A Monkey Boy Comments

I just received this comment from another monkey boy who is ashamed of his baptized name. He wrote:

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

I’m an arrogant ass who won’t even state my name, yet call others out on being ashamed of their baptism.

I repent of my ways and for outright stealing private correspondence and then posting it publicly, proving once and for all that I do not possess the smallest trace of testicular fortitude. Instead of dealing with the exegetical and theological issues, I would rather slander other brothers in Christ.

Why? Because I’m sure Jesus would approve.

And so would Jack Bauer.

Well, you are an arrogant ass (ignorant too) and I don’t blame you for not stating your name. But let me answer your argument point for point, to demonstrate your ignorance.

I only call on monkey boys to state their real name because the Fearless Leader — Beelzeblog — has declared that I am ashamed of my baptized name because I host a fully documented anonymous attack blog. Of course, this argument is just plain silly because he refuses to acknowledge his well-deserved reputation for harassing, bullying, and intimidating anyone who criticizes the Kult. Furthermore, the Great Protector doesn’t account for all the times that he adopted pseudonyms on the local listserv to defend his “good name,” which is a subject for another website. Frankly, if anyone has reason to be ashamed of their baptized name, it’s Douglas James Wilson, founder of this century’s most malevolent non-Christian cult. But I think we’ve established he has no shame.

Your second paragraph asserts that I stole “private correspondence.” This is not true and your argument (and your anger) disappears the moment you admit the truth. You also assert that you “do not possess the smallest trace of testicular fortitude,” and I must agree. After all, you are a monkey boy who is ashamed of his baptized name.

You continue by asserting that I refuse to deal with “the exegetical and theological issues.” And I have to admit that this is true because better men than me have already demolished the FV seven times from Sunday. But the FVists insist that these biblical scholars and trained theologians have misrepresented them, which immediately makes this a character issue. Someone’s lying. Personally, I find it hard to believe that seven Reformed denominations and countless micro-denominations have condemned the Federal Vision based upon numerous misrepresentations made by honorable men in the Church, which is one reason I focus on the FVists’ deficient moral characters as witnessed by their email exchange titled “Bag o’ Snakes.” Maybe you would understand this point better if I named the post “House o’ Liars.”

Monkey Boy continues, stating, “I would rather slander other brothers in Christ.” First of all, it’s not slander if it’s in writing; it’s libel. Second, it’s neither libel nor slander if it’s true. And third, I do not count any of these Bozos brothers in Christ. The closest biblical definition for them is “false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves” (Matt. 7:15). And I point to the email exchange “Bag o’ Snakes” as one more proof of their two-faced duplicity (is that redundant?).

Finally, Monkey Boy writes, “Why? Because I’m sure Jesus would approve. And so would Jack Bauer.” Yes, Jesus does approve of exposing hypocrites but methinks you don’t know this because your too busy watching TV instead of reading your Bible.

Thank you.

PS: You really need to do something about your pent-up anger.

Baptized Hypocrites

I don’t pretend that my fully documented anonymous attack blog can compete with the academic caliber of such blogs as Pastor Lane’s Green Bagginses; nevertheless it’s pretty clear to me that I have some fairly bright readers. Take this comment, for example, which someone just left in response to my award-winning post “Bag o’ Snakes”:

Anonymous said. . .

If you are ashamed of your baptized name for posting anonymously, wouldn’t it follow that these men, who hid their conversation from the general public, are ashamed of their baptized message? . . .

That’s a pretty good argument if you ask me.

Thank you.

What Doug hath joined together

Today marks the first day of this year’s Auburn Avenue Pastors Conference. Of course, the Federal Vision controversy began at the 2002 AAPC where the Monroe Four objectively announced their doctrinal innovations. Six months later the RPCUS resolved the doctrine heresy and called up the heretics’ respective church courts to hold them accountable. Unfortunately, two of the Monroe Four, Wilson and Schlissel, are essentially Congregationalists with no formal ties to any legitimate ecclesiastical authority; the third, John Barach, read the writing on the wall and abandoned accountability in the URC by joining the CREC; and the fourth, Steven “Machen” Wilkins, learned a couple of days ago that the PCA doesn’t “quibble” about the Westminster Confession of Faith. The PCA Indictment of Louisiana Presbytery cites Wilkins’ 2002 AAPC lecture “The Legacy of the Half-Way Covenant” no less than seven times.

