Attack on Dale Smith and North TX pby

Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2005 14:35:20 -0600
From: Mark Horne
Subject: Attack on Dale Smith and North TX pby

http://tinyurl.com/5d8pq

Follow the link to see Dale’s ex-ruling elder comment on the same part of the report that I noticed:

n one church, an AAT/FV sympathetic pastor has engineered the removal of an associate who was fully committed to the PCA doctrinal position but objected to the pastor’s extra- or anti-confessional views.

Sounds familiar!

~Wayne Wylie~
Attending, Mid Cities Presbyterian Church (OPC)
http://www.mcopc.org
Bedford, TX

-----------------------------------

The Mississippi Valley report is stacked with unsubstantiated unreferenced gossip. In this case, and who knows where else, the report is actually presuming to ignore the official action of North Texas Presbytery in investigating Dale. They are also misinforming the public in not pointing out that this conflict erupted when the associate wanted to strip the Church of its Christmas and Easter observance.

May God deliver the PCA from the League of Presbyterian Sociopaths.

Mark

Blood transfusions

Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2005 13:57:58 EST
From: Leithart@aol.com
Subject: Blood transfusions

Hey, you medical and ethical and medical-ethical types,

What do you think of blood transfusions? Are they covered by the prohibition of blood in Acts 15? Would blood transfusions have been prohibited under the law? Has anything changed to make it OK?

Peter

My Response

Date: Wed, 09 Feb 2005 05:33:39 -0000
From: “garver”
Subject: my response

Ok, well, I didn’t get any further feedback, so I guess it’s ok.

I’m headed to bed now. Today felt like Lent arrived a day early.

joel

Unusual Baptism Circumstance

Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2005 19:18:26 GMT
From: “Joe Thacker”
Subject: Unusual Baptism Circumstance

Wise Counselors,

Last night our Session was posed with an interesting circumstance. One of our elder’s sons is a missionary in Brazil, and he and his wife will be making a return trip to the USA for a wedding this Spring. Since their move to Brazil, a child has been born to them. Due to the circumstances they are in, the baby is yet to be baptized. The son wondered about having the baby baptized in our chuch while they are back in the States. Though the family is from an ARP church, the Session is all for baptizing the baby — seeing this as an extraordinary circumstance. (Also, the family would be in no position to return to the ARP church they attended in Canada when they were residing in Maine.)

So, it seems pretty clear that the vows to the parents would be pretty standard, but what about vows to the congregation? We will certainly be praying for this family while they are in Brazil, but the standard vows don’t seem to apply since a) they will be thousands of miles away in Brazil; and, b) they do not have membership in our local congregation, or even our denomination (PCA). Any suggestions?

As I already mentioned, the Session was unanimous in their decision to perform the baptism, but is there anything glaringly wrong with that decision?

And let me request permission to share any insights provided with the Session, unless stated otherwise (of course, I can keep advice anonymous).

Thanks in advance,

Joe Thacker
RP Church
Lookout Mt. GA

The Heatonic Observation

Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2005 17:24:44 -0500
From: “John Heaton”
Subject: ad hoc report — MVP — it’s up

All,

This is a hasty reply to the MVP report which I read. Hasty replies are ill-advised in Proverbs but this is BH after all. You’ll understand if I don’t make complete sense. Plus, I don’t have a dog in this hunt.

The MVP report to one *outside* like me who has more in common with rank and file pastors who are unaware of the whole bru-ha-ha, is neither acerbic or offensive. Yes, I KNOW you aren’t happy with it.

However, you who wish to advocate NPP/AAT/FV in the PCA in the name of X and in the interest of theological development must admit an important thing and conform your rhetoric and tactics to this reality: You DO NOT represent the status quo. You DO NOT represent the PCA as they conceive it, and YOU cannot pretend that you’re NOT *dangerous.*

We have the same problem in the REC. Our bishops want to re-Anglicanize the church, which is fine by me. But they can’t pretend that the REC is returning to its roots and its old paths. We all know what the REC is, has been, etc., and, though many believe it *should* be changed, the rhetorial burden of proof is on those who want to change it. In doing so, we can’t pretend that its really nothing more than changing the window dressing. Too many parishes know better.

Thus, avoid seeking the sympathy vote. No one will feel sorry that you’re persecuted (except those of us on BH who are sympathetic to you — but can’t vote). Above all you have to appear that you are being totally HONEST about the implications of what you advocate, rather than simply minimizing the issues under the cover of reformed diversity. It won’t work. I mean, the discussions on this list are animated prescisely BECAUSE the NPP is so provocative and interesting and worth pursuing. These ideas have great consequences and you have to be the first to say it. Clearly identify the tension and fight the battle there.

