give us a pain in the brain.

Schlissel’s really dangerous in my circles. He’s punched every Sacred cow he can. But, I have met Steve and like him a lot, and I think he’s generally in “prophetic mode” when he goes overboard. And, he’s funny and self-depreciating. How one defends Steve depends alot [sic] on who you’re talkin’ to. He really offends RPW sensitivities! And, they have a hard time taking him seriously due to his tone. Too bad for them.

As for Jordan, guys like Schwertley have no clue what he’s up to. They are only dangerous when they think they understand him, and don’t. “Stream of consciousness exegesis” and such like. . . Didn’t Schwertley call it LSD exegesis once? I’m not sure. I hear Bahnsen wrote against Chilton’s Days of Vengeance for its (what?) finding something like 14 FUNDAMENTAL structures to Revelation. . . I don’t know about that. . . But, Jordan’s project, likewise, is pretty massive, and to have the right to hate him, you must know him first. . . And we all know, that to know, know, know him is to love, love, love him. . .

It “used to be” that the RPW types and the Jordanites were all folks who really cared about worship a lot and wanted to make sure it was done as well as possible. Now they are at loggerheads. Even the Stillwater guys gave semi-positive reviews of Liturgical Nestorianism and Liturgy Trap in Dick Bacon’s BLUE BANNER MAGAZINE.

Anyway, Thanks!

Cowpie


From: “Mark Horne”
Date: Fri Jan 2, 2004 1:04 pm
Subject: RE: [bibhorizon] Re: Sproul Jr. on Auburn Avenue

On another note: Where does RCjr get off simply equating Campbellites with Mormons and simply take it as a given that their trinitarian [sic] baptism is just as worthless? No wonder he thinks Moscow is lacking for not independently consigning Rome to flames; he does it on his own authority at the drop of a hat.

And then this:

“And aren’t the same Reformed folk who wanted to count Romish baptism, at least in the seventeenth century, the ones who called Rome anti-Christ? And yet at Auburn Avenue the Westminster Assembly was deemed not a sufficiently catholic body to have the authority to oust Rome. And so, according to this crowd, we’re stuck with them.”

But that’s the point. They didn’t oust Rome. They accepted their baptisms. The one who denies the authority of the council is RCjr. If they had ousted Rome, they could no longer call them antichrist. They’d simply be another false religion along the lines of Swedenborgianism.

The idea that this massive misreading of the WCF is a result of being TR demonstrates an awful lot static in the actual transmission of the tradition.

Mark


From: “Rich Lusk”
Date: Fri Jan 2, 2004 1:35 pm
Subject: Re: [bibhorizon] Sproul Jr. on Auburn Avenue; NTW

Maybe I should add something else here. Those of us who “defend” NTW (and I agree that he needs no defense from peons like Horne and me) do so because we can use NTW as a springboard for defending a lot of other things. NTW is useful because he’s an outspoken preterist, he offers fresh BT insights into NT passages, he reads the Bible intertextually, he takes history and the “political” seriously, he has a high view of the sacraments and church, etc. In short, NTW helps us break free from the categories of scholastic, Enlightenmentish Calvinism. In that sense, he’s the ultimate anti-Gnostic theologian. Because he says these things in an unusually clear and provocative way, it’s helpful to hitch our cart to his and ride along. We have to get off the train at certain points, e.g., women in the priesthood, but the benefits outweight [sic] the costs. To this point, I think defending NTW has been a good strategy because so many people have had their eyes opened to things by reading his work with an open mind. People who have read a little NTW are far more likely to receive BHish kind of teaching than those who haven’t. In fact, as Mark has pointed out, a lot of stuff I gleaned from NTW I had already heard from Jim and Peter years earlier. But if the smear campaign against NTW is allowed to continue without challenge, a lot of people will never take the time to hear the good things he has to say — which are often precisely the things the Reformed world most needs to hear. I would say defending NTW is not an end in itself (though I suppose it is part of enforcing the 9th commandment), but really a means to a much larger end. Or, to put it another way, to this point, I’ve viewed defending NTW in Reformed circles as a way of being “against Christianity” and “for the church.” In time, I fully expect some other strategy to become more effective (maybe after Jan. ’05, when he’s had a chance to speak for himself to a Reformed audience).

RL


From: Douglas
Date: Fri Jan 2, 2004 2:36 pm
Subject: Re: [bibhorizon] Sproul Jr. on Auburn Avenue

BHians,

Rich, I think we agree also.

