Freshly Squeezed

Alright. I admit it. A couple of weeks ago when I wrote that Mark Horne has the IQ of a banana peel, I stole the line from Mike Ditka.

Back in the ’80s, when the Chicago Bears were coached by Iron Mike Ditka, they enjoyed a competitive rivalry with the Washington Redskins, who shored their defensive line with a player named Dexter Manly, a man gifted with exceptional football skills but limited education. The two men occasionally bantered in the media and one time Dexter made some rather aggressive comments about his bad intentions for Chicago’s QB. When the press asked Ditka for a response, he quipped “Dexter Manly has the IQ of a grapefruit.” And when Dexter heard about it, he replied, “Which kind — fresh or squeezed?” And he was serious. Of course, anyone with an IQ greater than Dexter’s realized that, unbeknownst to him, he made Ditka’s point better than Iron Mike himself.

So I lifted the line from Ditka with attribution. I wouldn’t say my offense rises to the level of Steven “Machen” Wilkins’ serial plagiarizing; heck, Ditka didn’t even put it in print, forcing me to recreate the paragraph above from memory. But you get the point.

This brings me back to Mark Horne. He honored April Fools’ Day by posting a comment on Green Baggins that dropped my jaw. The context of the quote was his response to Pastor Lane’s latest installment in his ongoing review of A Faith That Is Never Alone. (By the way, I think the biggest public loser in the Federal Vision controversy is P. Andrew Sandlin. First, the CREC confederates ratified the Fearless Leader’s usurpation of his church’s leadership, then a year later he edited a book that he dedicated to Norm Shepherd (page 3) where Lane caught Shepherd in a Wilson-faced lie. Even worse, no one associated with the book, which appears to be about a grand total of 9 souls plus or minus 3, corrected Lane — they let the lie stand. Sandlin is a talented writer who oftentimes has insightful contributions and I’m sorry to see him continually get shafted by the FV clowns. But I digress.)

The point of my Iron Mike anecdote was to illustrate that some people won’t ever get it, even when it stares them in the face. Mark Horne, for example, blew an incoherent three-point rant at Pastor Lane, which concluded:

Plainly, if your comments are regarded as intelligent criticism, then we have a whole subculture in the PCA who are theologically incompetent and given to making railing accusations against those who are more intelligent and faithful than they are. Pretty tragic.

And suddenly Mark Horne makes Dexter Manly look like genius — fresh or squeezed. He blows as often as the Fearless Leader but with neither the deceptive flair nor the cunning deceit (yes, Mark, I was redundant on purpose). He just blows, like a foghorn sounding for ears to pierce, unaware that his barge has already shipwrecked and his soul is in imminent peril.

Ironically, Horne got it right, however, as usual he misapplied his conclusion. In the words of one critic: “Self-awareness level: Minus zero.” Or as Horne said, “Pretty tragic.”

Thank you.

The End Thereof

Last weekend a dispute erupted over some of Pastor Lane Keister’s comments about Doug Wilson’s doctrinal orthodoxy. Personally, I don’t agree with any judgment that affirms Wilson is a Christian, orthodox or not, but I know that other men do not see with my eyes and they must judge according to the light that God has given them. Nevertheless, I want to consider Pastor Lane’s comments from another angle, by comparing them to statements made by other leaders during this controversy.

For example, in January 2007, Dr. Scott Clark posted an excellent essay on his blog, which included this paragraph:

The bottom line is that I do not believe that I misunderstand Doug. Doug’s on a journey. He was an Arminian. Then he moved into the Reformed orbit. I think he signed the Cambridge Declaration. Now he’s passing through the outer fringes of Reformed Christianity toward another orbit. He’s a talented and articulate fellow and I guess he’ll take some folk with him. My goal is to try to help folks see clearly what’s happening and maybe to keep a few of them from following him to whatever star he’s heading. (“(Reformed) Christianity and (Quasi-Reformed) Revisionism”)

Please notice these three points:

1. Doug’s on a journey.


2. He’s a talented and articulate fellow.


3. He’ll take some folk with him.

Dr. Clark is correct. Wilson is on a journey (from Arminianism to the outer fringes to Guyana and beyond); he is talented and articulate; and he plans to shipwreck as many souls as possible. But notice also that Dr. Clark didn’t pick a fight with Wilson. Indeed, if I read this post correctly, this was his adieu to the Fearless Leader and the Federal Visionists. Please take the time to read it because he makes a strong case for his refusal to engage them any further and, likewise, for warning others against following them.

