Wednesday, January 2, 2008

NB

“He who hates, disguises it with his lips,
And lays up deceit within himself;
When he speaks kindly, do not believe him,
For there are seven abominations in his heart;
Though his hatred is covered by deceit,
His wickedness will be revealed before the assembly.”
— Proverbs 26:24–26

I want everyone to notice this. All of the men who contributed to my post “Bag o’ Snakes” should be ashamed of themselves — every one of them. They should be ashamed that as so-called pastors of God’s sheep and leaders in their respective congregations they willingly participated in an orgy of gossip, backstabbing, and vituperation. They should be ashamed for plotting behind the backs of the brethren; they should be thoroughly embarrassed that they connived to poison the Church; they should hide their faces in humiliation for joining hands in such ungodliness. But as the prophet asked, and answered, “Were they ashamed when they had committed abomination? nay, they were not at all ashamed, neither could they blush” (Jer. 8:12).

And why can’t they blush? — because in their minds this malicious bender didn’t involve wrongdoing since it took place in their private “members only” club where they agreed to commit sin with impunity. The argument goes like this: Sin isn’t sin if everyone agrees to commit sin. Makes sense to me. This also explains why the FVists won’t stop. Men who cannot discern the difference between righteousness and iniquity have no point of reference for anyone to appeal to. St. Paul put it this way: “Now the Spirit expressly says that in latter times some will depart from the faith, giving heed to deceiving spirits and doctrines of demons, speaking lies in hypocrisy, having their own conscience seared with a hot iron” (1 Tim. 4:1, 2).

Also, please note Beelzeblog’s response to this. As the Fearless Leader of the new Reformation, he did not correct or admonish his fellow Reformers for their sin. He didn’t say, “Now, now, brothers, spiteful tongues cannot usher in the new Reformation, and we should not mix our new wine with the vinegar of contempt. Let us trust God that he will open the eyes of our Reformed brethren to our novel understanding of the Westminster divines’ original intent.” Rather, he seized the opportunity to unify the gang behind one message of solidarity while simultaneously maintaining an open bridge to RC Jr., which he eventually exploited to his own ends (padding the CREC) after the RPCGA lawfully removed the St. Peter’s Four from the ministry.

Notice also how the FVists have trained their disciples to respond. Look at this comment from a loyalist or, more likely, from an FVist:

Anonymous has left a new comment on your post “Bag o’ Snakes”:

You are in violation of USC tile 17 $106 and $106A. If I were the authors of these email’s, i would be talking to a lawyer now.

Good luck.

Well, Anon, at least you’re consistent: when in doubt, retaliate. For the sake of argument, however, let’s follow Anon’s counsel to its logical conclusion. If I understand him correctly, he believes that the leaders of the new Reformation should file a class action lawsuit against me for publishing their own words to expose their little cabal. This is beautiful. It’s also an efficient means of reformation. “Ecclesia reformata, semper suing.”

And as I’m writing, James Jordan just posted this comment:

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

I can see it now:

Question: “Dr. Jordan, how did my client’s actions damage you?”

Answer: “Your client damaged me because I didn’t want the general public to know that I am a bitter, greedy, foul-mouthed, collar-wearing scoundrel.”

That should be worth a huge award, and all that time in court should pay dividends as well. The media would have a First Amendment field day and my hits would soar through the roof (or “New Sky”). Everyone — the whole world — would get a glimpse of the new Reformers’ hearts, which, if you think about it, is very postmillennial.

But fair enough. I’ll call my attorney. If I have violated the law (which I doubt) I shall remove Jordan’s copyrighted material from the post and apologize to him. Until then, however, I think it’s important for everyone to see the stinking rats behind the fridge.

Thank you.

9 comments:

Dave Hodges said...

I really don't have a dog in this fight at all, and I doubt you're going to allow this comment through your rigorous moderation filter, so I'll just speak to you plainly.

Posts like this one (and, more to the point, blogs like this one) give far more credence to the Federal Vision movement than they do discredit it. You're an anonymous poster, obviously personally involved with at least one Federal Vision pastor, with an ax to grind about many of the issues, but your personal experiences are overlapped by your doctrinal objections and that renders your perspective fuzzy - to say the very least.

Now I don't have too much respect for any Protestant position on anything (not like there is a such thing as a singular "Protestant position" on any issue whatsoever), but the Federal Vision pastors are at least trying to deal with the Scriptures and the Confessions honestly. And they are willing to discuss things in open fora. Protestants like you are just funny. I mean Protestants never had any dogma to begin with - why should they start now? And why should it be over the issues that you decide are important? Hearing you write about those who disagree with you reveals what an inept and irrelevant religion you actually have.

So keep on a-blogging. Maybe one day the Reformed world will wise up and listen to Your Holiness--er, Mr T and make dogmatic infallible pronouncements against all positions deemed by you to be anathema.

Mark T. said...

Dave,

You are very perceptive, at least in your own mind.

Thank you.

cib said...

Now I don't have too much respect for any Protestant position on anything (not like there is a such thing as a singular "Protestant position" on any issue whatsoever), but the Federal Vision pastors are at least trying to deal with the Scriptures and the Confessions honestly.

I have to say, this is just too much coming from a Roman Catholic.