Couple random thoughts. Sproul jr. is good friends with Barnes, and, from what I understand, Barnes was squeezed out of Ligonier some time ago by the suits and haircuts. Sproul jr. is no longer the editor of Table Talk, as of this January — another squeeze play. There are wheels within wheels, just like what Ezekiel saw. Remember that loyalty to good friends is important even when you wouldn’t put it the way they do. That happens on both sides of this fracas, and I think it is happening here.

I am not talking about creating distance with someone like Wright on the basis of what might happen, I am talking about how fast and how cautiously we close the distance — and I do think we should close it. But we have to be careful, and not act like teenaged girls in 1968 about to get a glimpse of John Lennon. I have unfortunately seen some of that.

Tim, I agree that RCjr is nervous about us, including me. Shoot, I am nervous about us, especially me.

I agree that the RC situation is complex. But the men who are bending Trent every which way are worse than the TRs because what they are doing is profoundly dishonest. At least the TRs affirm as the truth what they believe to be the truth. I had an RC friend tell me that the infallibility of the pope simply meant that the pope had the authority to take certain things off the table for purposes of discussion. They could always be put back later. But that is not infallibility, that is authority. More, it is dishonest. And we have to remember that the TR situation is complex also. People are complex — that is one of the sins of party politics, in that it tries to simplify what cannot be simplified.

Also remember N.T. Wright is not just a detached academic, with a right to his own opinions. He is in ecclesiastical authority, and this means that he is in a position to ordain, discipline, whatever. I hope he stands firm with his stated opinions when the time of testing comes. It will come. And he has already missed something important on the issue of women’s ordination. What do we do, for example, when one of the good guys over there, one of us, runs afoul of the CoE on some issue like that?

Anyhow, enough for now.

Cordially,

Douglas Wilson

PS: Please remember that this is a “private list.”

Thank you.

46 comments:

Anonymous said...

I'm sorry this is off topic, but I am trying to find out who is on Christ Church's elder board and who their paid staff is. The men who I thought were Christ Church elders seem to be on Trinity's board.

Mark T. said...

The leadership for TRC is virtually indistinguishable from the Kult’s. Wilson started TRC in 2003 as an outlet for the 200 people who had a problem with him (mostly because of the casino debacle). This is why TRC meets about 200 yards away from the Kult on Sunday morning, and they start one half hour after the Kult begins their service. And to fill the immediate hole in leadership, Wilson appointed two (maybe three) elders from the Kult over TRC — Patch Blakey and Chris Schlect (Roy Atwood came on afterwards). Nothing changed. They still hold office as elders in the Kult, they simply oversee TRC.

Along these lines, for about a year now they’ve been talking about dissolving TRC, which means it’s just a matter of time before they act on it. Nevertheless, I understand they called a monkey boy named Toby Sumpter to replace Leithart, who never wanted the position in the first place (he freely admits in private conversations that he is not called to pastor and that he does not like it). I suspect that Toby’s incompetence will drive the lost sheep back to Wilson and when he’s down to 50 Wilson will pull the plug.

Off the top of my head, here are the names the Kult elders and their places of employment. I’m sure I missed one or two, but this is close:

The Kult:
Douglas Wilson
Doug Jones
Mike Lawyer
Matt Gray
Patch Blakey (part time)
Csaba Leidenfrost (part time)

NSA:
Chris Schlect
Ed Iverson
Roy Atwood
Ben Merkle
Gordon Wilson

ACCS:
Patch Blakey (part time)

Logos School:
Wes Struble
Jim Nance
Matt Whitling
Dale Courtney

Hopefully this answers your question. If not, let’s try it again.

Anonymous said...

Anything of a more recent vintage from these divines?

Mark T. said...

Negative, I understand that these “divines” ditched my sources some time ago. It really is a private “members only” club. I have received numerous private inquiries about Biblical Horizons (as well as the subjects of other posts), and so I encourage everyone to join the list, if you can. See if the leaders of the new Reformation let you into their cabal.

Anonymous said...

Thank you for your help. I was asked by a friend to look into Logos School as a model for a Christian school with which she is involved. I thought that it was a simple request, but it uncovered all this stuff as well.

