Saturday, January 5, 2008

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:


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.


Anonymous said...

Mark T.

bird brain here.

don't you see it?

DW only wants to go part way.

In your now infamous repost of confidential emails I reread his remarks and came away with this lingering motive which I might say about you, lingers on you too, in my bird brain, albeit, you are anonymous so who is there to judge you, right?

Let me put it into a down to earth equation, quite brutish but, thinks a theologian and historian, with a need for time, time, time, one would only hope his followers would contribute more to his time well spent than just loyalty?

You wrote in comment to TF this:
"You have to consider the role of Acts 20:29–30 in the FV:".

Pointing to your Scripture quote there but expanding the idea to it's relevant point about DW and this "movement" righting the wrongs of History, by FV, which I humbly submit you are missing or not getting or maybe you just don't want to address a deeper underlying motive of his for who he is "professionally":

Act 20:28 Pay careful attention to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to care for the church of God, which he obtained with his own blood.

True God ordained Shepherds have a right to eat from their labors.

Act 20:29 I know that after my departure fierce wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock;
Act 20:30 and from among your own selves will arise men speaking twisted things, to draw away the disciples after them.

People wanted something from Paul, i.e., his money![[Act 24:24 After some days Felix came with his wife Drusilla, who was Jewish, and he sent for Paul and heard him speak about faith in Christ Jesus.
Act 24:25 And as he reasoned about righteousness and self-control and the coming judgment, Felix was alarmed and said, "Go away for the present. When I get an opportunity I will summon you."
Act 24:26 At the same time he hoped that money would be given him by Paul. So he sent for him often and conversed with him.]]

Act 20:31 Therefore be alert, remembering that for three years I did not cease night or day to admonish everyone with tears.

Paul saw the destructive nature of the wolf and those inside the camp as you rightly address. Remove the wolves and what's left?

Act 20:32 And now I commend you to God and to the word of his grace, which is able to build you up and to give you the inheritance among all those who are sanctified.
Act 20:33 I coveted no one's silver or gold or apparel.

In one of the comments in one of the blogs one charges you with being a disgruntled former member perhaps, maybe burned by Moscow's community? You even say in your blog front in defense for your anonymity you don't want yourself to be "outed" so as to keep from incurring wrath from the village??

Act 20:34 You yourselves know that these hands ministered to my necessities and to those who were with me.
Act 20:35 In all things I have shown you that by working hard in this way we must help the weak and remember the words of the Lord Jesus, how he himself said, 'It is more blessed to give than to receive.'"

No anonymity with Paul here, right?

Sometimes self sacrifices are made until a Timothy and Silas come so you can give yourself to "full" time ministry, ah, book writing, perhaps as well as lectures and pulpit preaching and building schools of learning:

Act 18:4 And he was reasoning in the synagogue every Sabbath and trying to persuade Jews and Greeks.
Act 18:5 But when Silas and Timothy came down from Macedonia, Paul began devoting himself completely to the word, solemnly testifying to the Jews that Jesus was the Christ.

I have seen it. There are those who have legitimacy, "earning" their milk and cloth while others feed off them though secretly dutifully vile and slothfully loyal until the pay check comes no more. Well, I will go where I will go, I have to eat!

In a big house, you have wants and needs.

It seems DW wants override his needs; you cannot eat meats of the lamb or drink the milk, grind the grain and bake that cake legitimately without first securing the fields and tending the lambs.

Pro 24:27 Prepare your work outside; get everything ready for yourself in the field, and after that build your house.

The guy sells books to eat and lead, right? What do you expect if they are not selling or rather, they ain't buying and they are leaving the parish or the community you have worked?

I don't know much about the man, you seem to?

I agree with some of what you assess him out to be. Without paying followers, you are just a poor leader and working jobs too, or more!