Those who disagree understand this and are negatively provoked. Thus, I think the MVP report is of great rhetorical value. It is very instructive not because it obscures or reveals the ulterior motives of those who are *out to get you.* They see something very clearly that you had better recognize — they are vanilla, and you are now chocolate. You’ll only win it by persuading the PCA that chocolate is better, not by insisting that chocolate nuggets have always been enjoyed, permitted, or otherwise mixed in the reformed recipe.

My $02.

John Heaton, Headmaster
New Covenant Schools
122 Fleetwood Drive
Lynchburg, VA 24501
434.847.8313

OPC DPW

Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2005 15:30:10 -0600
From: burke
Subject: Unusual Baptism Circumstance

I didn’t mean that the Reformers used congregational vows (hey, not even the OPC uses them!).

Are you saying that in the OPC, the congregation does not vow to help train up the child in Christ, assisting the parents where needed?

Burke



Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2005 16:50:51 -0500
From: “Brian D. Nolder”
Subject: OPC DPW (was Unusual Baptism Circumstance)

Burke:

It is not in our DPW, though many congregations do make the vow (including ours), and it will likely be the revised DPW that we will (hopefully!) approve this summer.

Brothers, I would ask you to pray about this (but also, remember the confidentiality of this list): the major author of the proposed revision that will likely be coming before our GA is a fan of Jeff’s book, and his own orders of service are explicitly covenant renewal. The OPC may end up with an explicitly covenant renewal model of worship in its DPW.

BDN

ad hoc report — MVP — it’s up

Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2005 15:12:01 -0600
From: Jonathan Barlow
Subject: ad hoc report — MVP — it’s up

fpcjackson.org/recent.htm

“Covenantal Grace”

Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2005 14:11:56 -0600
From: “Rich Lusk”
Subject: “covenantal grace”; was responding to the MVP Report

Nobody followed up on my earlier post regarding “covenantal grace,” but I did want to ask a question or two to Joel and anyone else who’s really familiar with the tradition of Reformed scholasticism.

This is what I wrote last night:

Joel’s Response

Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2005 11:04:28 -0600
From: “Jonathan Barlow”
Subject: joel’s response

Joel,

I enjoyed your response to the MVP. Just a few things:

1. You say that you’re “adverse” to controversy, but I think you mean “averse”.
2. “Make my own viewpoints clears” should be “clear”
3. Don’t forget to add the promised “concluding observations”
4. I would take out the bit about seeing the points earlier than the public release of them. Just let ’em wonder how your kung fu is that good.

Now, more thoughts:

Rich’s Missional Question

Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2005 09:40:28 -0600
From: Mark Horne
Subject: Rich’s missional question

Grist for the mill:

Goedel’s Incomplete Theology

Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2005 8:26:52 -0600
From: pduggan
Subject: Goedel’s Incomplete Theology

Are we claiming that TULIP and the decree are true statements, but not actually derivable from the Bible as a covenantal document?

It strikes me as odd to say that we can know all about the fact that there is a decree and that TULIP is true, but that we’re kinda “not supposed to think about it too much”.

I think our critics think that knowledge of TULIP and the decree as it applies to the individual is saving beneficial knowledge. So synchronically we experience undifferentiated grace, but synchronically, we can theologize and know that somehow that grace IS differentiated, and that theologizing necessarily affects out subjective experience of that grace, serving to differentiate it.

And we’re saying “don’t do that”. Or are we?

Paul the Diagnostic Questioner

Tim Keller vs. Jim Jordan; Being Missional vs. Being Liturgical

Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2005 02:09:53 -0600
From: “Rich Lusk”
Subject: tim keller vs. jim jordan; being missional vs. being liturgical

Maybe some of you pastors have wrestled with this issue. One thing I’ve wondered about for a long time now is how to balance the church’s call to be missional (to exist for the sake of the world as a servant-priesthood, not just in this or that that aspect of her life, but in *all* that she does) vs. upholding what I think is a biblical (and traditonal) form of liturgical worship in which the church’s *own* culture (her Spirit-wrought heritage) is most determinative and formative. I don’t buy John Farme’s “intelligbility” argument from 1 Cor. 14, nor do I want to confuse “worship” with “evangelism” as you have in the Willow Creek/seeker-friendly model. But if our worship is for the life of the world, it seems a case can be made for “missional” worship.

In Tim Keller’s fine paper on “The Missional Church”, he writes,

Responding to the MVP Report

Date: Tue, 08 Feb 2005 01:13:39 -0000
From: “garver”
Subject: responding to the MVP Report

As far as I can tell, the final report never showed up today on the FPC Jackson website.

Nevertheless, this is what I’ve whipped up so far as some kind of (yet unfinished) response:

joelgarver.com/docs/response.htm

I figure I might as well respond publicly now that I’ve been named in the footnotes of the preliminary report.

