From DGH on Crazy Busy Submitted on 2014/10/02 at 7:48 am

Published on by D. G. Hart

Mark,

I understand the feeling. Sometimes work demands more time than we would like. But I wonder how you could manage the time to supply links to all of those people whom you’ve allegedly offended:

I’m terribly sorry to disappoint, but no more responses from me on this topic. I just realized that I am running out of friends: first the baptists; second the twitteristas; third the republicationists; fourth the masturbationists; fifth the ubiquitarians; sixth the covenanters; seventh the peccabilists; eighth the closed communionists; ninth…well, you get the point.

In addition, I found the links confusing since all of the links went back to pieces you wrote, not to any of those who have raised concerns about your posts. Are you suggesting that you are at odds with yourself? Oh wretched man that you are!

Again, I recommend that you take comments on your posts or at least get out more to other blogs that discuss your views. That way you wouldn’t have to have these contested discussions with yourself.

P.S. The dangers of “all about me” are real. I’ve been there.

70 thoughts on “From DGH on Crazy Busy Submitted on 2014/10/02 at 7:48 am”

  3. I don’t think dgh has yet understood how the means of grace is now working. First, you either need to go up to Canada and be in the ordained presence, or you need that visibly holy and therefore effective presence to come be where you are. Second you will need to confess after Jones that what he says is both correct and classical.

    When Jones writes about water, he is merely proclaiming the one gospel. When you disagree with him about water, it’s your fault that he had to bring up the water question in the first place.

    http://www.reformation21.org/blog/2014/10/an-open-letter-from-a-closed-p.php

    Like

  4. TBR, I hear you but I’m not so sure. The Banner of Truth types I know don’t spend so much time on taglines. I’m sure Jonathan Edwards would not chalk those up to religious affections.

    Like

  5. Point of clarification, if you please, DGH.

    Did you intend religious affections or affectations when mentioning Edwards?

    Like

  10. When one chooses to write about controversial topics, one should grow a thicker skin, especially when using provocative language in doing so.

    To quote the bard, “the [blogger] doth protest too much, methinks.”

    Like

  11. Jones, Reeder, Phillips, Barnes, and Company can dish it out, but they can’t take it – and the structure of the PCA provides them with the power to squash opposing viewpoints (Standing Judicial Committee, and the fear of it). They all know that they can rule through making peope afraid to disagree for fear of being brought up before the Session, Presbytery, and ultimately all way the to the SCOTUS of the PCA – the dreaded SJC. In a GRN video from the previous year, Jim Barnes was threatening like a dockside bully about Lutherans, and the influence of the Book of Concord on the PCA. Barnes’ argument was ‘splitting hairs’ and a ‘straw man’ according to a very knowledgeable Reformed Lutheran/PCA attendee. Maybe Jones & Company feel like they can say and write all these things which don’t square with scripture, and then call on ‘the dogs’ (SJC button-pushers) for protection.

    Like

  13. No comment is required, if you will only shut your mouth and park your rear in the designated seat—Commenting would take time away from your need for piety, and your not commenting is a simple indication that some of the s——- they threw against your wall now sticks ….

    Terry Johnson— I spent the next six months of newsletters laying out the biblical balance of law and gospel, devoting issues to assurance and all the pertinent issues. Since then I have written a related series of six months on “Christian Identity” (now a pamphlet, “The Identity of the Christian,” and available online). The result? Ne’er a comment from the critics. Not one. I might have expected the odd, “Thank you for clarifying your views.” Or, “Now I see what you’re saying.” Nope. No interaction. Nothing. Given that some heavy-duty pejoratives were hurled in my direction, like “not enough grace” and “legalist” and “doesn’t believe in assurance,” this was disappointing. I suppose the excuse was that I had hurled my own weighty pejoratives in their direction, including the diminutive “Grace Boys” label. The difference is, I never named names. Mine was a, “if the shoe fits wear it” approach, where if a person were not guilty of the errors I identified, he need not take it personally. Apparently, given the squeals, I hit the target”

    http://theaquilareport.com/revisiting-the-grace-boys/

    Like

  14. I’d like someone at Ref21 to explain to us why it is courteous and ethical to have bloggers attack and or shame individuals without giving those individuals a right to reply. Ian Clary and Michael Haykin are fine people and deserve better than unprovoked individual public attack.

    Forget what Mark says about the debated parameters of baptism – it is this behaviour which is less than Christian.

    Is this really what Ref21 should be about? Mark should know better.

    Like

  16. Dr. Hart- Why haven’t you written a post engaging with Jones’ views on close/open communion. You’re letting him off lightly.

    Like

  18. RGM,

    Bonus points may also have been given had you retained “lady” in this instance. Although we might have had to convene the Christian Charity Committee first.

    Like

  19. Alexander

    The concern isn’t about Jones’ view on the relationship between baptism and communion. It’s about how he chooses to engage others he disagrees with.

    First off, he tends to inaccurately understand his opponents position. Most substantive responses I see to Jones’ polemical posts are a nice way of saying “you have no idea what you’re talking about, but since you started it, I have to 1) clear the record and 2) respond to the allegation.” He has to get this stuff right if he’s going to be putting himself out there as an authority.