This takes us to a statement made by Dr. John Piper during a recent interview:

Dr. Piper in your defense of the gospel against N.T. Wright have you found Federal Vision theology of Doug Wilson to be another gospel?

[John] P[iper]: No. No, that’s easy. Doug Wilson doesn’t teach a false gospel. I don’t think N.T. Wright teaches a false gospel, just a confusing gospel. Doug Wilson is incredibly bright, but he has people around him who are dumb. I think Doug Wilson is more consistent than some of his followers are. But I am concerned about the trajectory. (“Text and Context Conference: Q & A Session with John Piper, Matt Chandler, and Mark Driscoll”)

This is an interesting answer and there is much more here than meets the eye. First, however, please notice that Piper echoed Dr. Clark’s points:

1. Wilson is incredibly brilliant — “He’s a talented and articulate fellow.”


2. He has people around him who are dumb — “He’ll take some folk with him.”


3. I am concerned about the trajectory — “Doug’s on a journey.”

Notice also that while Piper didn’t pick a fight with Wilson, his words are unmistakable. It’s no accident that he juxtaposed Wilson’s brilliance next to his followers’ dim wits. The point is obvious. Wilson knows that he has surrounded himself with pinheads. How else can you reconcile his genius with their stupidity? Honestly, Mark Horne has the IQ of a banana peel and there couldn’t be more pudding in two heads than Xon Hostetter and David Gray who regularly advance dishonest and incoherent arguments on GB to defend the Fearless Leader. Does anyone really believe that Wilson doesn’t know their lofts are vacant? Of course he does. But morons don’t ask hard questions because they lack the mental capacity to observe plain inconsistencies. To be sure, they need spin to stabilize their equilibrium. And the Great Protector knows this, hence the reason he blows so often with such vehemence. He has to fill those black holes in his universe.


Piper continued: “I am concerned about the trajectory.” Well, that’s a no-brainer; Wilson’s drift (moral & doctrinal) has not occurred in a vacuum. As Dr. Clark observed, you could chart it. More importantly, he’s going somewhere. Brilliant people don’t just wander aimlessly; they establish goals and make plans to achieve them. And Wilson is no different. This explains why, on the one hand, he pads his writings with enough orthodoxy to hold men such men as Piper at bay, and on the other hand he keeps company with such scoundrels as Rich Lusk and Steven “Machen” Wilkins, even using his confederation to shelter them from ecclesiastical accountability. It’s all part of the plan. You don’t think these historic facts are coincidences, do you?

But where is Wilson’s trajectory pointed? Well, he’s on record saying that he wants to “close the distance” between the FVists and NT Wright: “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.” So while Piper believes Wilson doesn’t teach a false gospel and Piper believes that Wright teaches a confusing gospel, Wilson understands Wright’s confusion well enough that he wants the FV position to get closer to it.

This takes us to Pastor Lane’s comments that led to no small disagreement last weekend, when he wrote:

My problem with Wilson lies in this: although Wilson says many things that are Reformed in a positive sense, he is not willing to reject the errors of the other FV proponents. I am willing to believe that Wilson holds to justification by faith alone, although he is too ambiguous on the aliveness of faith and its place in justification. He does hold to imputation. But he will not distance himself from any error of the FV, no matter how egregious. That is why, if Wilson were to apply for admission into the Presbytery of which I am a part, I could not vote to approve his transfer of credentials. What I have sought to show is that it is not enough to affirm the truth. One must also reject the errors. This is equally important to affirming the truth.

This strikes me as one of those “half-empty/half-full” observations. Wilson says all the correct things (half full) when he affirms justification by faith alone but he refuses to deny all the wrong things, which is where Pastor Lane sees him half empty. Nevertheless, I can’t think of a bigger slam coming from Lane than when he said he would vote against receiving Wilson into his presbytery. Think about it. Wilson positively despises Lane and the PCA while he thinks he and his CREC are one big mighty vessel of reformation. Could Lane say anything more humiliating to the guitar man than he takes him at his word but would not want him in his presbytery? I think not. WHAP! Pastor Lane body slams Dougzilla.