Besides, I’ve got nothing to lose, since my livelihood is not dependent in any way upon affiliation with the PCA (though if anyone wants me out of the PCA they will have to pry my cold, dead fingers off of my Westminster Confession).

In any case, since whatever I respond will potentially reflect upon a number of you, for good or ill, I don’t plan on making something public without input from you guys.

So any feedback is much appreciated.

joel

A Boat

Date: Mon, 7 Feb 2005 20:54:20 -0700
From: “John Barach”
Subject: Mark 3:9: A Boat

BHers —

What’s the significance of the boat that Jesus has His disciples prepare for Him in Mark 3:9?

MVP Report

Date: Mon, 7 Feb 2005 08:11:27 -0600
From: Jeff Meyers
Subject: MVP Report

According to Lig, the final FV/AAPC study committee report “unanimously approved by MVP” will be posted on the FPCJ website today.

JJM

Channeling Mark Horne

Date: Sun, 6 Feb 2005 15:54:54 -0600
From: Mark Horne
Subject: Why the blog entry regarding MVP might have vanished

The Youth Pastor’s blog has a counter. I checked it and it registered a our yahoo list as a referring list.

Mark

Beeson Question

Date: Sun, 6 Feb 2005 07:52:11 -0600
From: Jonathan Barlow
Subject: Beeson question

Hi Guys,

What do you know about this guy:

J. Alan Carter
B.S., Mississippi State University; M.Div., M.C.E., Reformed Theological Seminary; M.A., Western Kentucky University; Ph.D., Notre Dame University. Pastor, Faith Presbyterian Church, Birmingham.

He’s on the staff at Beeson Divinity School in Birmingham. Just curious if he would be someone I could talk to about the seminary there given that he’s PCA.

Thanks,

Jonathan

Who is under the law today?

Date: Fri, 4 Feb 2005 09:27:19 -0600
From: “Bill DeJong”
Subject: Who is under the law today?

Tim et al,

Consider this formulation: Christ’s coming changes the calendar for the entire world, not just for the Jews. The stoicheia tou kosmou, one of which was the Mosaic law, governed “this (present) age,” an age characterized by
immaturity and servitude and sin.

In Christ man comes of age. Those who are joined to Christ pass from minority to maturity and become members of “the age to come.”

Those who remain outside of Christ remain in “this age,” in immaturity and servitude, and under the stoicheia tou kosmou.

Bill

MVP and CCP

Date: Thu, 03 Feb 2005 22:09:12 +0000
From: “Frank D’Agostino”
Subject: MVP and CCP

Those of you directly affected by the uncharitable actions of these two Presbyteries will be in my prayers. I can’t even begin to imagine the stress you’re under. I only hope the call to war against FV/NPP stops here.

I hope you don’t mind if I pray impreccatory prayers against them. I hope they either repent and begin to engage in charitable dialogue with you; or else that they are severely humbled and removed from power.

— Frank

Central Carolina Overture

Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2005 15:31:04 -0600
From: “Steve Wilkins”
Subject: central carolina overture

Guys,

Here’s the text of the Central Carolina action (our stated clerk just received it)

sw

Mississippi Valley Presbytery’s denunciations?

Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2005 14:51:48 -0600
From: “Steven Wright”
Subject: Mississippi Valley Presbytery’s denunciations?

Does anyone know if the *presbytery* made those pronouncements?

As a candidate in the MS Valley Presbytery, I attended the Presbytery meeting on Tuesday. Ligon Duncan presented the “final report” of the Ad Hoc Committee on the NPP-NTW-NS-AAPC (“Federal Vision”) [I didn’t make that name up!]. This consisted of a 36-page document distributed at the meeting. Included are the previous précis reports, now with footnotes appended. Included as an “Exhibit” was the letter from the AAPC session responding to those précis reports. The major new item was a letter of over 4 pages designed to be sent out in the name of the MS Valley Presbytery. The plan is to send this to all PCA Presbyteries, maybe all PCA sessions, and perhaps to other denominations as guidance about these issues. At the heart of this letter is a list of 17 views deemed “to be outside the bounds of acceptable diversity within the PCA.” It was explained that no exceptions would be allowed in this Presbytery on these issues and the hope was that this would be the case throughout the PCA. Many of these statements are vague and cry out for clarification, but there were no questions or discussion from the floor of a substantive nature (just a few comments on typos, tone, and a concern about how negative language about John Frame would reflect on RTS). Another action was that this Presbytery would join with another (Central Florida, I think) in requesting the the LA Presbytery investigate the views of TE Steve Wilkins.

Brothers, after sitting through this I could not sleep Tuesday night. I have not personally made up my mind on many of these issues, but as a candidate I was struck with fear. There is clearly no room for discussion around here. Included also was a list of “suggested” questions for the Credentials Committee to use with candidates under the headings of New Perspectives, N.T. Wright, Norman Shepherd, and Federal Vision. You can be sure these suggested will be enacted in theological exams to sniff out anyone with an openness on this broad group of issues.

