From: Jeff Meyers
Subject: Mo Presbytery
I’m leaving with Mark for presbytery in a few moments. I just wanted to remind you all to pray for us. He should be on the floor in the middle of the afternoon.
Thanks!
JJM
Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2005 17:48:57 -0600
From: burke
Subject: Mark Horne
Any news on Mark Horne? You guys praying? Probably not too late to do so.
Burke
Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2005 17:53:22 -0600
From: “WAYNE LARSON”
Subject: Re: Mark Horne
I just called Jennifer and she said that he got in. No details though. Yippee!!!
wl
Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2005 19:42:27 -0600
From: Jeff Meyers
Subject: Mark’s Transfer
Yes, Mark’s transfer is done. He’s a member of MO Presbytery. Mark did a fine job on the floor, even though there were a few members who were trying to trip him up. I say this because after Mark had left the room, during the debate about sustaining his exam, they twisted what Mark had said and tried to use it against him. I was really rather shocked that they did this. Perhaps they didn’t do it on purpose, but I found it hard to believe that the men who did this didn’t know they were misrepresenting what Mark had said in answer to their questions.
I was worried for a while, but the vote was something like 25–17. There was a substitute motion to wait until our FV study committee was finished to act on his reception, but that failed.
Amazing. Thanks be to God!
JJM
Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2005 17:43:12 -0800
From: Daniel Dillard
Subject: Re: Mark Horne
Praise the Lord!
Dan Dillard
Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2005 22:10:26 -0600
From: Douglas Jordan
Subject: Re: Re: Mark’s Transfer
Excellent! Congrats, Mark! 8-)
So then Mark’s process of transferring to Jeff’s church is now declassified? I’ve friends down here that would be happy to hear the news.
Doug
Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2005 01:52:35 -0000
From: “garver”
Subject: Re: Mark’s Transfer
Jeff Meyers wrote:
Yes, Mark’s transfer is done. He’s a member of MO Presbytery. Mark did a fine job on the floor, even though there were a few members who were trying to trip him up.
w00t!! glad to hear it. thanks be to God.
joel
Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2005 02:29:22 -0000
From: “Kevin Bywater”
Subject: Re: Mark’s Transfer
I cannot convey how happy I am right now, even though it’s 2.30am here in Durham! (I’m having trouble sleeping tonight.) I am so thankful. Tears of joy! May God’s mercy overflow throughout the PCA! Unfortunately, some likely will continue to oppose. But God is with you, Mark and Jeff. I wish I could be there to celebrate.
Joyfully yours,
Kevin
Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2005 21:34:29 EST
From: Calvin3Max@aol.com
Subject: Re: Re: Mark’s Transfer
How marvelous! Praise the Lord!
Eric
Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2005 20:48:27 -0600
From: Mark Horne
Subject: Re: Mo Presbytery
One of the newest members of MO Pby greets you.
God is good!
Mark Horne
Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2005 19:35:13 -0800
From: Daniel Dillard
Subject: Re: Mo Presbytery
Yes indeed! Hallelujah!
CONGRATULATIONS, MARK AND JENNIFER!
Blessings,
Dan Dillard
Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2005 23:20:07 -0600
From: Mark Horne
Subject: Mark’s Transfer
That’s right. No more secret.
Mark
Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2005 08:49:00 -0600 (GMT-06:00)
From: William Smith
Subject: Re: Mark’s Transfer
This is great news! I know Mark is relieved.
Thanks be to God!
Bill
Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2005 09:29:15 -0600
From: Mark Horne
Subject: Re: Mark’s Transfer
Yes, I am greatly relieved. And thankful.
Reading Jeff’s explanation again this morning, I think he may have miscommunicated (or else I am misunderstanding). When it came to the voice vote to receive me, I believe I had an even greater majority. The 25–17 wasn’t so much about me as about the FV/NP/baptism/kitchen sink Committee and whether my reception should be delayed until after they do their work.
One of the great encouragements was meeting fans (seminary students, not Presbyters) and also getting great compliments from Presbyters whom I had never met. One of the interesting developments was that the pastor of the New City Fellowship Church was absolutely certain that all I had articulated was Reformed Theology as opposed to Baptist Theology.
Of course, it helps that, as a matter of fact, I’m only a second-hand Bible scholar and actually have reached a lot of my conclusions studying the WCF&Cs (though without the greatly needed aid of Lig Duncan’s historical notes on what it really means). So my language on imputation, merit, etc, was actually quite conventional.
Thinking over Rich Lusk’s experience and my own, I have to say that this whole controversy may be easier to win than any of us realized. My questioners asked about a broad spectrum of things but it seemed to me that they really harped on my views of children being Christians. They really think that this is the most important threat and/or this is the most obvious vulnerability. This puts me in a position I’d never thought I’d be in: I’m more in step with the PCA then they are. I pray this continues to be their strategy.