As the disagreement grew, Lane wrote this:

I was saddened when Doug Wilson signed the FV document. He should not have done so, in my judgment. However, I do not think that Wilson is consistent between his own teachings, on the one hand, and his signing the document, on the other. Apparently, Sean sees no difference between Wilson and the other FV’ers. I do. That is why I do not see Wilson as speaking for any of the others. . . . I said that rejecting the errors that attack the Reformed faith is equally as important as formulating right doctrine. . . But Wilson has said repeatedly (and demonstrated also, I believe), that, on these two points, he holds to Reformed doctrine. If I am to be attacked for so saying, then so be it. But I have not given Wilson a clean bill of health, doctrinally speaking. (emphasis original)

Notice that apart from not picking a fight with Wilson, Pastor Lane took the exact opposite tack of Clark and Piper. First, contra Piper who said, “Wilson is more consistent than some of his followers,” Lane flagged Wilson’s inconsistencies: “I do not think that Wilson is consistent. . .” Second, contra Clark and Piper, Lane made a distinction between Wilson and his circle of idiots: “Apparently, Sean sees no difference between Wilson and the other FVers. I do. That is why I do not see Wilson as speaking for any of the others.” But Wilson immediately corrected Lane:

As for my signing the FV document, you have to understand that I was in an awkward place. I drafted the document, circulated it, and was the editor who included all the great suggestions I received. For me to have thrown down at the last minute, refusing to sign it, would have been outrageous behavior, even for me.

I don’t know if this surprised Lane, but I am happy that Wilson showed where his loyalties lay. This admission should put an end to any questions about Wilson’s role in this doctrinal disruption in the Church. He is the point man and he speaks for them even if they have not publicly designated him their official spokesman. So Lane called attention to Wilson’s blurry language:

I think Wilson does hold to justification by faith alone, even if some of his language is ambiguous. The trouble we are having here is precisely that. Some of us wish to say that Doug’s ambiguity means that he doesn’t hold to JBFA at all. Others of us think that he does, even if it is not as clear as it should be.

This may be a stretch, but when Lane contrasted Wilson’s inconsistency and ambiguity with his affirmative statements, he essentially marked the path of Wilson’s trajectory. In other words, he identified the doctrinal position that Wilson claims for himself (and gladly said he believes him) and he identified the doctrinal position that Wilson left open for himself, i.e. his general trajectory.

Pastor Lane isn’t stupid. He can see what Clark, Piper, and the rest of the planet Earth sees, but he doesn’t have to force the issue. There’s no sin in pointing out that the Fearless Leader — that veritable fount of illumination — is inconsistent. And there’s no sin in erring on the side of charity by letting Wilson have it both ways. Who looks more foolish? — Lane for graciously conceding Wilson’s claims and noting his self-contradiction? — or Wilson for acting brilliant while he holds the absurd? This is good.

Wilson is a shrewd snake; he knows he’s inconsistent and he knows he’s ambiguous. He also knows that he’s going somewhere. Don’t ignore this: Wilson runs with the FVists for a reason; Wilson wrote the FV PR statement for a reason; and Wilson uses the CREC to give refuge to the FVists for a reason. All of these events are by design and all of them account for his inconsistency and his trajectory — Wilson is one of them; he believes everything they believe.

Douglas Wilson is deliberately lying about JBFA but Lane is making a record. This means that when Wilson finally bares his fangs, which is inevitable because he cannot remain in the closet forever, he will have to account for this massive pile of deceit in addition to his massive doctrinal shift. And neither Wilson nor the devil himself could deceive their way out of that.

Doug Wilson is playing game. He’s playing Lane for a fool and for his part Lane appears content to take Wilson on one side of his word while not making him account for the other. But one day the game must end. One day Wilson’s trajectory will finish its course. And when his journey finds its ultimate destination, which is somewhere past Moscow in between Jonestown and hell, he and his brain-dead disciples will learn what all of his non-Christian cultic forbears discovered — that the just live by faith and God is not mocked. On that day, however, Douglas Wilson will finally understand the meaning of wisdom as Solomon taught it when he wrote, “There is a way that seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death.”

Thank you.

The Federal Vision Family

“Never tell anybody outside the family what you’re thinking again!” — Don Corleone to Sonny

“Fredo, you’re my older brother, and I love you. But don’t ever take sides with anyone against the family again. Ever.” — Michael Corleone to Fredo

“Remember that loyalty to good friends is important even when you wouldn’t put it the way they do.” — Douglas Wilson to the Federal Vision Family

A week has passed since James Jordan suffered his complete mental breakdown on the worldwide web and as of today none of the Federal Visionists has said boo about his vitriolic tirades, let alone repudiated him for his reprehensible behavior. And if you don’t understand the reason why none of the Federal Visionists have denounced Jordan for his cataclysmic meltdown, then you don’t understand the Federal Vision. I know, I know, the Federal Visionists coined the mantra “No one understands us” as excuse to maintain their hard hearts; but in this case it’s actually true, though you can be sure none will admit it in public.