Personally, I'm a little concerned with the scholarship behind the history materials Wilson's authored/co-authored through Veritas Press, given the perspectives and attribution problems revealed in the slavery booklet. I'm glad I don't have to make any decisions on this!

One more observation. After reading the Moscow 20/20 site and Wilson's site, I'm concerned for the citizens of Moscow. There seems to be some very strange people up there. Is it the water?

Mark T. said...

The truth about Logos School is subject for another blog. And by that I mean there is so much material to cover that it would require a dedicated site. Suffice to say that Logos is every bit as bankrupt as its founder. Mucho tax fraud as well. Logos, like NSA, Canon Press, and the ACCS, is designed to generate tax-free revenue for Wilson and his cohorts. But I’m sure your inquiry had other angles in mind.

Regarding Moscow, you have no idea how deep the wickedness runs in this town and it’s all centered round one man and his father. The 20/20 archives are a great place to begin acclimating yourself.

James Jordan said...

I notice that you have published comments made by me in a private forum, without permission. This is a violation of federal copyright law, and I advise you to remove this material immediately, or face the consequences. - James B. Jordan

Anonymous said...

Thanks for the update, but isn't there some legal concerns here about these posts pulled unauthorized from a private mailing list without permission? I am kind of concerned here.

Thoughts?

Chris

Mark T. said...

Chris,

Jordan only raised copyright concerns, which is separate from the issue you raised most likely because that’s a non-issue. Furthermore, I suspect that his understanding of copyright law is no better than his grasp of Colossians 3:8 — “But now ye also put off all these; anger, wrath, malice, blasphemy, filthy communication out of your mouth.”

Nevertheless, I have exceptional legal counsel and when he returns my call we will resolve this. But I know enough attorneys to know what Jordan’s attorney would say, that is, if he’s concerned for his client’s best interests:

“And how much do you think a jury will award a minister for copyright infringement when they see his potty mouth?”

Jordan: “I don’t care; it’s the principle of the matter!”

Attorney: “Okay, then let’s start with your principal — make that a $15,000 retainer. This will be a media circus and . . . .”

Anonymous said...

Plus, there's a tad of irony in a FV proponent crying about copyright infringement in the first place, if you know what I mean....

Mark T. said...

Anon, I hear thee.

Anonymous said...

Mark T thumped his bible and quoted Colossians 3:8 — "But now ye also put off all these; anger, wrath, malice, blasphemy, filthy communication out of your mouth." We wonder if he's not projecting... just a little? LOL

What kind of snake publishes private correspondence - private correspondence stolen by another snake who gave his word to hold said correspondence in confidentiality?

What kind of snake, indeed. A scripture-quoting snake, that's what kind. Hmmmm... where have we seen THAT before?

Mark T. said...

Anon,

Projecting what?

Your second paragraph is not true.

And the “Federal Visionists” answers your third question.

I am glad to be of service.

Thank you.

Anonymous said...

Projecting what? Why, your own anger, wrath, malice, blasphemy, filthy communication..." That's what.

Yes, the second paragraph is true. You or someone lied and agreed to not forward Biblical Horizon list correspondence, and then proceeded to violat that trust. No amount of sophistry or dissemblance can get around that fact.

And I refer to that scripture-quoting serpent who tempted Adam in the Garden and taunted Christ in the wilderness; who goes around representing himself as an angel of light. That's the snake you remind us of.

Mark T. said...

Monkey Boy,

I will not engage you anymore because you seem a little bit bent. Serpent, indeed. But I’m curious as to why you are so ashamed of your baptism?

Monkey Boy said...

You won't engage me anymore because when you're spewing venom it's difficult to insinuate that someone else is a snake... especially when someone calls you on it.

You won't engage me anymore because when you're dealing with ill-gotten goods it's awkward to maintain the moral high ground... especially when someone calls you on it.

You won't engage me anymore because when you're quoting scripture against other people while hiding behind a nom de plume it's problematic to accuse another of being ashamed of their baptism... especially when someone calls you on it.

Although you want to pretend otherwise, you're just like the Scott Clarks and the Andrew J Webbs of the world who like to engage in drive-bys and then run hide behind their Internet fences and no comment zones... except for the fact that you do them one better and hide behind a false identity to boot!

So, don't post this... don't engage me anymore... because either way, you know what you are.

cib said...

What kind of snake publishes private correspondence...[blah, blah, blah]

What kind of snakes sneak around privately while pretending everything with them is out in the open, there is no "Federal Vision movement," etc.?