Finally, I’ll make one, perhaps bitter-sounding comment, but I don’t feel bitter. I can not think of the PPLN the way I used to only a week ago. PPLN members were at the lead in opposing me. Everything the organization ever advocated in good faith subscription and tolerance was set aside for me. They had no confessional ground for opposing me, but they did anyway. It’s just another country club and I am not a member. They talk a good talk but, if you’re not important, you have no rights.
I know you would like more details, but I would rather see Chris Smith relate what took place. The fact is that I don’t have a good memory for this sort of thing. I cracked jokes to relieve my own tension (which was quite great) and that worked for everyone else as well. Frankly, I would find myself in the middle of sentences and forget what I had thought I was trying to say. I forgot the question I was supposed to be addressing a couple of times. But everyone was real happy with me. Dr. Collins (the head of the Candidates & Credentials Committee was probably happier with me after Presbytery than he ever has been).
God be praised.
Mark
Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2005 09:39:19 -0600
From: Jeff Meyers
Subject: Re: Mark’s Transfer
On Jan 19, 2005, at 9:29 AM, Mark Horne wrote:
One of the great encouragements was meeting fans (seminary students, not Presbyters) and also getting great compliments from Presbyters whom I had never met. One of the interesting developments was that the pastor of the New City Fellowship Church was absolutely certain that all I had articulated was Reformed Theology as opposed to Baptist Theology.
Oh, and you weren’t in the room for one of the “precious moments.” Wilson Benton was going on and on about how awful this “FV” view of baptism was. Then Barry Henning, the Pastor of NCF, said that he had learned that the children of believers were to be counted as Christian from baptism at Westminster East! This was standard Reformed theology, he said. The opposition, he said, seems Baptist, not Reformed. Wilson Benton then immediately said, “Then I’m a Baptist.” There was some laughing, but also some dismayed looks! He said it to get a laugh, but I don’t think he realized how “true” (Joel Garver’s definition) it really was.
Last post. Off to India!
JJM
Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2005 09:50:10 -0600
From: “James B. Jordan”
Subject: Mark’s Transfer
At 09:29 AM 1/19/2005, Mark barked:
The fact is that I don’t have a good memory for this sort of thing. I cracked jokes to relieve my own tension
I remember next to nothing about my wedding, for the same reason. Some of us, when we are “up,” go into some other mode and don’t remember much afterwards.
JBJ
Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2005 11:03:54 -0600
From: Chris Smith
Subject: Mark’s Transfer
When it came to the voice vote to receive me, I believe I had an even greater majority. The 25–17 wasn’t so much about me as about the FV/NP/baptism/kitchen sink Committee and whether my reception should be delayed until after they do their work.
To clarify . . . the twentysomething to 17 vote defeated a substitute motion which proposed postponing Mark’s transfer until after the FV/Justification Study Committee had reported its conclusions to the presbytery.
After the substitute motion was defeated, the vote to approve Mark’s transfer passed by voice vote — I’d venture a guess 2/3 to 1/3 or 3/4 to 1/4 in Mark’s favor.
One of the interesting developments was that the pastor of the New City Fellowship Church was absolutely certain that all I had articulated was Reformed Theology as opposed to Baptist Theology.
Barry Henning, senior pastor of NCF in St. Louis, said that though he wasn’t sure that he agreed with every jot and tittle of Mark’s theology, but he basically agreed with what he had heard Mark articulate in response to the many questions that were thrown his way AND that he further thought that Mark articulated the standard Continental Reformed theology that he was taught at Westminster Seminary in Philly. In fact, he wondered aloud what all the fuss was about and said that in his opinion that some of those who were interrogating Mark appeared to be articulating what he had always understood to be a standard Baptistic theology. Barry said this very matter of factly and was in no way trying to pick a fight.
My questioners asked about a broad spectrum of things but it seemed to me that they really harped on my views of children being Christians. They really think that this is the most important threat and/or this is the most obvious vulnerability.
Several times I heard something like this from the questioners: “My main pastoral concern is that I meet people everyday who ‘think’ they are Christians because they’re baptized yet their lives don’t bear that out in any way.” The fear of false assurance of securing someone in their foolish presumption seems to be one of the major stated concerns with stronger view of baptismal efficacy. Of course, when questioned Mark made clear that he always makes it his practice to exhort the baptized to always trust Christ, continue to confess Him, diligently use the means of grace at their disposal, and to improve upon their baptisms.
I think that the FV folks need to say more about this. It seems that when many people hear us say, “You were joined to Christ in your baptism” they hear “Put your feet up and relax . . . presume away!” No one is saying this, but that’s what a lot of people are hearing.