The reason that no FVist broke ranks with James Jordan for his sweeping judgments and disgusting railings against the Christian church is because the leading FVists are not Christian ministers; they are a family of ecclesiastical gangsters in the middle of a turf war with the Christian church and years ago, Douglas Wilson — the FV mob boss — established the first rule of the FV family: “Remember that loyalty to good friends is important even when you wouldn’t put it the way they do.” In this respect the FVists are no different from any other crime syndicate. Loyalty to the family is paramount — it is the greatest virtue. Indeed, they place a higher premium on allegiance to one another than fidelity to anything biblical — whether the Scriptures, the gospel, sound doctrine, or even the Savior. Loyalty to the family at all costs — “even when you wouldn’t put it the way they do.”

Wilson understands the importance of a united front. He belongs to the school of thought that says, “Appearance is more important than substance,” which is another way of saying he is well schooled in hypocrisy. This explains why he requires unanimity among his elder board even in absurd circumstances and it accounts for the silence from the FVists whenever one of their own crashes and burns, as Mark Horne has done at least once a month for the past three years. “Loyalty to good friends is important even when you wouldn’t put it the way they do.”

But the point here is neither the loyalty nor the silence. The point is the FV family — the FV racket — that the loyalty and silence represent. These men are not Christians endeavoring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace; they are a very well-disciplined crew of thugs who recognize that they cannot achieve their objective unless they maintain family discipline. And we can’t forget the FV objective either, which is to raid as many healthy churches as possible and bring them under CREC dominion.

The FV is Wilson’s turf war and it’s no different than the zoning controversy in downtown Moscow. Grab as much land as possible — legally or illegally — and call yourself king. Hence his prediction that the CREC will “be bigger than the OPC in a decade”:

Wilson also has a big-picture view of the future. He sees the CREC being a player in the Reformed world in the next few years, and I have to agree with him. His prediction was that it would be bigger than the OPC in a decade. With this in mind, he urged that we cultivate a vision of peace. He urged that we try to work with as many people as possible and that we not try to simply fill our niche. (“Doug Wilson”)

This remarkable statement from the blog of a second-year seminary student. But Wilson can’t realize that kind of growth without pirating a few churches along the way and pirates capture vessels by utilizing the principles of war.

The Federal Visionists intend to pad the CREC by infiltrating healthy churches and splitting them, if they cannot seize them altogether, just as they did to COTK and Living Word Church. And this cannot happen unless they deploy a well-disciplined team of ecclesiastical terrorists who understand the importance of loyalty. Therefore, none of them discusses family business in public and none of them takes sides against a family member.

So when James Jordan unraveled on a global platform, spewing venom and spite right and left, the FV family stuck together. Business as usual. Just another day in the FV mob because “loyalty to good friends is important even when you wouldn’t put it the way they do.”

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.

More Speeding

I’m not sure if Mark Horne can read, but if he can I wonder if he reads Cleaning House. Check out his speedy little parable and compare it to Rose Huskey’s below.

May 3rd, 2007 at 12:19 pm
Mark says:
I was caught speeding the other day, but the cop was Presbyterian. I showed him my official Real Human Being card and he apologized and waved me on by.

I chatted with him at church later and he confessed he didn’t always read the radar right. He had in my case (not that it mattered), but some foreign cars just distracted him and he would jump the gun — pull out with lights flashing before realizing they weren’t speeding. He shrugged and said in those cases he had to follow through and issue a citation. Otherwise no one would respect the law.

I confess I had been a little put out by the inconvenience, but I saw him writing an Anglican a speeding ticket this morning and it made me feel better.

Just so long as everyone knows their place and we treat our real family with the proper respect.

Memo to Mark:
When do you intend to show respect to your brethren in the PCA?

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

Faces of Schism

My self-appointed mentor, DaFedSez, has criticized my blog for its deficiency in snide and smug. Hopefully this post will remedy that want, with a hat tip to the sick flick Faces of Death.

Here are the faces of the men who signed “A Joint Federal Vision Statement.” These are the men bent on disrupting the peace and purity of the Reformed church because they believe they understand better than anyone the true meaning of the Three Forms of Unity and the Westminster Confession of Faith. They claim they are teachable, but they refuse to learn. Seven Reformed denominations and a host of micro-denominations have repudiated Federal Vision for error, but the men behind these faces know better.