Get a job might be my response as the Scriptures don't lie until your paying members can support you:

Pro 14:23 In all toil there is profit, but mere talk tends only to poverty.
Pro 14:24 The crown of the wise is their wealth, but the folly of fools brings folly.
Pro 14:25 A truthful witness saves lives, but one who breathes out lies is deceitful.

You, at least seem truthful.

bird brain

Mark T. said...


I apologize for the “bird brain” slam. It was purely gratuitous and unkind. But I sure wish you could write more succinctly. You tend to wander in places that don’t necessarily follow one another. In this instance, it appears that you’re saying, “Follow the money.” Is this correct?

Anonymous said...

Hey MT,

Don't worry, I am married with two teenagers and they tell me I have a bird brain, daily! It doesn't surprise me that you can see it too!

Money is a big one with me. Yes, follow the money supply or lack thereof. I have seen the deceitfulness of it even in my organization, as Jesus foretold:

Mat 13:22 As for what was sown among thorns, this is the one who hears the word, but the cares of the world and the deceitfulness of riches choke the word, and it proves unfruitful.

Hey, being a bird brain, well, it's my victim heritage; I am an Indian and we just don't trust you white men! My tribe was known for wearing feathers in the hair, dancing, chanting strange things too. That might also contribute to what your read is of me? Ever been to a pow wow? :)

I am new to this frucas. Is it about over? Is this a rising or a setting sun?

Where do you position yourself? Are you what or what?, who with who?

A bit about me historically then. I came into being, then while lost at 21, enlightened then by this verse:

Mat 1:21 She will bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins."

All of a sudden it came to me one sunny summer morning while I was reading the "KJV", it hit me what my problem was, I was lost! Now I knew I was saved and then saved and saved and saved and I am still being daily these many years later. That's reformed theology, yes?

My Church organ/body/spiritual house came into being about 1970. We do not have the length of time the PCA does but it seems there is nothing new under the sun as we have the same sort of thing happening within our group too.

I, for one, just like good old fashion Bible preaching that proclaims the Gospel.

You seem to have an edge? You seem to put others on edge too.

I am "hear" to "listen", privately or publicly. Apparently you got James Jordon on edge. He's gone public with it. Have you been served with papers yet?

Do you know Douglas Wilson? My Church organization has schools so we were reading some work he produced, some of his writings. I didn't finish the book. That might be his problem? Maybe it was my bird brain? I don't know? You?

Anyway, yes, money seems to make the wolves come out when the Shepherd dies. I believe you hit the nail on the head with that one. Who would you suppose Wilson's head is? Who does he have to answer too?

Anyway, see, I'm off running again.

And you were questioning Wilson as being a historian. We all have to receive history from somewhere and someone either orally or in writing or by tape or video etc. etc. I am now questioning him as a historian.

And you were questioning Wilson as a theologian. Now I am too.

Who is a Historian or Theologian? Who vindicates one?

You obviously put yourself out as both by questioning him. You have had to rely upon a firm foundation to do that, yes?

How am I to judge either of you?

Here is one way I put some merit in judging another, testing the spirit. Is the same Holy Ghost in their words as Paul wrote that of the Lord Jesus being vindicated by the Holy Ghost? If the Holy Ghost is in them words, I don't dispute them even when they are hard words and hard to understand:

1Ti 3:16 Great indeed, we confess, is the mystery of godliness: He was manifested in the flesh, vindicated by the Spirit, seen by angels, proclaimed among the nations, believed on in the world, taken up in glory.

I am sure with you it's not a hesitation but don't hesitate to edit my thinking as I learn a whole lot more when another does that! It really is safe being a bird brain. Try it, it might help? :) Or not?

Thanks for being straight and honest about all this even though suspicions abound about you!

Do you really care?


Mark T. said...


Yes, I care and because I care let me make one correction. I have not represented myself as historian or a theologian, I have only pointed out that Wilson is neither. He has no formal training in either field and he has never submitted to an authority from either field when they have challenged his errors.