Speaking of which, what's your name and to which church are you accountable? Are you holding yourself to the same standards the men you're defending?

Christopher Witmer said...

Mark T., whoever you are, the posters to the BH list quoted above do not have anything to be ashamed of. I have had private conversations like that myself more than once in the past, and I would be surprised if there was a Christian minister worth his salt who hasn't. However, unlike the BH participants concerned, you do have much to be ashamed of, and so does Andrew Webb. You two do this sort of thing out of "love"? -- Ha! Not that I expect either of you to be able to comprehend the extremely simple, basic Christian principles involved (Lev. 19:16; Prov. 6:19, 11:13, 16:27-28, 17:9, 18:8, 25:9-10, 26:20; 2 Thess. 3:11-14; 1 Tim. 5:13; 1 Pet. 4:15, and especially 3 John 1:9-10, which has got you men pegged). For your inability to understand these things, you are truly to be pitied. Nevertheless, may God deal with you righteously.
-- Christopher Witmer, member, Mitaka Evangelical Church (CREC)

Anonymous said...

If they were really concerned about privacy they'd have made it a closed forum. Yahoo gives that choice. Anyway, we don't know if one of their own, even one of the people quoted in that thread, released the material. They need to purge their ranks, like all good insurgents when they have a spy in their midst. I suggest something along the nature of the Stalinist show trials of the 1930s.

Anyway, methinks only email sent privately to you, and explicitly stated to be private and copyrighted - etc. - is off-limits.

Lawyers will tell you if you don't want your words made public don't publish emails to the internet.

The FVists are really just lazy conspirators.

Ron Smith, member, New Life PCA, La Mesa, CA said...

Monkey Boy and Witmer are right on, Mr. T. Taking you at your word in your bio that you are a Christian, please allow me encourage you as your brother in Christ to repent from this foolishness. Read John 17 and ask yourself if our Lord is pleased with all this.

Mark T. said...

Ron,

Yes, John 17, the unity chapter — “that they may be one, as we are.” I see, it all makes sense now. A cell group of clerics conspires to disrupt the church, as they carve their peers to pieces, behave this way because they really want unity.

Thanks for the encouragement, but you haven’t a clue about real life in Moscow.

John said...

Mark T,
I don't see what the issue is here. Never minding the fact that, as several have said here, you are a snake, and a dirty rotten one at that, I just don't get what the issue is. This conversation actually absolves, yet again, Wilson and others of various charges that have been levied against them.

God bless.
John Nicely
The River CRC (Redlands, CA)

Sean Gerety said...

I don't look at your blog for a couple of days and look at what I miss! Dr. Robbins told me about this post this morning and evidently it's getting a lot of attention (he's doing very well BTW and praise God - to the chagrin of the FV men I'm sure).

I confess I've always shied away from conspiracy theories, but this is no theory. Although, anyone who has read Paul Elliot's book already knows this is par for the course.

"And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove [expose] them.
For it is a shame even to speak of those things which are done of them in secret. But all things that are reproved are made manifest by the light [or, all things become visible when they are exposed by the light]: for whatsoever doth make manifest is light."

You've done a real service exposing these dogs, may the Lord continue to bless the work of Foedero Schism.

Mark T. said...

Sean,

We rejoice to hear of Dr. Robbins’ health; I was happy to see that he posted here not too long ago. (Way off subject, he and I share a mutual friend/acquaintance in Moscow.)

Interestingly, these guys all descend from Gary North’s family tree and that loon saw a conspiracy under every rock. How ironic that they have become the conspirators.

your anonymous fact checker said...

Mr. Mark,

Some of your information about Trinity Reformed Church is erroneous. Please correct it.

Mark T. said...

Monkey Boy,

I stand by my statements as “off the top of my head.” If you have something more accurate I welcome it, but given your past I suspect you would strain at a typo to swallow a slave. If that’s the case I recommend you go peel a banana.

Thank you.

William said...

The host of this blog has engaged in deplorable and dishonest actions by posting these emails. He has also, on numerous occasions, acted in a spirit of hate and nastiness towards others. All of this is to say that the best way to silence someone like this is to simply not read his blog. It is not like he really has anything of substance to offer and the only thing he really does is highlight further the party line mentality that exists in the various camps. Old news if you ask me.

Mark T. said...

Willie,

If my actions are deplorable and dishonest then what say ye of the BH yahoos’ actions?