Finally, I’ll make one, perhaps bitter-sounding comment, but I don’t feel bitter. I can not think of the PPLN the way I used to only a week ago. PPLN members were at the lead in opposing me. Everything the organization ever advocated in good faith subscription and tolerance was set aside for me. They had no confessional ground for opposing me, but they did anyway.
I do think this is overshooting things a little, Mark. I hesitate to say more with a potential BH leak.
I know you would like more details, but I would rather see Chris Smith relate what took place. The fact is that I don’t have a good memory for this sort of thing. I cracked jokes to relieve my own tension (which was quite great) and that worked for everyone else as well.
I thought Mark did a masterful job on the floor. I was very impressed, as was most of the presbytery with the substance of his answers, his demeanor, the way he handled badgering . . . he did very well. He was clear and concise and was not evasive in any way. I think everyone appreciated this.
Rev. Christopher T. Smith
Associate Pastor
Providence Reformed Presbyterian Church
9124 Sappington Rd.
St. Louis, MO 63126
314-962-1974
ctsmith53@sbcglobal.net
http://www.prpc-stl.org
Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2005 10:19:48 -0800
From: Daniel Dillard
Subject: Mark’s Transfer
On Jan 19, 2005, at 9:03 AM, Chris Smith wrote:
Several times I heard something like this from the questioners: “My main pastoral concern is that I meet people everyday who ‘think’ they are Christians because they’re baptized yet their lives don’t bear that out in any way.” The fear of false assurance of securing someone in their foolish presumption seems to be one of the major stated concerns with stronger view of baptismal efficacy. Of course, when questioned Mark made clear that he always makes it his practice to exhort the baptized to always trust Christ, continue to confess Him, diligently use the means of grace at their disposal, and to improve upon their baptisms.
That’s a legitimate concern, but how about this:
Not infrequently I meet people who think they are Christians because they made a profession of faith yet their lives don’t bear that out in any way. Why doesn’t the fear of false assurance of securing someone in their foolish presumption apply here?
Is it not because profession of faith has become a sort of “third sacrament” which unlike the two instituted by Jesus is somehow seen as efficacious?
Blessings,
Dan Dillard
Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2005 13:27:58 -0500
From: “John Heaton”
Subject: Mark’s Transfer
Dan,
You’re right about that exactly. But the fact is . . . I meet NOONE any more who has this false trust in his baptism. Is this not a bogey man perpetuated by reformed evangelical pastors, for whom the last book they read on Roman Catholicism, baptismal regeneration, etc. was probably Lorraine Boetter? Realistically, the kind of people I meet, especially the young, are completely unchurched, biblically illiterate, (even if they’re raised in church), and wouldn’t recognize a valid sacrament if it dry-cleaned them.
My $.02
John Heaton
Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2005 12:33:50 -0600
From: Chris Smith
Subject: Re: Mark’s Transfer
That’s a legitimate concern, but how about this:
Not infrequently I meet people who think they are Christians because they made a profession of faith yet their lives don’t bear that out in any way. Why doesn’t the fear of false assurance of securing someone in their foolish presumption apply here?
I think you’re exactly right, and I agree. My point was that we need to acknowledge and emphasize--more than we have--that presumption IS a legitimate concern.
Is it not because profession of faith has become a sort of “third sacrament” which unlike the two instituted by Jesus is somehow seen as efficacious?
This too would be good to point out. It’ s not just presuming upon baptism that is dangerous, but presuming upon a profession of faith, a walking of the aisle, or a praying of THE prayer that is also dangerous. The sort of thing you say needs to be included in these discussions/debates. It’s another case of suspecting that the FVers approve of things that they don’t EXPLICITLY deny.
Chris
Rev. Christopher T. Smith
Associate Pastor
Providence Reformed Presbyterian Church
9124 Sappington Rd.
St. Louis, MO 63126
314-962-1974
ctsmith53@sbcglobal.net
http://www.prpc-stl.org
Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2005 10:34:15 -0800
From: Daniel Dillard
Subject: Re: Mark’s Transfer
Indeed, I’m not sure I’ve ever met someone who said they were trusting in their baptism for salvation. Nor do I meet folks that are busting their chops trying to earn salvation by good works. Mostly I meet folks that either (a) profess and follow Christ (b) profess but do not follow Christ (c) don’t know anything, and think whatever anyone believes is fine as long as they don’t bother anyone else.
Blessings,
Dan Dillard
Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2005 10:36:53 -0800
From: “Dale Courtney”
Subject: RE: Mark’s Transfer
Well, I think they are speaking out of both sides of their mouths.
I hear some saying “the FV says to trust in their baptism for salvation”.
I hear others saying “the FV is saying that you need to trust in your own works for salvation”.