I was grieved by many things. Though the lengthy letter had not been distributed in advance, it was read and then voted upon at the meeting. There was no discussion of the issues. The letter itself makes references to recent events (such as Rich’s problems with Evangel Presbytery) in a way that strikes me as innuendo and scandal-mongering. In response to AAPC’s request for interaction at an exegetical level, the letter states that “the committee’s purview did not entail the provision of a definitive exegetical, historical and theological rebuttal.” All they attempted to do was evaluate in light of the Confession. Much of the language regarding out-of-bounds views is so vague that there will be a need for a new Magisterium to interpret and apply it. So, who is on the road to Rome here?

I did not post about this earlier because I am still emotionally ripped apart by it. After the document is cleaned up, it will be public and I suspect will be posted on the FPC/Jackson web-site. If people seriously think about it, they will see it for the axe-grinding that it is, but I fear many will accept it all as the gospel truth. It was voted that the committee would continue to work in order to advise those outside the Presbytery and continue publishing. It was announced that Guy Waters has another book coming out from P&R later this year addressing the Federal Vision. The title is, “Covenant Theology Improved?”

Please pray for this presbytery and for all to whom this will be sent. Please pray for candidates wrestling with these issues in the face of such power. Please pray for the unity rather than the fracturing of Christ’s church. And please remember the confidentiality policy of this list!

sw (the younger)

Central Carolina Presbytery & AAPC

Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2005 22:05:40 -0500
From: Chris Horton
Subject: Central Carolina Presbytery & AAPC

Okay news last week from Western Carolina, but I just returned from Central Carolina Presbytery meeting in Matthews NC, and one of the actions taken was to send correspondence to ask Louisiana Presbytery to investigate FV theology and AAPC and if necessary, take action against the senior pastor and session there. Andy Webb was in attendance and it seemed the instigator behind the thing, but the vote to do it was unanimous without discussion except a small change in wording.
blah

Chris Horton
________________
Peru Mission
864.335.9748 (h)
864.593.7967 (m)
www.perumission.org
www.hortonfamilyupdates.info

Thoughts on AAPC

Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2005 11:45:17 -0600
From: “James B. Jordan”
Subject: thoughts on AAPC

Dan,

This came dated 1 January 1970, so I’m reposting it to BH. Just found it.

JBJ

At 12:29 PM 1/1/1970, you wrote:

BHrethren,

Some initial thoughts about the AAPC Pastors Conference:

1. 1. It was great to meet many of you on the list! (I know many of you were there that I didn’t get to meet — next time)! I wish we had more time to talk!
2. Steve Wilkins and AAPC did a phenomenal job of hosting the conference! Many thanks to you, Steve, and all the workers!
3. I think the conference was a landmark both in terms of the content and in terms of the way the discussion was conducted between Gaffin and Wright. It was a great example of how these discussions ought to take place, and hopefully will pave the way for future discussions of the same sort.
4. A large part of the strain the Reformed churches are undergoing on so called FV and NPP issues is that we are trying to filter everything through and fit everything into a 17th century confession. Imagine the difficulty of doing that in other fields, such as science. This doesn’t make the WS bad, or lessen my love for them, it is just to acknowledge that they express 17th century British theology, not a once-for-all-completed statement of faith.
5. I enjoyed a number of conversations with Norman Shepherd. He was very positive about Wright’s teaching, while also maintaining that Paul teaches the imputation of Christ’s righteousness for justification.

I hope Drs. Wright and Gaffin continue to interact via email, etc.

Blessings,

Dan Dillard

P.S. You all saw John Robbins, didn’t you?

James B. Jordan
Director, Biblical Horizons
Box 1096
Niceville, FL 32578

Was this review helpful to you?

Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2005 08:36:31 -0600
From: Douglas Jordan
Subject: Was this review helpful to you?

A while ago a number of us voted regarding the helpfulness of the Amazon reviews of The Federal Vision.

If anyone's interested, there are a few new reviews posted. Looks like Oupensky-fan ingrid888 seems to have found at least 6 people to go across all the reviews and vote "helpful" for the 1-stars and "unhelpful" the 5-stars.

FWIW,
Doug

Another Forwarded BH Post

Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2005 04:41:13 -0800
From: “Dale Courtney”
Subject: Another Forwarded BH Post

BHren,

I wanted to alert you to yet another BH post that has been forwarded elsewhere and posted publicly.

The original post was from 29 May 2003:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/bibhorizon/message/21452

The post (by Wilson) was just posted publicly over at
mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/2005-January/013490.html

I don’t know where the leak is, but we need to make it stop.

pax,
Dale