William said...

My name is Bill (or William if you prefer -- or you can simply call me Mr. Hill).

I have no comment on their actions at this point since I couldn't get passed the irony of you calling them snakes when you, in fact, act like one when you engaged in this behavior.

What I am commenting on is your 9th commandment violation of spreading information that was not for public consumption. Tell me, did you speak with any of these men about these so called improprieties? Furthermore, even if what you are retelling is true (and not edited in any way which is impossible for anyone to know) what benefit to the Church does this offer?

If you think they are in sin then follow Matthew 18 and deal with it properly. What you have done is gossip and violated a commitment you have made to the owner of the email list that you joined under specific guidelines. Now either you personally took this information off the list or someone on the list forwarded the information to you for publication on your blog. Either way it is sin.

Mark T. said...

Mr. Hill,

Please accept my apology; I assumed you were yet one more anonymous monkey boy who was ashamed of his baptized name while he made anonymous accusations against me.

Citing Matthew 18 is a joke. As these men argued elsewhere, these sins were committed in public and therefore Matthew 18 does not apply. The same applies to speaking with them. What benefit is this to the Church? For one thing, it establishes many points that they have adamantly denied. For example, they have denied that they are a movement with an agenda. These emails suggest otherwise. They have denied that they use talking points. Again, these emails contradict this. They have affirmed that they are teachable. These emails certainly prove the opposite. In short, these emails confirm that the FVists are a factious sect with bad intentions.

Regarding gossip, you don’t know the meaning of the word, which probably accounts for your ignorance vis-à-vis the Ninth Commandment and a commitment you think I made. Please, if you’re opposed to gossip, then don’t bear tales, for as you said, it is sin.

Thank you.

William said...

I truly pity you...

Mark T. said...

In any other context I would take it as an insult, but you have demonstrated that your vocabulary is full of words you can’t define. I wish you well.

John Nicely said...

Mark,
Like I said in my last post, I don't get where there's any issue here. It would be helpful if you could establish 1a) where these guys have said the things you claim they did, 1b) what claims they were responding to (just to set the context), and 2) how this conversation shows that it wasn't true. I don't see, at present, anything of what you were saying. Remember that there are some of us who are newer to this conversation and don't have the benefit of having been embroiled in it from the beginning.

John Nicely
River CRC (Redlands, CA)

p.s., There is a severe twist of irony in you calling anonymous posters out on their not revealing their names when you are yourself unwilling to do so. Of course, there is a risk to you now that you've slandered a lot of people, and you can expect to be disciplined by your church for it, but it's better to be open and honest from the start, which would have restrained from saying things in the slanderous tone that you have.

Anonymous said...

To paraphrase Willie, counseling a rape victim:

I have no comment on their actions at this point since I couldn't get passed the irony of you calling them [rapists] when you, in fact, act like one when you engaged in this [extra-marital-sex].

Mark T. said...

John,

I have made it clear to everyone but you that I have no objection to anonymity except when monkey boys use it despite their Fearless Leader’s command. If you follow the argument, these monkey boys are ashamed of their baptized names. In this only do I commend you. Your shame lies in your patent dishonesty, your willful blindness, and your blind loyalty to Beelzeblog, which accounts for the first eight words of this comment.

Therefore, I will be happy to address your contentions but first you must clarify them with direct quotes because I have learned that monkey boys, like their master, have no capacity to make honest arguments without relying upon false witness, as you have already demonstrated. So, please, in the interest of honesty, cite you specific concerns with specific words and I will respond.

Thank you.

John Nicely said...

Mark T -
Fine, we can roll with that. While you pretend that our Fearless Leader is Doug Wilson, don't forget that the fearless leader of both of us is Christ. What does Christ say? It is sadly desperate that you mock some of us for being inconsistent with the one you take to be our leader (an incorrect assumption, since our head is Christ and not those who serve as his under-shepherds, and for that matter I'm not a member of the church Doug Wilson pastors, nor have I ever been), and yet you are inconsistent with your fearless leader, who you claim to be Christ. God doesn't respect anonymous testimony, so why are you making it and expecting us to listen? It seems you are at odds with your Lord.