John Barach appeared out of nowhere when he was a last-minute replacement for Norm Shepherd at the 2002 Auburn Avenue Pastor’s Conference, landing him in the middle of the Monroe Four and the worst doctrinal disruption to disturb the Reformed church in years. Barach received his training at MARS, which recently joined the swelling ranks of Reformed seminaries repudiating the Federal Vision, and he held his ministerial credentials in the URC until January 2006, when he found safe haven with the covenant breakers of the CREC.

Jon Barlow did not sign the Joint Federal Vision Statement, but you’ll notice his name on the pdf in Acrobat under “File”, “Document Properties”, “Description”, which means he served in a monkey-boy capacity for the Federal Visionists by generating their joint statement on his software. Additionally, Barlow runs the Reformed News — a lame attempt to put FV in a favorable light.



Randy Booth is the moderator of the CREC, most likely because Wilson has more dirt on him than on any other CREC minister (let’s just say the word “joint” carries special meaning for Booth), and dirt in this case translates into strings. According to Wilson in Mother Kirk, “Randy and I got to know each other by phone as we fell down the paedo staircase together, hitting our heads on every step” (page 95). This being interpreted means that when Wilson successfully split his church (CEF) in 1993, Booth failed in his attempt to split his church. Consequently, his elders sent a letter to the congregation identifying him as a “wolf in sheep’s clothing,” probably because he didn’t sport a habit then.

Tim Gallant cut his teeth with John Barach in the URC and, like Barach, he attended MARS. This means that, while the FVists insist that no one in the Reformed world understands them, it’s safe for everyone else to insist that at least two FVists did not understand what they learned in seminary. From his bio, it looks like Gallant ditched the URC in April 2006, seeking refuge in the CREC. (Note to Tim: take heed to what you heard one week ago; it is a cult and there’s still time for you to get out.)


Mark Horne is an ordained elder in the PCA, but no one knows why.









Jim Jordan is a minister in the ARC, holds his membership in the CREC, and is identified as “the Godfather of Federal Vision.” However, I think DaFedSez got much closer in his analysis when he called him Magister Contradictus, and “big river” or “flumen magnus.”





Peter Leithart is a Roman Catholic who has not figured out that the PCA is a Protestant & Reformed denomination. Currently, he practices theology in the CREC where they have no standards, while the PCA contemplates how to uphold theirs.



Rich Lusk executed the Federal Vision agenda with perfect precision by hijacking a church out of the PCA and crash-landing it into the CREC.










Jeff Meyers spent a night in morbid introspection and discovered the offensive nature of “Reformed snobbery.” Now he’s a FV snob, which apparently is better. Recently he mistook theological defiance for “FREEEEEEDOM!” citing the movie Braveheart as his inspiration. Unfortunately, Pastor Braveheart had no courage at the PCA GA; he never screamed “FREEEEDOM” to the appropriate audience when it really mattered.


Ralph Smith got sucked into the CREC from Japan, where he pastors a church and writes books that tamper with the Trinity for Canon Press. Apparently he believes that his heretical position on justification by faith alone qualifies him to cast new light on the Godhead.



Steve Wilkins . . . well, I heard the man speak once at UI and it’s clear to me that he’s dumber than a sack of wet mice (I know, I know, everyone calls him “a gentleman”), and then I read “Covenant, Baptism, and Salvation” in Auburn Avenue Theology, Pros and Cons and I realized that the sack could be empty.



Douglas Wilson, also known as Beelzeblog or the Little Man Behind the Curtain, is the founder of the CREC, a sower of discord among the brethren, and a son of Belial (“SOB” — a primary subset of “NECM”). If he repented today or dropped dead tomorrow, the Federal Visionists would perish for lack of vision because the answer to the prophet’s question — “Is this the man that made the earth to tremble, that did shake kingdoms?” — is “Yes.”

Promise Them Liberty

Yesterday I posted a question to Jeffrey Meyers on Mark Horne’s blog, Once More With Feeling. Horne deleted it, as is his right; it’s his blog he can cry if he wants. But I still want to engage every FV PCA officer before they jump ship to the CREC, because they clearly do not realize that the CREC will not grant them any of the principal liberties they currently enjoy in the PCA. Not at all; in fact, just the opposite.

I raise this point because of an essay that Jeffrey Meyers posted on De Regno Christi during the “Federal Vision Controversy” discussion, where he made an impassioned plea for Christian liberty to free him from subscribing the doctrine of Imputation of Christ’s Obedience. Here are some excerpts:

It is part of our Calvinian heritage to refuse to be bound by extrabiblical categories and terminology. The Bible has absolute priority over all traditional formulations, the Westminster standards included. . . . Beautiful. Freedom! . . . .