Now I have a homework assignment for you. Try to write one paragraph that sticks to point. You’re creative and guile free, but hard to follow at times. Brevity. Think brevity.

And thanks for your contributions.

Anonymous said...

"Judge not lest you be judged" some eternally wise One said.

Mark T., you have rightly said that DW is unfounded in both History and Theology. He does have a following though. As has been seen of his fruit, as you have shown it also, it comes out in an unsound sense, "not" drinkable, especially when he is called on the carpet for his discrepancies. It seems by your characterization that he "goes" on the defense and deflects away from them instead of being found guilty, then in the course of time, absolved and restored to rightful integrity among his peers. He is propping up himself instead of standing up Christ to his student. You cannot be readily accepted if you are neither yourself even though you humbly admit you are neither a learned historian or theologian. So, as much as has been said already by you, you have to be taken with a grain of salt yourself. "Salt" nevertheless and tasty, so please understand that I am not impugning your integrity like others have, just pointing out the discrepancy twofold, both yours and his.

Mark T. said...


Well said and I must say,

Thank you.

Anonymous said...

Mark T.

I had a very good sleep last night! You?

I found myself pondering my paragraph and it seems I passed your paragraph test?

I wanted to develop a thought so as to lay to rest any ad hominem that might be considered of me about DW with regard to the wolf analogy you made reference to, Acts 20:29-30, that I expanded.

Keep in mind these things so it's clear that I am not laying a charge out that DW,s character is of the devil! No, quite the opposite. He's a man of God! He might just be a bad Presbyterian, :)!

Consider this father's heart?

Gen 49:27 "Benjamin is a ravenous wolf, in the morning devouring the prey and at evening dividing the spoil."

Consider this Son's ....:

Mat 7:15 "Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves.
Mat 7:16 You will recognize them by their fruits. Are grapes gathered from thornbushes, or figs from thistles?
Mat 7:17 So, every healthy tree bears good fruit, but the diseased tree bears bad fruit.
Mat 7:18 A healthy tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a diseased tree bear good fruit.
Mat 7:19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.
Mat 7:20 Thus you will recognize them by their fruits.

Or, how about this one?

Joh 10:1 "Truly, truly, I say to you, he who does not enter the sheepfold by the door but climbs in by another way, that man is a thief and a robber.

and again:

Joh 10:6 This figure of speech Jesus used with them, but they did not understand what he was saying to them.
Joh 10:7 So Jesus again said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, I am the door of the sheep.
Joh 10:8 All who came before me are thieves and robbers, but the sheep did not listen to them.
Joh 10:9 I am the door. If anyone enters by me, he will be saved and will go in and out and find pasture.
Joh 10:10 The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy. I came that they may have life and have it abundantly.
Joh 10:11 I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep.
Joh 10:12 He who is a hired hand and not a shepherd, who does not own the sheep, sees the wolf coming and leaves the sheep and flees, and the wolf snatches them and scatters them.
Joh 10:13 He flees because he is a hired hand and cares nothing for the sheep.

And finally, this one:

1Jn 3:14 We know that we have passed out of death into life, because we love the brothers. Whoever does not love abides in death.
1Jn 3:15 Everyone who hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him.
1Jn 3:16 By this we know love, that he laid down his life for us, and we ought to lay down our lives for the brothers.

The main question and in fact the only one for me to ask and answer is, WHOSE IS THE WOLF?

Rather, who kills, steals and destroys in these stories I cite?

The devil? The Beast? The False Prophet? Satan's own? Death perhaps? Hades maybe? People not found in the Book of Life?

No, not them.

Who then? You?

No, not you.

Who, who, who?

How about Jesus?

No! Not Him!

Oh? Yes, Jesus is the Savior of my wretch soul, not the devil!!

That might just twist your theology some? I don't know?

Ah, did you want me to go on and explain?

Mark T. said...