Now, I'd like to see you show me this... 1) How am I being patently dishonest? Where have I said that I affirm and agree with the ideas presented by the Federal Vision, if they really are false? 2) How am I being willfully blind? By not accepting every single thing that comes to me (i.e., your words)? By discerning everything that everybody says? By not blindly taking your word at face value? 3) How am I blindly loyal to Doug Wilson? Sure, I have a link to his blog. You also happen to regularly link to Mr. Wilson's blog, and you don't seem to think that's inconsistent with also happening to not blindly follow Doug Wilson.

So your accusations are well-received but also well ignored, as you don't seem to have the presence of mind to think about this without assuming absolutely the worst about everyone.

Now, as for your request. I asked the following:
"Like I said in my last post, I don't get where there's any issue here. It would be helpful if you could establish 1a) where these guys have said the things you claim they did, 1b) what claims they were responding to (just to set the context), and 2) how this conversation shows that it wasn't true. I don't see, at present, anything of what you were saying. Remember that there are some of us who are newer to this conversation and don't have the benefit of having been embroiled in it from the beginning."

As you haven't done any of this, it is a little bit hard to point to anything that you've said. My contention is exactly this: Where are the connections? You don't make any, so I consequentially can't point to them. Of course, if you'd be so pleased as to grace me with the doing of this, I would then likely have something to actually disagree with (although there's no telling what the future holds).

God bless.
John Nicely
River CRC (Redlands, CA)

natamllc said...

Hi there folks!

I am curious and found my way in here from another's wonderful blog.

I'm Michael, that's my name, given at birth. I have no feathers but my son has four pigeons and feathers are found all around my place.

I wanted to quote one poster, hopefully he's reading this now?

the poster said: "Tell me, did you speak with any of these men about these so called improprieties? Furthermore, even if what you are retelling is true (and not edited in any way which is impossible for anyone to know) what benefit to the Church does this offer?"

I want to address a couple of concerns therein, but first, let me thump on the Bible from the Prophet who probably has a lot to say on these things in here:

Jer 17:5 Thus says the LORD: "Cursed is the man who trusts in man and makes flesh his strength, whose heart turns away from the LORD.
Jer 17:6 He is like a shrub in the desert, and shall not see any good come. He shall dwell in the parched places of the wilderness, in an uninhabited salt land.
Jer 17:7 "Blessed is the man who trusts in the LORD, whose trust is the LORD.
Jer 17:8 He is like a tree planted by water, that sends out its roots by the stream, and does not fear when heat comes, for its leaves remain green, and is not anxious in the year of drought, for it does not cease to bear fruit."
Jer 17:9 The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately sick; who can understand it?
Jer 17:10 "I the LORD search the heart and test the mind, to give every man according to his ways, according to the fruit of his deeds."

Yes and amen to that, if I might say so, "So"?

Poster, well just a humble observation about your words quoted above now.

God knows all about it. So it is quite possible God knows if Mark T. is telling the truth. I wouldn't be trusting him anyway! Why? Jeremiah said so, that's why.

Those who wrote those emails do too. Those who wrote those emails have some explaining to do and not to Mark T.

Here, we read books. We have looked at Douglas Wilson's mind some, his books, keeping in mind that Jeremiah has pointed out how deceitful Doug's mind and heart "really" are so we are guarded when reading his books. When we read books we want to gain some insight into fruit bearing in our daily lives as testimonies lived out to our wives and children and to the Public and Private school teachers and to the general and private public, we, the Elect, are called to be His reps. to/for, so I was slightly taken back when I read your words about "what benefit" this all has within the Church.

There, have I elevated myself enough for you?

It does seem a bit unseemly Mark T. to betray the confidence of another. What mysteries lie beneath the surface of all this? "hmmmmmm"

I, for one don't fault you. I don't fault James Jordan either. If this is the way he discovers Our Dear Lord's sufferings, ah, He too had Judas Iscariot in His inner circle, ah, an inner circle mind you not of His choosing, if you want to believe Our Dear Lord's Words when He said He did nothing but what He saw Our Heavenly Father do first. What? Put a traitor in the camp of those sinners! Yikes!!!

I digress a bit; Mark, how did He know to do what Our Heavenly Father was doing in selecting a traitor to keep His integrity in tack? After all, just think of the shame it would have caused the Holy Ghost if God, Our Heavenly Father, did not keep His prophetic Word about him and be found a liar? "hmmmmmm". Who would trust God at His Word, then?