The theme for this year’s conference is “Liturgy and Life” and the church website describes it thus:

It is our great privilege to announce our Tenth Annual Auburn Avenue Pastors Conference January 7–9, 2008. This year our topic is “Liturgy and Life” and the speakers will explore the importance of worship not only for the church but for all of life. What is the role of liturgy in the life of the child of God? Why is the particular order of the service important? What is the relationship between liturgy and pastoral care? How do you bring liturgical reform in a congregation that has been heavily influenced by American, revivalistic Christianity? These and other questions will be addressed by our four main speakers in our conference this year: Dr. Peter Leithart, Pastor Douglas Wilson, Pastor Jeffrey Meyers, and Dr. James Jordan. . . . The purpose of the conference is to provide encouragement and instruction to pastors and church officers but we encourage all interested laymen to attend as well since the issues covered are of wide interest to all who are concerned for the well being of Christ’s Church. . . . We look forward to having you with us!

Steve Wilkins
Auburn Avenue Presbyterian Church, Pastor

Reading this, you can’t miss the bugaboo “American, revivalistic Christianity,” which is probably an early descendant of that other bugaboo “post-Enlightenment Gnosticism.” But the remarkable thing is that these men think themselves authorities on liturgy at the very moment the PCA indicted their host’s presbytery for failing to hold him accountable for the false doctrine driving his form of worship. It’s surreal. I am honestly surprised that none of them had the nerve to address the question, “What is the relationship between liturgy and contempt of constitutional standards?” or “What role does flaunting church discipline play in the life of the church?”

However, the magnitude of Louisiana Presbytery’s dereliction of duty is even more remarkable than these clowns’ hubris. The PCA has never indicted an entire presbytery (and to my knowledge no presbytery has ever pushed their communion this far). This is an historic event. But these clowns don’t care. They are the people and wisdom shall die with them. They believe that their high-church liturgy, which includes a stiff middle finger at the Christian church and a thumb on the nose directed at ecclesiastical authority, will reform the world. Ironically, they don’t see what everyone sees, i.e. their real message: “Reform as we say, not as we reform,” which means that their new Reformation must end in chaos.

Like begets like, whether the FVists like it or not, and their ecclesiastical defiance can only produce yet more defiance. The apostle Paul put it this way: “Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap” (Gal. 6:7). But Mark T. puts it this way, “What Doug hath joined together, not even God will put asunder.”

Thank you.

Indictment

Bob Mattes posted the PCA Indictment of LAP here, and he posted the PCA Citation to LAP here.

Thank you.

The FV Disease

An anonymous blogger has written a thoughtful post about “Bag o’ Snakes,” which he titled “The Blessing/Curse of Anonymity”; I know next to nothing about this person so I can’t even say if he hosts a fully documented anonymous attack blog or simply an anonymous blog. But we exchanged some comments and I believe my last comment (here) deserves front-page attention because everyone leading the fight against FV needs to understand this point. FV is not the problem; it’s the symptom. And until the Reformed church understands this, it will never fully eradicate the FV disease from its ranks.

Mark T. said. . .

When Wilson writes, “I am not ashamed of my baptized Christian name,” he underscores the principal problem in the Federal Vision controversy, i.e. he has no shame.

Thank you.

Turretinfan said. . .

I don’t really think the FV controversy is about DW not having shame — I think it has more to do with DW not being an imprecise theologian who is overly loyal to the wrong friends — which I suppose we could connect to shame some way or another.

Nevertheless, it is just absurd to suggest that anonymous folks are “ashamed” of their names.

— Turretinfan

Mark T. said. . .

One important point that emerged during the Slavery Scandal was that while Wilson thought himself a historian, those of us who live in real life understood him as a revisionist. In the FV controversy, while Wilson deems himself a theologian, you categorize him as imprecise. The problem is that he’s no more of a theologian than he is a historian. He makes it all up as he goes, spinning his way out of one statement to the next, hoping he never runs out of yarn — or time — and always blaming others when they catch him in a contradiction. In this respect — the endless spin cycles with all their mood swings — Wilson has no shame.