The word “tip” is an acronym that stands for “To Insure Promptness,” which is why we leave the waitress an extra 5 spot on top of the 15% if she does well. Take a tip from me: stick to the concise paragraphs; keep them prompt. They’re much more becoming, easier to follow, less likely to wander, etc. . . . When you keep it on point, each sentence will follow the previous in logical sequence; you will be less likely to jump from one proposition to the next without establishing your points.

For example, your previous comment opens with an incoherent proposition and then rambles from one point to another, never establishing anything. I suppose you bring suppositions to the argument that are automatic in your mind, but not established in writing. For example, the texts you cited may be related, but you did not establish their relationship. Jacob’s blessing, the Son of God’s warning,

The word “tip” is an acronym that stands for “To Insure Promptness,” which is why we leave the waitress an extra 5 spot on top of the 15% if she does well. Take a tip from me: stick to the concise paragraphs; keep them prompt. They’re much more becoming, easier to follow, less likely to wander, etc. . . . When you keep it on point, each sentence will follow the previous in logical sequence; you will be less likely to jump from one proposition to the next without establishing your points.

For example, your previous comment opens with an incoherent proposition and then rambles from one point to another, never establishing anything. I suppose you bring suppositions to the argument that are automatic in your mind, but not established in writing. For example, the texts you cited may be related, but you did not establish their relationship. Jacob’s blessing, the Son of God’s warning, the Parable of the Thieves and Robbers, St. John’s instruction on brothers and murderers — they may be related but you have not made your point and I can’t read your mind. So when you ask, “WHOSE IS THE WOLF?” I don’t know if “whose” is a typo or intentional.

Please, make your point.

Anonymous said...

Mark T.

does everyone you meet have the same warm and fuzzy feeling I get when once I post on your blog?

I have a style of writing, incoherent is an excellent expression of it.

When I want to be concise, I am.

When I want my incoherency coherent I hire an editorial staff who are well trained to straighten out the twists and turns of my incoherency. Thanks for your edition! :)


That's probably not fair to you or your readers. Just a thought?

Yes, my point?

What was my point?

Well, I wanted to engage in "blog conversation" with you and "show" myself "blog friendly" to you so that it is "unmistakebly clear" to you or your other readers, that if I oppose something you say it will be based on a coherent relationship "we" have established here in this place, your blogsphere. Want to be my blog friend?


I have read up "some" on this fracas going on between the Louisiana Presbytery and the PCA, the NPP and FV. In fact a couple of Lutheran Theologians I know have recently pointed to it. Hmmmmmm?

Would it be a fair question of me to ask you if you are living in Idaho? Especially, in the Moscow area? Especially, in light of some of the communications I have read between you and others, i.e., warning them to stay away from DW and his trough or move from that area of Idaho? Have you been a personal part of his ministry? Were you bitten too by that "closed in" society?

Here's another question. Do you feel or believe or think DW is a wolf? Or, rather, do you believe he is a Godly man with a call on his life to serve Christ's Body, the Holy Christian Church, the Holy Dwelling Places of the Most High?

My point: The "Law of Righteousness" is the "wolf". God through Christ disarmed Satan long ago but has allowed him to twist the "Truth" so as to gain ascendancy over my soul and yours and anyone's soul who will listen to him and follow him "away" from "Truth".

Proof text:

Luk 11:21 When a strong man, fully armed, guards his own palace, his goods are safe;
Luk 11:22 but when one stronger than he attacks him and overcomes him, he takes away his armor in which he trusted and divides his spoil.

Col 2:15 He disarmed the rulers and authorities and put them to open shame, by triumphing over them in him.

Rom 7:10 The very commandment that promised life proved to be death to me.
Rom 7:11 For sin, seizing an opportunity through the commandment, deceived me and through it killed me.

My Point: The Holy Christian Church, the Holy Dwelling Places of the Most High alive today seems to be "playing" "church" instead of "Being" the "Church" in this worldwide evangelization today and the world is sitting back wondering when we will "be" what we "say" we are, instead of playing the part, instead of playing it like some New York drama on stage! Just consider the internet messages being posted since 2002 after the gang of four convened the infamous Auburn Ave. conference that seems to "still" be swirling around in our heads!