Ok, back now to my points to the poster. Yes, God knows what's up with this deal. Yes, James Jordan should be ashamed to find out someone inside his secret society is an untrustworthy tramp, a fallen brother, perhaps? But, poster, trying to go along with you, how does that make Mark T. what you seem to imply him to be? Methinks Job is in order here:

Job 12:1 Then Job answered and said:
Job 12:2 "No doubt you are the people, and wisdom will die with you.
Job 12:3 But I have understanding as well as you; I am not inferior to you. Who does not know such things as these?


There is great benefit to me, a member of God's Holy Christian Church, blood washed and daily sanctified, wretch that I am, to know what is going on. After all, I am alive today too and hope to join up with all those who have gone on before us already, some day. It is my firm conviction and "hope".

Well, there, from a nobody novice who just might have bitten off more than one such as I am care to chew.

One final farewell verse to set a course for a Godly outcome to all this then, but when?:

1Ti 1:5 The aim of our charge is love that issues from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith.


Well then, me too!
When?

Michael

Andy Gilman said...

The absurd FVers try to present this as a "private conversation" which you have "illicitly" published. The reality is that some 200 people who paid to be on the BH list, most of whom did not participate in the libel and backbiting, were witnesses to it. The "private conversation" was apparently between a handful of FV leading lights, while a couple of hundred bystanders looked on. Jeff Meyers was running his potty mouth while he, in all likelihood, didn't even know who the other 200 "conversationalists" were.

Now that Meyers has been exposed on both the BH list and the Wrightsaid list (where he stated that the RCUS ministers were a "pen of swine"), I wonder if he realizes yet that he shouldn't write anything that he doesn't want the world to read?

Mark T. said...

John,

Once again you have demonstrated that you have the reading-comprehension level of chimpanzee hooked up to an intravenous wire dripping with Budweiser suds. So here’s the deal, if you ignore or distort my statements again, I will not respond to you because no monkey boy is worth my time unless they show a willingness to understand and learn. Therefore, please re-read our exchanges and notice the number of fabrications you made. This is typical of a monkey boy who lives in the land of DUMB but it is impossible for rational persons to communicate with. If you want to try it again, carefully thinking through each proposition sans distortion, then we may proceed. If not, then I am happy to bid you farewell that you serve the lord your Doug with all your might.

Thank you.

Mark T. said...

Michael,

You took 900 words to say . . . well, I’m not sure. Lay off the bird food or else you’ll tempt us to think you a bird brain.

Thank you.

Mark T. said...

Andy,

Someone commented above that the FVists are lazy conspirators. This is true, and you are exactly right. Meyers slammed Jr. for being in a fog when he has no idea what he says from one day to the next, or whose listening. “Private” conversations don’t take place on Yahoo and they know it. Furthermore, if I burn a man’s reputation to the ground in front of a reading audience (many of whom are complete strangers), I don’t remove my sin by saying, “Now, this is a secret between all of us.” I aggravate it. What a miserable lot of fools; they are completely lost and they don’t even know it.

William said...

You know, I am curious. Do you pray for these mem? I mean do you REALLY pray for them with your whole heart? Do you go before the Lord and beg him to work in their lives (since you think they apparently need it)? Are you that concerned with their well-being that you are interested in petitioning the Lord on their behalf? Do you spend as much energy praying for them as you do working to display their apparent sins on this blog?

Gus said...

Dear Brother,
Excellent and very revealing. As a former internet engineer (MCSE)[Microsoft Certified Systems Engineer), certified in internet and NT 4 technologies, and a former adjunct professor at DeVry College of Technology, Toronto, Ontario Canada I can tell you that Internet providers have been successfully sued by both private individuals and corporations for manipulating stock. They were sued to gain what were considered "private emails" so that civil and criminal proceedings might be begun against market manipulators. The present state of the law as it pertains to the internet and world wide web is this, THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A PRIVATE EMAIL. All emails by their very nature are equivalent to sending a postcard through the postal service. You want privacy, then set up an encrypted network via tcp/ip tunnelling, institute firewalls at both ends and use secured lines. THEN you can say PRIVATE and it mean something. I thought Christians were supposed to obey the civil magistrate? Rom 13. Notice you were accused of a criminal/civil breach--not a spiritual one. In other words you were threatened with sanctions for breaking the law, not for sinning. Thats the first point of interest. So to all the Internet naive out there who do not know a bit from a byte and think a CD tray is for a coffee cup--stop showing your ignorance. There may have been sin, but not crime.