You are absolutely correct about the loyalty factor. He requires unquestioning loyalty of his subjects and he offers them semblances of loyalty in return. But people need to understand what’s going on here. Why is he so loyal to these lawless renegades? — You see it, I see it, but we have to ask ourselves what’s in it for him? And the answer to that question explains the whole FV agenda, that is, if you grant my assumption that he leads the FV.

Turretinfan said. . .

I’m not worried about whether Wilson held a politically correct view on slavery, or whether he has an overly Romantic view of the Old South. I’m not particularly concerned about the way he handled the criminal that was a student at NSA for a while. I’m not all that concerned about “Trinity Fest” or the zoning battles. I’m not even all that concerned by the way he shepherds his flock in Moscow (without taking sides there, as I don’t have enough information).

I’m concerned about the Federal Vision masquerading as historic Reformed Theology, just as I am worried about the New Perspective on Paul, and unlimited atonementists trying to do the same thing.

Why? Because those things are not the truth.

I don’t much care if Wilson is wrong on Southern History, but it is a problem when he is wrong about Reformed history. I don’t even much care whether DW is the head, or just one of the heads of the movement. He is certainly prominent in it.

This, for me, though is not about DW the man, but about the FV theology. I think DW has done a lot of things right, which is why the homosexuals and modern liberals in Moscow hate his guts. On the other hand, he’s plain wrong about some theological issues, and those need to be addressed.

— Turretinfan

Here is my response, which he hasn’t approved yet:

Turretinfan,

I just learned about your site about five days ago in an email exchange with a brother, so please forgive me if I don’t have your positions pinned down before I comment. I say this because, as much as I agree with your position of the primacy of correct theology, you couldn’t be more wrong about Wilson’s role in this. Sure, slavery, zoning, serial paedophilia, the Trinity Fester, and the way Wilson shepherds (abuses) his flock are secondary issues, but every one of these scandals constitutes a microcosm of the primary problem.

For example, just as Wilson revised history to portray slavery as benign, so he has revised church history to portray the FV as the Reformers’ original position. Just as Wilson built his local empire by subverting municipal code, so he must advance his national empire by subverting whole churches. Just as Wilson covered up serial paedophilia in the Kirk for seven months, never warning the flock of predation or identifying all of the victims, so he runs interference for his FV pals’ obvious theological deficiencies, always prioritizing FV PR at the expense of critical pastoral matters. Just as Wilson sees the Trinity Fester as the postmillennial equivalent of an OT feast, so he sees the FV movement (which he leads) as a new Reformation. Obviously, these are broad-brush generalizations, but I could thoroughly establish each point with more specific argumentation. And all of these things have elements of the “masquerade” game you see, but you must remember this: DW tells these guys which mask to wear in any given environment. He gives them marching orders and talking points on the BH list and in a broader context he does the same for his legions on his blog. Make no mistake: He’s calling the shots and the sooner the Church isolates or removes him the sooner FV will disappear. You can’t have one without the other.

Finally, it is terribly naïve to argue that the homosexuals and the modern liberals hate Wilson’s guts because he has done a lot of things right. This is the formal fallacy of affirming the consequent and it fails to account for all the local Christians who positively despise the man. Can I argue that it’s because he’s doing a lot of things wrong? Maybe, but it’s more accurate to say that he has provoked the local libs in the same way he has provoked the local Christian community, which is the same tactic he has deployed against the TRs — antagonize to polarize — “If you don’t submit to my will then I will mock you. And my disciples will follow suit.”

You have to consider the role of Acts 20:29–30 in the FV: “For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock. Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.” Unlike you, St. Paul doesn’t separate the wolves who speak perverse things from their theology. He understood it as a package deal and you cannot purge the Church of the false doctrine unless you excise the wolves. But first you have to identify them.

Again, I’ve not read much on your site, so I know little about your positions. But I do know that the problem is not FV; the problem is the men advancing it. And one man stands head and shoulders above the others in this controversy because he is the FV’s point man.

