Biblical Horizons

Here’s some more information about the Biblical Horizons yahoo group, taken straight from the website’s front page.

Group Information
Members: 222
Category: Adult
Founded: Jan 23, 2001
Language: English

Group Settings

• Membership requires approval
• Messages do not require approval
• All members can post messages
• Email attachments are permitted
• Members cannot hide email address
• Listed in directory

Description
I. BH PURPOSE STATEMENT

1. Biblical Horizons’s list is a restricted email forum that exists to foster informal discussions on matters of biblical and theological issues from a Reformed theological perspective. Many of us on the list are good friends and we will often speculate freely without fear of overbearing chastisement from each other. BH exists for intramural discussions among those who share certain biblical and theological convictions. BH welcomes discussions of these and any well-considered Biblical themes, but if you disagree with our common assumptions, then as our guest we hope you will respond to our hospitality with your respect for our ideas. (You may be asked to find another forum if you cannot refrain from argumentative disputation.)


2. You must be a subscriber to Biblical Horizon’s newsletter to join this list! We will cleanse the list of those whose subscription is not current. To subscribe send your name and address to
   
   

   Biblical Horizons
   P.O. Box 1096
   Niceville, Florida 32588

   
   or call 850-897-5299. You may also email James B. Jordan (jbjordan4@cox.net) with your request. We will extend a free six-month trial subscription to anyone who asks to be on the mailing list. After that, you should make an appropriate donation to continue to receive the mailings. Only those who have made financial donations are eligible to join the email list.

There are only two differences between Biblical Horizons and a similar yahoo discussion group, the BB Warfield list, which I frequent but am not a member:

1. Biblical Horizons requires approval for membership but does not require approval for messages, and
2. BB Warfield does not require approval for membership but does require approval for messages.
   

And since Biblical Horizons requires approval for membership, their archives are closed to the general public, unlike BB Warfield.

This brings me to another point that I’ve raised in the past. If I was a prosecutor for the PCA in its upcoming trial of Louisiana Presbytery, I would immediately apply to join Biblical Horizons so that I could mine the archives for posts written by the accused, because those archives work exactly the same way as Warfield’s (though I suspect if they let a prosecutor in they would see an immediate purge). The point is that these clowns say one thing in public and another in private.

Thank you.

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.

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.


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.


3. 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.

Ethically and Morally

From the Biblical Horizons “members only” email list:

May 29, 2003
The Bunny wrote:

Men,

I’m reading through William H. Willimon’s new book Pastor: The Theology and Practice of Ordained Ministry (Abingdon, 2002). So for it’s okay. But I’m repeatedly irked by positive references to all sorts of quasi-orthodox “pastors.” Martin Luther King, Jr., for example. What to do with the guy? I have a hard time taking him seriously. Isn’t there something to the accusations of womanizing and plagiarism (for his doctorate)? Are there any good sources for learning more about him?

PB

check out Ralph Abernathy’s The Walls Came Tumbling Down for confirmation of King’s promiscuity (Abernathy is an honorable man and a Christian, he admired King very much but acknowledged what everyone around him knew. His womanizing was well known among his entourage)

Theodore Pappas is the one who did the work exposing the details on King’s doctorate, his articles first appeared in Chronicles magazine (they may be in the archives on the Chronicles web site). Pappas’ findings have not been refuted though Boston University did try to justify its action in granting the doctorate in light of the revelations.

Whatever you may think of his politics, M.L. King was a mess ethically and morally.

sw [Steve Wilkins]

Steve Wilkins, call your office.

Thank you.

Speaking of Linden

On January 27, 2003, Steven Machen Wilkins posted this little nugget on the “members only” Biblical Horizons email list, and I think it’s important for the Reformed church to see that the Federal Visionists have had the martyr-victim complex for over five years, which means that their strong delusion is deeply embedded. This email also demonstrates that they have never had any intention of moving off their doctrine, no matter what anyone says. Notice that it’s dated before the Knox Colloquium when everyone was supposed to get on the same page. But here you see Wilkins kicking against goads long before the FV reached its present crisis.

By the way, Biblical Horizons is a Yahoo Group, and in this case I believe the word “yahoo” is especially fitting. Steven Machen Wilkins wrote:

Y’all, David Linden has written requesting permission to make transcripts of our messages at the Pastors Conference. He is doing it, of course, to continue his war against John B. I am weary with him playing the role of the “friendly assassin” so I wonder if something like this (answering him as he likes to do to others) would put him back on his heels (haven’t sent it yet, just having fun thinking about doing it):

Dear Mr. Linden,

Thank you for requesting permission to transcribe the messages given at our most recent Pastors Conference. Before we respond I am compelled to raise a matter of concern that has been brought to our attention regarding your own views on the nature of faith. I do this with the greatest reluctance, having become somewhat acquainted with the painful nature of theological disputes among honored brethren.