Calvin refused to subscribe to the ancient creeds . . . solely because he was determined to preserve for himself and his colleagues the liberties belonging to Christian men, subject in matters of faith to no other authority than that of God speaking in the Scriptures. (The Works of B.B. Warfield, vol. 5, pp. 207) . . . .

But one thing we are doing, in good Calvinian fashion, is exegeting the Bible with the freedom that the Reformers won for the liberated churches of Protestantism. . . . If we are not careful, we will out do Rome in our Romanizing traditionalism. In some circles the Westminster standards seem to have become the infallible voice of the Reformed magisterium. If you deviate from the exact words, definitions, and formulations therein, or if you suggest that they might be corrected by the Bible, you may be hauled before a Reformed inquisition.

As the traditionalists are ripping out various ministers’ ecclesiastical entrails, perhaps a loud cry of “freedom!” now and then might be appropriate. Calvin would be proud. (“Subscription & Freedom”)

This is certainly compelling rhetoric and other men, more qualified than me, have already addressed the issues that Meyers evades. The point I want to address is the one essential liberty — that one critical freedom — that allowed Pastor Meyers to make this post in the first place. I refer to freedom of speech.

Last week I wrote about a Christ Church member in good standing — their minister of music — whom Douglas Wilson obligated to sign a loyalty oath under pain of termination. Here is the oath:

Commitment to Loyalty
I pledge to conduct myself in such a way that no one could ever question my loyalty to the peace and purity of Christ Church. This includes refusing to speak to any unauthorized person about grievances I might have, and includes refusing to hear any such criticisms as well. If commitment to this standard in any way compromises my conscience, then I understand that my resignation will be accepted, without notice, and without prejudice.

ATTENTION Jeffrey Meyers, Mark Horne, Steve Wilkins, and the all the other PCA malcontents to whom Wilson has promised liberty in the CREC, please read these words carefully and apply them to your current situation. If you join the CREC, then you will voluntarily unite yourself to an organization that deprives its membership of the very freedom that allows you to weep and gnash your teeth daily, on the worldwide web.

Think this through. Did you notice the terms of the oath? — immediate termination, “without notice,” if anyone even questions your loyalty. Had you signed such an oath prior to joining the PCA, then by now you would be unemployed (as in no paycheck) because of the way you have recklessly abused your freedom of speech to denounce your denomination.

Sure, you may argue, “That’s Christ Church, not the CREC,” but that’s shortsighted. How would you have voted if the members in good standing pursued remedy through the Confederation? Would you have voted against Wilson? Would you have cried, “Freedom! Beautiful freedom!”? Would you have quoted Calvin who sought to “preserve for himself and his colleagues the liberties belonging to Christian men”? I doubt it. Somehow your monkey-boy behavior persuades me that you would put your hand with the Confederate Inquisition to rip out the brethren’s entrails as you shouted down anyone who disagreed with the Little Man Behind the Curtain, just as you have shouted down your current detractors.

Think it through even further. If you presently held your membership in the CREC and you believed that your fellow confederates railroaded you, how long do you think they would let you throw temper tantrums on the worldwide web before they cut you loose? — plus or minus two weeks? I say two weeks max.

They would call an emergency “council” of churches to rule that your conduct “disrupted the peace and purity of the church” (sound familiar?) and they would toss you out of their confederation with a well-worded press release rebuking you for deliberately bypassing the decency and order commanded by Scripture, very much unlike the way the PCA has treated you. And, quite frankly, they would be right. You would deserve it, which brings us back to your current dilemma.

The CREC may promise you liberty, but as Scripture says, they are slaves of corruption who will bring you into bondage (2 Peter 2:19), and you need to consider this fact carefully before you ditch true Christian freedom so that you may chain yourselves to Wilson’s tyrannical oppression.

Once More With Feeling

Mark Horne has thrown another tantrum, this time at Lane Keister (again) for a post he wrote on Green Baggins. And, as usual, Horne got his facts wrong, pitching a fit for no apparent reason. But you have to read Lane’s response to Horne and notice how he patiently instructs his fellow PCA minister, fulfilling the apostolic command: “And a servant of the Lord must not quarrel but be gentle to all, able to teach, patient, in humility correcting those who are in opposition, if God perhaps will grant them repentance, so that they may know the truth” (2 Tim. 2:24–26). Then notice that Mark Horne says nothing.