Why is that Mark T.?

Are you to blame? :)

Why did you deem it appropriate to post, in a public forum, [those confidential, albeit ""very very"" unconfidential emails, that brought those spiritual waters to a boil], those emails?

See, there I go. I was just going to add to that question my own reasonings. I caught myself. I won't now that I caught myself just about to type them forth.

My point: The Holy Christian Church, the Holy Dwelling Places of the Most High, [refer to Psalms 46], is not being "still" enough to rise up and "silence" Satan and accomplish the tasks at hand.

Why is that? What are those tasks?

Psalms 149 in my judgment are the only tasks at hand instead of all this fracas going on in the PCA or any other "legitimate" Christ/Body on earth.

Psalms 149:

Psa 149:6 Let the high praises of God be in their throats and two-edged swords in their hands,
Psa 149:7 to execute vengeance on the nations and punishments on the peoples,
Psa 149:8 to bind their kings with chains and their nobles with fetters of iron,
Psa 149:9 to execute on them the judgment written! This is honor for all his godly ones. Praise the LORD!

Right now I am hard pressed to find any honor among the Holy Christian Church with all this fracas going on, you?

I am not going anywhere or backing down on this point, are you?

Oh yeah. Thanks for being patient with me! I sense you are frustrated.

Anonymous said...


yes, you got it, whose, was intended for the "play" on word.

Mark T. said...


I’m not sure if I’m frustrated or impatient with your style. There’s no need to use 800 words when 150 will do the job. You really should be concise. “In the multitude of words there wanteth not sin: but he that refraineth his lips is wise.” (Prov. 10:19.)

Your view that the law of righteousness is the wolf is wrong; it doesn’t fit, and your proof texts don’t prove it unless you resort to hermeneutical high jinks, which is one more argument to stay concise, making sure each point follows the previous.

Think tight and write tight. Please.

Anonymous said...


so that's an invitation to bring that forth then?

The wolf, ok, who is the wolf?

Rev 3:3 Remember, then, what you received and heard. Keep it, and repent. If you will not wake up, I will come like a thief, and you will not know at what hour I will come against you.

And, we cannot always be like you Mark T.. Possibly that might be a problem.

But, agreed, this is your blog, not mine, so I guess I will have to be concise.

Anonymous said...

Well, being frustrated is making yourself out to be less than a man of His Faith, so I guess you were not being frustrated. If you were and are willing to take it to the next level, repent.

Well, being impatient is not one of His virtues so if you are, I pity you and will be patient with you long as Love is patient and kind.

I willing to learn what you know about wolves too.

Oh yeah, one more thing. Is it only me that observes you don't answer personal questions, like the many I have asked?

Mark T. said...

No, I noticed it too.

Anonymous said...

Dang Mark, you noticed too!

But, the wolves man, the wolves?? Or are you woman? :)

I just finished the article on exposing Wilson and the "history" between you two if it is fair to say, "you two?".

From it I guess it is fair to say you are an educator or were an educator at Idaho University.

I can appreciate your secrecy. I am not pressing you on it. From the sounds of it about living and being "known" in Moscow, Idaho, I wouldn't want anyone to know who I am knowing full well the wrath I would experience from the kind Christians within the group you are exposing believing your representation that that's what they do to former insiders.

Mark T. said...


This is a fully documented anonymous attack blog. Please read the text in my profile as well as the category “Anonymity,” and make careful note that I am not interested in seeing Wilson and his goon squads come after me. You may think this cute and funny, but those on the receiving end of his vengeance do not. These are evil men without conscience, and they will stop at nothing to exact revenge — probably because they love God so much.

Therefore, please limit your inquiries to the theme of this blog, which you will find on my sidebar: “Dedicated to a small faction of self-professed ‘medieval Trinitarians’ bent on modernizing the Westminster Confession of Faith to conform to their contemporary standards, which they have yet to define.”