I am sure, however, that you are able to sympathize with our concern over being charged with heresy by men who themselves seem to hold various aberrant views (if not heretical views) on other issues. We have received denunciations from a man who has publicly (in print) departed from the orthodox faith regarding the nature of Christ (he seems clearly to hold what appear to be distinctly Nestorian views of Christ’s nature). This, as I’m sure you can see, is of great concern to us.

What is of greater concern is that these men who hold these heterodox views do not seem to receive the attention from others that you have focused upon the views of one of our speakers. Indeed, it has been our impression that not even you have sought to bring any attention to this man’s views at all (though they are patently heretical according to the declaration of the historic Christian Church). If we are mistaken here, we would be most thankful to be corrected.

This has led us to be somewhat concerned over your own motives as well as your views. Indeed an article you have posted on the internet regarding the nature of faith (“Justification by Faith Alone”) has only made us even more concerned. It does appear to be a rather serious departure from your own confessional position (specifically Belgic Confession Article 22) and taken on its face, we would be forced to conclude that you stand in rather serious violation of your subscription vows as an elder. We certainly do not want to be hasty in bringing charges against you publicly, but it does seem to us at least, that your views as stated, are a rather serious departure from the historic Reformed understanding of faith. Having been the victim of what appears to be an intentional unwillingness to try to understand our position, we want to give you the opportunity of clarifying your views before we make any determination over your orthodoxy. Furthermore, since we are very concerned to defend the truth as it has been “once for all delivered to the saints” we do want to be careful (as I’m sure you can understand) about those with whom we are dealing in these matters.

Historically heretics have led the way in charging others with heresy (and here I must be careful to say that we are emphatically *not* calling you a heretic, but you do understand, I’m sure, our concern on this point). Because of this reality, we have become much more cautious about allowing men to use material who themselves may be trying to deflect attention from their own heterodox views by carelessly charging other men with heresy. We are not saying that you are doing this, and I certainly don’t want to impute such evil motives to you, but you must understand given your apparent departure from the historic Reformed faith at the point above mentioned, why your motives have come into question. Your views have raised some serious concerns among us here as I’m sure you can understand. This concern has been confirmed by others (some of whom are in your own confederation) but we do not want to act on the opinions of others regarding your views — we would rather have your own words and make our judgments based solely upon the explanation you give us.

Thus, if you would be so kind as to provide us with a more detailed explanation of your views regarding the nature of faith, it would be most helpful to us. We don’t want to be guilty of twisting your words, even words you have apparently carefully crafted, to mean something you don’t intend. Thus, I hope our intentions are clear: Please provide us with some detailed exegetical and historic theological rationale for the distinction you are making between “saving faith” and “justifying faith” so that we can be assured that you are indeed orthodox on this most fundamental point. Errors on such a fundamental issue as the nature of the faith that justifies can certainly be among the most serious errors of all — endangering the souls of millions. Further, as you will surely understand, we don’t want to be assisting anyone who is a latent antinomian or one who is seeking to spread confusion in the church at large on such a foundational matter — and I’m sure you can fully sympathize with our position.

Thank you very much for your kind consideration of our request. As soon as we receive this documentation and a thorough explanation of your position so that our own minds can be brought some ease over the disturbing questions your paper has raised among us, be assured that we will give your request serious consideration.

Warmly in the defense of the faith,

Steve Wilkins

Thank you.

Watch out for snakes, Lane

Here is an exchange from the comments section of Green Baggins, on the post where Lane announced his appointment to the prosecution in the Louisiana Presbytery case.

Douglas Wilson wrote,

Lane, this is what the Lord requires of you in this: do justice, love mercy, and walk with humility. You are stepping into a highly charged political situation, and so I charge you as a minister of Jesus Christ to recoil from all political expediency as though it were a poisonous snake, which it most certainly is. You have already demonstrated a clear desire to stay out of the pettiness of much of this debate on this blog, and where you are headed the pressure to give way to that kind of thing will be far, far greater. As you love the Lord Jesus, as you love the PCA, and as you love your own soul, recognize that what is right and what the PCA is positioned to get away with in this prosecution are two different things.

As far as our discussion is concerned, I am happy to wait. And I will be praying for you.

And I commented,

I for one am happy that Douglas Wilson has not contributed in any way to the “highly charged political situation,” because his comment would have pushed hypocrisy to the limits if this had been the case.