Regarding the Knox–Gage matter, Bob Mattes shows why this situation arose, by outlining the tension between the seminary’s board and the church’s session — a conflict of authority — which culminated in this embarrassing situation.

Horne Blowing

Mark Horne responded to me here, writing,

I can’t condemn every single thing in this since he lists maybe a couple of things I’ve apologized for. As for the rest, well, feel free to contact me if you have any questions.

But I’m not sure why he writes that he “apologized for” a couple of these things because I didn’t see any apologies appended to the offending posts and, quite obviously, if he had apologized for the offenses, common courtesy would require him to replace the offending post with the apology — not leave the post in place and say, “Well, I apologized for it.” In fact, the absence of apologies in the face of so much insolence combined with an obvious hard heart and a stiff middle finger leads me to wonder why this man remains in the ministry at all. What Bible is he reading?

Mr. Horne, I think it’s time to rethink your calling because, from this layman’s perspective, you blew it.

Would Jeffrey Meyers Sign This?

On a more serious note, I want to substantiate my testimony that Douglas Wilson applies economic sanctions against those who disagree with, criticize, or oppose him. And while I have several accounts to cite, I want to isolate one in particular, which I referenced earlier on Green Baggins.

Two years ago the professor of music for New Saint Andrews College voted against promoting Nathan Wilson to full fellow. Unfortunately, he didn’t know the unwritten rule that voting at Christ Church is like voting in the former USSR — never vote no. So Roy Atwood took him behind closed doors to explain the importance of loyalty in the voting process, but still the professor refused to change his vote. In fact, he said, “Nate Wilson’s arrogance is the reason I would never allow my children to attend NSA.” Roy replied with the standard “loyalty” lecture and the man answered, “Why do you ask me to vote if you don’t want me to vote my conscience?” Roy informed him that they used the vote to determine the conscience.

The professor, who also served as the Christ Church minister of music, then met with two elders and, after offloading his truck to them, asked, “So, am I going to go the way of Brian?” (long-time Canon Press manager whom Jones terminated after he questioned his wife’s loyalty to Christ Church). Both elders blushed and answered, “No, this is nothing that we can’t work out.”

Then the professor and his wife met with Pastor Wilson on two occasions, but they resolved nothing except that Wilson said he planned on sending a letter to the congregation in about a week. One week later the members of Christ Church received this letter, and a week after that Doug Wilson asked the minister and his wife to sign a contract that contained the following clause:

Commitment to Loyalty
I pledge to conduct myself in such a way that no one could ever question my loyalty to the peace and purity of Christ Church. This includes refusing to speak to any unauthorized person about grievances I might have, and includes refusing to hear any such criticisms as well. If commitment to this standard in any way compromises my conscience, then I understand that my resignation will be accepted, without notice, and without prejudice.

The Christ Church minister of music refused to sign the document and immediately resigned his membership from Christ Church, but Wilson refused to accept his resignation and sent an email to the church announcing it. The man said, “You don’t have a choice, I’m out of here,” and the rest is history.

Now, I believe that the “Commitment to Loyalty” clause constitutes an economic sanction against the minister of music, who derived half of his salary from Christ Church (the other half from NSA). Douglas Wilson disagrees with me. Therefore, rather than argue the point with him, I want to bring this full circle.

If the “Commitment to Loyalty” clause contained initials the “PCA” instead of the words “Christ Church,” would Jeffrey Meyers and Mark Horne be willing to sign it? or would they scream, “Freeeeeeedom,” with Mel Gibson in the movie Braveheart?

Let’s see what kind of tyranny the Federal Vision sanctions.

Federal Ignorance, Part 2

Yesterday we considered the reason that Jeff Meyers gave for rejecting TRs and, with them, the Westminster Confession of Faith, at least by implication. Meyers wrote:

There was a time in my ministry when I believe that I encouraged Reformed snobbery. Many years ago, after an evening service, I walked out to the parking lot and joined a group of men who were talking about our church. They were praising our worship and our doctrine. At first I felt proud. Then they started to belittle the Lutheran church down the road. Crypto Arminians. They turned to the generic evangelical congregation in our neighborhood. Idiots. Dumb evangelicals. Before long it was, “I thank God that our church has such pure doctrine and preaches the Word so faithfully and that we are not like those stupid Lutherans and crazy evangelicals.” Well, I didn’t go home that night feeling all that justified.

That was something of a turning point in my ministry. I realized that I was a big part of the problem. My TRish kind of talk about the glories of the WCF had led to this.