Thank you.

Anonymous said...


yes, ok.

Sorry, force of habit I believe. One of my mentors over 30 years ago taught this little journalistic jingle:

"six men serve me good and true, what, when, why, how, where, who".

As for the "high jinks" interpretation though. I do believe Our God has given me some "revelation" on that..., that is, ....the armor taken off the strongman in the verse I pointed too is the Law of Righteousness.

I can say that it is the "Law" of Righteousness that Satan used to destroy the "planned" eternal life Adam and Eve were left to enjoy before the serpent spoke to Eve.

You seem more learned than I, that's why I raised it up in here.

I would like to explore that with you. Maybe you can direct me to a forum for such a discussion?

Wow, I didn't know that about DW and his. I kinda understand the "inside" group idea, as the Church is in the world and not of it. Some false prophets have taken that to extremes. A distant cousin of mine surely did in Jonestown, Guayana.

I am a Pomo Indian.


Mark T. said...


I don’t buy private “revelation” because it defies reason. It goes like this: I ground my argument in reason, you appeal to your revelation; suddenly I am at an immediate disadvantage because I didn’t get the revelation but I’m supposed to believe you did.

It’s much easier (and more reasonable) when we both ground our arguments in the one revelation that neither of us contests, i.e. Holy Scripture. Let me illustrate the point. The Federal Visionists claim that they know the Reformers’ original intents. Of course, they can’t point to anything that gives them this special knowledge, which forces reasonable men to conclude that the Federal Visionists are either Gnostics or liars. Personally, I believe it makes them post-Enlightenment liars, but that’s beside the point. So it’s always best to stick to the demonstrable facts, which is why my blog is fully documented.

Anonymous said...


read them all!

Oooops, was going to, but I am quick to learn! :)

You don't have any goons waiting in the wings trolling up stuff now on me do you?

Ah, you would not answer that question anyway because if you were, why would you answer me truthfully and if you were not, ah, geeesh, just shoot me! :)

Quite honestly, I am eating my words from the very first post in your blog to which you came back and said I was a bird brain kinda a bird brain. Now I am thinking, I have been one big bird brain getting into all this!

And I never knew!!!

You have brought me to a revelation here.

And for the record, I don't know Doug W. or anyone associated to him. Thank God!

It does appear that what I am up too doesn't fit in here but now I know where to go when I want to know about doing the Word of God:

Eph 5:11 Take no part in the unfruitful works of darkness, but instead expose them.
Eph 5:12 For it is shameful even to speak of the things that they do in secret.
Eph 5:13 But when anything is exposed by the light, it becomes visible,
Eph 5:14 for anything that becomes visible is light. Therefore it says, "Awake, O sleeper, and arise from the dead, and Christ will shine on you."
Eph 5:15 Look carefully then how you walk, not as unwise but as wise,
Eph 5:16 making the best use of the time, because the days are evil.
Eph 5:17 Therefore do not be foolish, but understand what the will of the Lord is.

Thanks for the enlightenment mt!

May Our Good Lord look after you a bit more or at least buy your lunch from day to day!


Anonymous said...

Well then, maybe you will engage me on sola scriptura only then?

Like one professor said, let Scripture expand Scripture.

I have no reason to argue your point unless of course I am arguing your point. I wholeheartedly agree with your presupposition and also know it's quite dangerous and highly suspicious for one to rely on a revelation that cannot be tested by the Holy Ghost and the Word.

I am happy to be examined by them and you, as I am of the Light now, as in a Blood washed Son of the Light now with nothing to hide and no secret agenda.

I don't want your money. Thank you Good Lord for keeping your Promise:

It is the blessing of the Lord to make a man wealthy and add no sorrow to it. Proverbs 10:22

I am blessed though that you take your time to engage me this way!

The reproofs of instruction are the way of life. Proverbs 6:23