Furthermore, I’m really curious on what authority Wilson would “charge [Lane] as a minister of Jesus Christ to recoil from all political expediency as though it were a poisonous snake.” Who ordained him?

However, I am somewhat puzzled at his comment distinguishing between “what is right and what the PCA is positioned to get away with in this prosecution,” because it assumes that his interpretation of events, which ignores the facts and bears no connection to reality, is in fact legitimate. Either that or he’s still miffed that no one from the PCA has debated him before presbyterian polity sent this thing to trial.

Here I want to follow up this exchange by citing this example of someone doing everything in his power to keep this situation from becoming a “highly charged political situation.” It’s a post called “That He’d Been In His Bunk Below,” written by the leader of the Federal Vision movement. Please note three things.

First, the “Reformed News” website is a FV friendly site managed by Jon Barlow. Second, this post represents the only place (that I could find) where the writer addressed Sam Duncan’s role in this matter. And third, the referenced “list serve” is Biblical Horizons, a “members only” club where FVists speak the abundance of their hearts. A prosecutor would be well advised to subpoena all emails written by the accused on the listserv cited in this post.

Finally, Wilson’s use of the word “snake” in his so-called exhortation is ironic. Please read this post to know the truth about reptiles in the Church. No doubt Wilson is an authority on this subject.

Thank you.

Another Glimpse Inside the War Room

Last week I mentioned the Biblical Horizons group — a private Yahoo group for the Federal Visionist sect to say what’s really on their minds. Here’s a self-explanatory email exchange between Mark Horne and Douglas Wilson, but I want to point out that whenever Wilson says he’ll run it past the elders, he is really saying “no.” They exist as empty holes in space that nod their heads up and down whenever the Little Man Behind the Curtain postulates one of his brilliant ideas or to provide cover for him when he needs a plausible excuse, which ever is more convenient. And in this case, Wilson had no interest in releasing the correspondence between Christ Church and Illiana Presbytery because it was too embarrassing to the Kirk. But just in case Mark Horne is still interested, this website has all of the relevant documentation necessary to know exactly what happened when Christ Church helped Burk Shade split a PCA church and then “vindicated” him after the PCA deposed him.

At 09:37 PM, on February 23, 2003, you wrote:

Since the sons of Belial and their victims are beginning to cite the Illiana case as a triumph over the false Gospel of Norman Shepherd, I respectfully request of Doug Wilson, Burke Shade, and all other CRE members on the list that they consider web-publishing their correspondance [sic] with Illiana presbytery and relevant data.

Mark Horne

February 24, 2003
Mark,

I will bring it up to our session this next Thursday morning. Thanks for the heads up.

Douglas

Thank you.

The War Room

The Federal Vision sectarians have a private email list called Biblical Horizons, which operates as a “members only” war-room club for the members to regularly let their hair down and say what they really think and what they really believe. All of the usual suspects are on the list — Wilson, Leithart, Wilkins, Meyers, Horne, Jordan, Barlow, Shade, etc., and if it’s at all possible I encourage the opponents of Federal Vision to join this list and see what they say about you behind your backs. In fact, the Inquisition that Jeffrey Meyers loathes so much would do well to subpoena some of these emails — it would probably save the trouble of cleaning up all those entrails scattered on the floor of the Star Chamber. Get it straight from the heretics’ mouths.

Here is a post that Douglas Wilson wrote a few years ago. Please note his use of the phrase “principles of war.” This is not a casual or accidental reference; he is dead serious. This is how he conducts all of his campaigns — through the principles of war — and he has systematically advanced the Federal Vision according to the rules laid down by Sun Tzu and Niccolò Machiavelli. And his favorite principle is deception.

January 27, 2003

Gentlemen,

Sorry about filling up everyone’s box. I know I am the new kid here, and shouldn’t be doing this, but the exigencies of the case demand it. Actually, come to think of it, Burke told me that new kids had to post at least ten times daily.

Just a few brief comments about what I am seeking to do with the series of posts.

1. The most important thing in this fracas is the naming. By this I do not mean calling names, but naming in the biblical sense. Jesus was not calling the Pharisees names, He named them. And two thousand years later, His naming stands.


2. Another important thing is to refrain from fighting their fire with their fire. In other words, orthodusty loves prebyterial machinery, and knows where all the levers under the desk are. We must fight this primarily with word and sacrament. That word includes naming, and see above.


3. I also believe it is important in every conflict to observe the principles of war. In this case it is pursuit, but there are many other principles and factors to keep in mind as well. Strategic thinking is not the same thing as tactical thinking. Jim’s post on the big picture was important in this respect.

Cordially,

Douglas