Neither side “gets it”.
pax,
Dale
Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2005 18:58:51 +0000
From: “Jamison Galt”
Subject: Mark’s Transfer
I transcribed all of the questions asked to Mark from the floor. (Probably about twenty.) I remember finding it extremely helpful to hear Rich’s account of his exam in AL, and would be happy to post the questions here if anyone else would find it helpful. Also, with Mark’s permission I could include a very shorthand account of his basic answers. Mark et al, let me know. . .
— Jamison Galt
Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2005 12:00:35 -0700
From: “Tim Gallant”
Subject: Mark’s Transfer
Well, I think they are speaking out of both sides of their mouths. I hear some saying “the FV says to trust in their baptism for salvation”. I hear others saying “the FV is saying that you need to trust in your own works for salvation”. Neither side “gets it”.
This is a common complaint among us, and I commiserate, gentlemen.
To be fair, however, the Reformers laid the same sorts of charges against Roman Catholic doctrine, and not without justice. It *is* possible to be simultaneously guilty of presumption and legalism. In fact, in some respects, I am willing to say that some Jews of Paul’s day were guilty of just that.
My point, obviously, is not that “FV” type thinking is guilty of those things — I don’t believe that for a second. But answering such critics by pitting these two accusations against one another is a bit too simplistic, I’m afraid.
tim
Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2005 12:35:41 -0600
From: mifarley@sbcglobal.net
Subject: Mark’s Transfer
Several times I heard something like this from the questioners: “My main pastoral concern is that I meet people everyday who ‘think’ they are Christians because they’re baptized yet their lives don’t bear that out in any way.” The fear of false assurance of securing someone in their foolish presumption seems to be one of the major stated concerns with stronger view of baptismal efficacy. Of course, when questioned Mark made clear that he always makes it his practice to exhort the baptized to always trust Christ, continue to confess Him, diligently use the means of grace at their disposal, and to improve upon their baptisms.
I think that the FV folks need to say more about this. It seems that when many people hear us say, “You were joined to Christ in your baptism” they hear “Put your feet up and relax...presume away!” No one is saying this, but that’s what a lot of people are hearing.
The irony of this comment is that FV is also simultaneously accused of being “neo-legalist” and Arminian because of the stress on the necessity of perseverance and the possibility of apostasy. We are accused of teaching (final) justification by our own works of obedience added to the work of Christ. Rather than encouraging presumption, others apparently are hearing us teach things that undermine proper Christian assurance and stress our own faithfulness too much.
When we have conversations with those anxious about either presumption or legalism, we should remind them of the other accusations and ask them why the same theological position is generating such contradictory claims. They need to see that the contradictory claims arise not from an imbalance in the FV materials themselves but rather from an imbalance and faulty reading on the part of hearers/readers who only listen to part of what’s being said and then draw their own inferences. I think everything that needs to be said on the necessity of persevering faith is already present in the various articles. It simply needs to be pointed out.
Mike
Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2005 14:11:24 EST
From: Calvin3Max@aol.com
Subject: Mark’s Transfer
In a message dated 1/19/2005 12:05:11 PM Eastern Standard Time, Chris Smith writes:
I think that the FV folks need to say more about this. It seems that when many people hear us say, “You were joined to Christ in your baptism” they hear “Put your feet up and relax . . . presume away!” No one is saying this, but that’s what a lot of people are hearing.
Good point Chris. That is exactly the way I was treated as a young MO Synod Lutheran. I never heard of a concept of improving on your baptism, sanctification, or even repentance in all my years; and I had very good MO Synod pastors up til the last one. Liturgy of Scripture set to music, three Scripture readings and all that good Lutheran hymnody kept my heart warmed to the Gospel. Also a godly father and mother helped. Perhaps they think we’ve all become Lutheran on them.
Eric
Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2005 18:30:17 -0500
From: “Brian D. Nolder”
Subject: FV criticism Re: Mark’s Transfer
Brothers:
In my mind, there are two “big things” that mean most of these guys will not hear us: paedocom (which gives an inherent objectivity to the sacrament that these guys can only see as RC, ex opere operato) and that we challenge the tradition at certain points (e.g. active obedience of X). I don’t think these guys can stand any challenge to the confessions. Thus, anyone who presumes to do this is suspect.
BDN
Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2005 16:33:23 -0700
From: “Tim Gallant”
Subject: FV criticism Re: Mark’s Transfer
The problem with that theory, Brian, is that lots of people who are getting attacked do not fall under either of those categories. So what’s the rationale? Guilt by association?
tim
Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2005 22:01:48 -0800
From: Daniel Dillard
Subject: FV criticism Re: Mark’s Transfer
Yes, any challenge to the confessions, or even suspected deviation, can only be in the direction of heresy — except, of course, regarding creation. Trying to argue semper reformanda via sola Scriptura runs into the paradigm wall.
DJD