Secondly, as one of the last comments noted you dont use gutter talk in front of 200 observers. Private does not mean "between me and you and 198 others". That's larger than most churches.

Thirdly, these men have made public comments that are CONTRADICTED by their private behaviour--their hypocrisy is being revealed. Its a filthy job to expose such men, but I notice that Paul had no problem with mentioning Hymenaeus, Philetus, and Alexander. I guess he was guilty of slander too.

Finally, as an individual who was victim of a similar conspiracy some 14 years ago I understand EXACTLY what is going on. I was excommunicated, without trial, without notice, without defense, without opportunity to protest; I was not invited to presbytery meetings where my character was assassinated, and my ruling elder repented and apologized for participating in a plot to have me deposed. A SECRET plot. I thank God for the one friend in this REFORMED denomination who "slandered" the conspirators by warning me what was up. They crucified him for it, and since then, he has become so disgusted by his experience, he has left the ministry. I had 3 nervous breakdowns, and could not afford to feed my family. The leaders of this Reformed Presbyterian denomination called black brothers "nigger" in private, spoke of their sympathy for the Adolph Hitler, believed that integration was wrong, and publicly held to the Westminster Standards, all the while watching pornography at a General Assembly. Am I a slanderer? I wish to God (I am not swearing) that somebody had "slandered" them to me, and had warned me about them. I witnessed all of this--and beside that, tampering with the federal mail (to surreptiously get a writ of excommunication into the hands of a teaching elder)--which is a felony. I would have loved to have been warned with some "slander".

So, I thank God, that I am not in a local church, because if the kind of thinking here is indicative of the general level of critical thinking among "Reformed" churches, then I would just be ground up and spit out again. Besides that I live in Ontario, where you are Reformed if you ordain women, and believe the Bible is full of errors.

Keep up the good work.

Gus

Mark T. said...

William,

We are working from entirely different paradigms. Whereas you reserve the right to impugn my character and insult me, you apparently expect me to adopt a medieval lifestyle of fasting and prayer for the men who have declared in public that they know (ginosko, ironic, eh?) the Westminster divines’ original intents while they scheme in private for ways to advance their hate.

Double standard aside, you have no idea how much I have prayed for these men and it is none of your business. However, I will tell you that you are witnessing the answer to my prayers. Furthermore, I will speculate that since you came back for more, the problem here is that you lack the wherewithal to process the Federal Visionists’ obvious hypocrisy.

So let’s turn the tables and apply your high standards that you expect of me to the leaders of the new Reformation: Did they pray the men that they bashed before they ripped them? I mean did they REALLY pray for them with their whole heart? Did they go before the Lord and beg him to work in their lives since they think them all so lost? Are they that concerned with their well-being that they are interested in petitioning the Lord on their behalf? Do they spend as much energy praying for them as they do working to ruin their reputations on their private gossip group?

You see, William, it doesn’t work, does it? And the reason it doesn’t work is because as much as you want to make ME the issue, you still cannot account for the Federal Visionists’ brazen hypocrisy. Even worse, you know, as I know, that there are no mitigating circumstances here — only aggravating. The Federal Visionists committed these sins with the assumed understanding that no one was watching and that God’s rules didn’t apply. And they happily granted one another these assumptions — this agreed-upon covenant — because they are flaming hypocrites. “Go in, and behold the wicked abominations that they do here.” (Ezek 8:9)

Now connect the next dot: Many of these men hold offices requiring them to rule over God’s people, and since they are this abusive and duplicitous in real life, then how does their iniquity manifest itself in their ministries and how does it affect the daily lives of their sheep? When you muster the courage to ask this question, you will begin to see the real issue.

Anonymous said...

mate,
I'm from Australia, so in a certain sense I'm totally not involved in this. These guys may well be horrible heritics, leading their churches astray, leading terrible hypocritical lives, but that it hardly an excuse for stealing their correspondence and tearing into them. Can you imagine Jesus standing before the Father with dead bodies lying around, and Jesus pouting and saying, "they started it!". Trust your Lord enough to calm down and humbly obey him. He has the church in his hands, and he will bring all things to account...so tremble.. for your enemies, and for yourself

Mark T. said...

Mate,

Methinks you a bit confused. No one stole anything and I’m not sure why you would say that. But I can imagine the Lord Jesus exposing hypocrisy without apology.