They're hardly dealing honestly. They have to twist all around to get their reading of Scripture to match up with the Reformed Confessions. And when it doesn't, they say what they're teaching is simply "beside" those Confessions. And that's because they aren't dealing honestly with Scripture.

Neither does Rome, for that matter.

Anonymous said...

Protestants never had any what?

So why were they burned at the stake?

The five solas are anathema to the Beast system which still has in bondage and darkness a very large number of self-identified Christians to this day, and the fear of apostolic biblical doctrine continues as one can see in the very attempt of Federal Visionists to defile that doctrine from the inside this very day.

Dave Hodges, you say on your site you have an interest in church history. May I suggest expanding your horizons and looking into J. A. Wylie's History of Protestantism.

Dave Hodges said...

Cib said: "They have to twist all around to get their reading of Scripture to match up with the Reformed Confessions."

That's kind of my point. The Scriptures clash very heavily with the Reformed Confessions, and they are at least willing to admit that there is a disconnect. The opponents of the FV just throw away the Scriptures as unimportant and rely exclusively on the confessions. Passages that contradict the confessions, either explicitly or implicitly, are just ignored.

Anonymous said: "Protestants never had any what? So why were they burned at the stake?"

They never had any dogma, nor any basis for the formation of dogma. Still don't. But that doesn't mean that they didn't have false teachings. Dogma and belief are not the same thing.

"The five solas are anathema to the Beast system which still has in bondage and darkness a very large number of self-identified Christians to this day"

The "five solas" are not all anathema. Really only two of them are (the other three are affirmed by the Catholic Church in numerous places), and it's quite obvious why they are. Sola fide, never explicitly affirmed anywhere in Scripture, is explicitly denied in James II. This is one of those passages that get ignored and twisted to no end by those of your ilk - it's rather entertaining to watch this, actually.

Sola Scriptura is also a teaching that is never found in Scripture. Your entire belief system is based on these two absurd propositions, neither of which founded in Scripture, and neither of which has any basis in the historical teachings of the Church. Your religion has the same level of credibility as say the Jehovah's Witnesses or Mormonism. Both came along, insisting that the whole world was all wrong before the invention of their religion, and holding up novel teachings alongside expurgated or altered Scriptures. Why should I believe the Calvinists, Lutherans, Anglicans, and Wesleyans, and then reject the Arians, Sabellians, Marcionites, and Nestorians?

"and the fear of apostolic biblical doctrine continues as one can see in the very attempt of Federal Visionists to defile that doctrine from the inside this very day."

The Westminster Confession of Faith is "apostolic"? Then how come the Apostles never taught any of their disciples the teachings of that confession? Why can we find none of those teachings anywhere in the history of the Church until the seventeenth century? I guess the Apostles must have been really crumby teachers.

"Dave Hodges, you say on your site you have an interest in church history. May I suggest expanding your horizons and looking into J. A. Wylie's History of Protestantism."

Yes, Church history does interest me. And although the history of hereticks does too, it is not as much of an interest. Nevertheless, I will look into Wylie's book regarding the history of the Protestant heresies.

Anonymous said...

Dave, you have the spiritual pride of a young Mormon. And you have to ignore about as much actual real life history as Mormons do to hold your beliefs. For instance, to say the Puritans, Bible-believing, history-making in God-glorifying ways, many of whom founded the country you live freely in to worship as you please, were heretics while the cankerous Popes and clerics of Rome were doing everything in their tyrannical, worldly power to torture and murder them are held to be, by you, the real Christians is a sign of a deluded soul. The Kingdom of Satan casts illusion and delusion over its inmates. Read the Word of God in the fear of God, and not the fear, reverence of man. It will set you straight, if you are able to be set straight, by God's grace.

Dave Hodges said...

"...is a sign of a deluded soul."

Or possibly the sign of somebody who knows how to distinguish the validity of the Sacraments apart from the piety of the minister thereof.

"It will set you straight, if you are able to be set straight, by God's grace."

I have read the Bible; all of it. And after doing so, I became Catholic.

You want to talk about spiritual arrogance? What about the guy who says, "Hey you, read the Bible and if you don't come to the same conclusions I did, then you're beyond all hope."

cib said...

That's kind of my point. The Scriptures clash very heavily with the Reformed Confessions, and they are at least willing to admit that there is a disconnect. The opponents of the FV just throw away the Scriptures as unimportant and rely exclusively on the confessions. Passages that contradict the confessions, either explicitly or implicitly, are just ignored.

I can hardly believe you've actually followed the controversy with nonsense like this. Or else you've been reading the FV side next to exclusively. The fact of the matter is that, for the most part, the exegitical problems were hashed out centuries ago. FV is only resurrecting chestnuts once claims only by Romanists and Arminians. Whoop-de-doo.

anonymous8 said...

>I have read the Bible; all of it. And after doing so, I became Catholic.

But you know something, Dave, having read some of your exchanges on your blog you are one of those Protestant converts to Rome that brings a good percentage of your Protestant attitude and understanding along with you and proceeds to redecorate the interior of the Vatican here and there with it.. I'm sure Rome is accepting pretty much anybody at this point, but you might want to think about registering as an independent for awhile until you really feel comfortable in one camp or the other.