Thank you.

Anne Hutchison — Proto-Federal Visionist

The recent excitement has really put my blogging schedule behind; I didn’t expect such a rise from the FVists after they made it a point to ignore me because I am not credible. Just consider it one more shift in the FV camp.

Be that as it may, I want to return to a post from Dr. Clark that I highlighted once before. It’s titled “Nicotine Theological Journal 11.4” and it offers a few zingers from church historian Dr. Darryl Hart about the Federal Vision. Here’s another quote that piqued my interest:

All the FV seems to have is Ann Hutchinson’s desire for spiritual counsel and biblical instruction free from ecclesiastical control.

Of course, Anne Hutchinson was a proto-Christian feminist Bible teacher who gathered quite a following as she undermined the Church’s authority. This fact alone makes Dr. Hart’s comparison hilarious. But this is the punch line: Ann Hutchinson denied the Covenant of Works. Now that’s funny.

But life didn’t end well for Anne Hutchinson. In 1637 a civil court declared her guilty of “traducing the ministers” (here’s a link to the definition of “traduce” for you monkey boys; look it up and be thankful the State can’t do that anymore). The state punished her by banishing her from the colony “as being a woman not fit for our society” and in 1638 the church followed suit by excommunicating her. And in 1643 Anne Hutchison died a bloody death at the hands of Mahican Indians in New York, though historians have discovered no evidence to suggest that the Church prayed imprecations for savages to bury hatchets in her skull.

Thank you.

Anonymity Part IV: “Anonymous Sources”

Well now I’m really confused. On the one hand, Beelzeblog vouches for the anonymous news site called Reformed News, but on the other he condemns those who rely on fully documented anonymous sources. Read for yourself:

I read on Reformed News that Sam Duncan, former moderator of the PCA, has provided a summary of the FV in preparation for the big doings at the General Assembly of the PCA this week. But before I start in on my war dance, let me just say that you ought to check out Reformed News far more often than you do. (“That He’d Been In His Bunk Below”)

And this controversy has now revealed the fact that, for a number of our Reformed leaders, acceptance of this kind of testimony, taking it at face value, is perfectly fine with them. They might want to put some sort of high bar on this for acceptance, of course, like “it is only acceptable to receive spurious testimony from anonymous sources if you are contending for the gospel.” (“Dead Rat Behind the Fridge”)

I sure wish he’d get his story straight because I don’t know from one day to the next who to believe. In fact, the only way I can harmonize these two quotes is by concluding that Prince Blog is the dead rat behind the fridge. I wonder who holds him accountable for this.

Thank you.

“be sure your sin will find you out”

Let’s see, a man who named his blog after an Old Testament prince and his vast mixed hordes of armies, who armed themselves to the teeth to wage war against God’s people, cited this text to me after his cell group of ecclesiastical terrorists posing as clerics, which meets regularly in a public forum to discuss their tactics, had their cover blown.

Pay no attention to the little man behind the curtain, because notwithstanding Prince Blog’s delusional “I am a prophet” syndrome, I’ll stand on the words of a real prophet: “Behold I am against thee, O Gog” (Ezek. 38:3).

Thank you.

Greetings!

I want to thank Prince Blog for sending more folks to my fully documented anonymous attack blog and I want to encourage all you first timers to read the following three posts to help you understand the nature of the Beast:

• “Worst Lot of All”


• “Snakes in the Covenant”


• “Cursed”

And if anonymity concerns you as much as it does the Fearless Leader, I urge you to search for the word “anonymity” on this blog. I also encourage you to peruse the category “Fœdero Accountability”, and you absolute must visit Pope Doug; you’ll read facts he refuses to acknowledge.

Thank you.

MIA

A couple weeks ago a brother mentioned to that one reason Steve Schlissel has been missing in action since the Auburn Avenue colloquium is that his son-in-law followed the Federal Vision to its inevitable conclusion — Roman Catholicism. Consequently, the Rabbi who calls God a liar sort of disappeared, with the bad PR and all. If you follow the links, here is the proof: Dave Hodges.

Thank you.

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.