I guess I don’t have a problem with Presbyterian laymen and women being a bit eclectic about theological and systematic formulations. In truth, I probably encourage it. It keeps us humble about our own theological tradition. It leads us to better behavior, too. Less sectarian and more catholic.

Today, let’s examine the fruit of Meyers’ conversion from Westminster to Federal Vision. More specifically, I want to consider whether his rejection of TR theology has produced any more humility in his church, whether it has encouraged “better behavior” within his congregation, and if the fruit of his ministry is “less sectarian and more catholic.” And to answer this question, I introduce one exhibit — Mr. Mark Horne — Meyers’ fellow minister in the PCA. Therefore, please take into account the following posts and ask yourself if abandoning the WCF has produced more humility, improved his behavior, and made him less sectarian and more catholic:

In “Dealing with MARS, part 3,” Mr. Horne wrote,

Who are these evil people? Where are they found? What presbytery or classis examined them and allowed them into our midst? What study committees have been erected to expose such error? Where do I sign up to do my part to rid the church of them?

Please bear in mind that Mr. Horne framed these rhetorical question to describe esteemed professors — Christian brothers — from a reputable seminary, who adopted a position opposing the Federal Vision. Also note that, later the same day, Mr. Horne took time to libel another Christian brother, writing, “Andy, you continue to show that you are of the Father of Lies.” Now, I may be wrong, but in both instances Mr. Horne’s choice of words seem slightly stronger than merely calling someone “idiots” or “dumb evangelicals.”

If I read Lane Keister correctly, Mr. Horne used this post (which he has since removed) to call his fellow PCA minister “a Satanic, non-sanctified, non-academic, non-intellectual, discipline-averting (internet vs. church courts), wickedly insinuating troubler of the PCA.” You have to read about it here. Of course, the point is that, hopefully, Pastor Jeff Meyers has trouble sleeping because of Mr. Horne’s rhetoric; but I doubt it.

“Classic mob justice” isn’t much better. Here Mr. Horne impugned the integrity of the PCA’s Ad Interim Committee with belittling, disrespectful language, something condemned, or at least strongly discouraged, by Jeffrey Meyers.

The post titled “The committee biased? No, all the people who matter were included.” is a good example of Mr. Horne thumbing his nose at his fathers and brothers in the faith, as well as his denomination, and it illustrates the absence of submission and humility in a minister of the gospel. Notice Mr. Horne’s “me first” point of view:

No one counts but the groups represented on the committee. No one else matters. We have no need to include anyone, to recognize their years of service, to regard them in any way as brothers, except in acknowledging the need to condemn and marginalize them by this stacked committee — which isn’t stacked because no one else counts.”

The title of this entry, “Humbly do it because we say so,” represents Mr. Horne’s sarcastic attempt to heap disdain on humility in order to maintain sectarian defiance. Perhaps this constitutes Meyers’ idea of “a bit eclectic about theological and systematic formulations.”

Mr. Horne titled this post with a question, “Does Clark know what it means to have a conscience?” which he answered in the opening line: “I see no evidence that he does.” He may think himself humble and catholic, but I am confident that most people would disagree.

The post titled “Look how cute I am standing next to the PCA study committee!” plays off of Doug Wilson’s “stacked committee” tirade and once again demonstrates Mr. Horne’s contempt for his fathers and brothers in the faith (as well as his preference of Wilson over communion).

The innuendo in “Normally I would want to hide this for the sake of the guy’s reputation” is a pathetic ad hominem and a disgraceful attempt to exemplify humility and good behavior, if that’s what Mr. Horne intended.

I could cite many other examples of shameful conduct by Mr. Horne, but these should suffice. And please note that he wrote all of these posts during a 30-day stretch in May and June of this year, when providence afforded him (and Meyers) an opportunity to exhibit their commitment to humility and good behavior. Unfortunately, Mr. Horne went to great lengths to document in writing that he is an absolute embarrassment to the Christian ministry — a man completely oblivious to his petulant outbursts and childish behavior that would shame any normal person, let alone a true ambassador for Christ.

Perhaps I am wrong, but I cannot understand why Jeffrey Meyers could not countenance “Reformed snobbery” while he apparently approves Federal Vision rancor. I believe, therefore, that Meyers’ pretext for ditching TR theology, i.e. the prideful snobbery it bred in his congregation, is a pile of baloney simple because the immediate fruit of his ministry — Mark Horne — is actually worse than any kind of “Reformed snobbery” (whatever that is), which supposedly pushed him away from Westminster.

Jeffrey, I have one word for you: Visionist, see thyself.