    Second his tone is sarcastic and dismissive. Just look at the difference between how he deals with this issue and how Fesko* does in “Word Water Spirit”. I have no evidence that Jones respects the person on the other side of the table. Yes, this is a big deal. Yes we should talk it out. But you can tell that Jones is all into dispensing and has no time for self-analysis. So…

    Third he dismisses himself from the discussion once he starts getting flak. See post cited by Darryl above. If you’re going to stick your finger in someone’s eye, at least have the courage to accept the consequences. I’m grateful that Turek & others took the time to make a comprehensive response. By dismissing himself, Jones really makes himself look like a tool. And it hurts his own argument too. It shows me he’s committed to being in position of being correct, not necessarily being correct if you get my meaning.

    Fourth, after bowing out, he comes back in to take a parting shot http://www.reformation21.org/blog/2014/10/an-open-letter-from-a-closed-p.php, in which he accuses the Baptists of plugging their ears and going LALALA, when he’s the one who wont engage. The Baptists listened and responded in good faith. And all Jones gave them was a “I’m not talking to you any more. OH wait, I am, here’s a “Dumb and Dumber” clip that shows you what I think of you.”

    This is not how Christians should treat each other. I would go so far as to say it’s sinful to hold people in such contempt. Yet he’s the one who wrote “Antinomianism: Reformed Theology’s Unwelcome Guest”. See the irony?

    The point: Mark Jones has bigger fish to fry than the Baptists when it comes to practice–namely himself.

    *in Jones’ defense he probably didn’t read this because it was from that seminary in Escondido that went rogue Lutheran.

    Like

  21. David raises extremely good points. The lesson for those who want to do theological polemics online is that, if you’re serious about it, you have to be very longsuffering. If you’ll open your site to comments and take on all-comers, eventually the cream will rise to the top and you’ll get somewhere. When you try to do it like Jones does you do, as David says, come off like a tool. Hart is the poster boy on how to do it right.

    Like

  22. Alexander, for what it’s worth, I think most people around here, whatever their views on baptism and related matters, are closed communion in principle.

    Like

  23. cg, if most around here were RC or Lutheran. But most seem Reformed, in which case the principle is guarded or fenced (i.e those who confess the Protestant faith and demonstrate a godly life).

    Like

  24. Jason
    Posted October 2, 2014 at 12:02 pm | Permalink
    And here I had come to believe that it was the PCA’s job to lecture the OPC re: self-gratification.

    It’s everyone’s job. The wankology gets thick quick.

    The only woman who even sets foot in here is Catholic and your wives and daughters are clearly saints. Funkyzeit mit Darryl.

    Moi, I’m fascinated with your unrequited dialogue with this Jones fellow, D. Are you trying to convert him? To what?

    [My dialogue with you is unrequited as well, but at least I know you’re aware of my half. Especially every time you jiggle your banning filters. 8-[D>]

    Like

  25. “fourth the masturbationists”

    This is really disappointing . . . I fully expected Dr. Jones to use the word “Onanist.” Then again, perhaps that would be akin to calling on God’s swift justice for the sin of “Onanism,” so named after the first masturbationist.

    DGH, would it be accurate to say that Onan was one of the original “disobedience boys?”

    Like

  26. Zrim, every day is a school day! I’m honestly surprised – thanks for the clarification. So no communion tokens?

    Like

  30. Actually when I read Mark Jones I think of Steve Taylor’s “Smug”

    With a special emphasis on the sermonette at the end.

    Like

  31. David D- Sorry, were you writing those points against Jones or against Hart? Who shows more contempt for their opponents than Hart? Maybe the Bayly Bros. but that’s about it.

    Zrim- I was about to say that you were in the ball park but needed some refining on your point and then you went and said that stupid thing about tokens.

    The correct practice is to allow members of the denomination to which the congregation belongs and those, outwith the denomination, who are known to a majority of the Session as being godly people and who are not living schismatically from that particular denomination (e.g. live in the same city but attend a different church). Tokens are a long established Reformed practice. But if you’re going to let any and all in then I suppose they’re a bit redundant.

    Like

  32. And actually you’re little joke doesn’t work: if one were to celebrate Lent then I’d imagine the ashes are pretty important.

    Like

  33. Alexander, stupid is as stupid does. (Not that I care, but now who’s showing contempt? Oh the irony.)

    But it sounds like you’re describing something closer to closed than guarded/fenced. Historically, yes, there was some demand objective evidence of Protestant faith and practice among itinerant visitors (e.g. a certificate of membership, which has some merit today but seems outdated given the high transience of the world anymore). But tokens are associated in particular with the Communion Season. The problem here is two-fold: 1) it’s a form of pietism that demands more than is necessary from the already established faithful and 2) the Communion Season itself, which is Presbyterians doing with the Supper what Catholics do with repentance through the Lenten Season.

    http://heidelblog.net/2012/12/how-to-fence-the-lords-table-pt1/

    Like

  34. What more is required of the faithful in using tokens? Members in good standing aren’t examined every communion. And, well, there’s not much I can say to your rationalism as pertains to the communion.

    Byb, I wasn’t calling you stupid but you’re statement. A distinction that is lost on a lot of people here.

    Like

  35. I’m in favor of the 64 question pietist/revivalist spiritual inventory before allowing a visitor to take communion. I’m also in favor of fingernails on chalkboards and the song “Goodmorning Starshine”:

    Like

  37. Alexander, as I understand it, tokens are doled out upon prior special examination and one cannot partake unless he plunks his token down on The Big Day. Unless you can provide biblical warrant for tokens on top of baptism and credible profession, it’s extra-biblical. Rationalism?

    Like

  38. Tokens are dispensed to those who have been examined and accepted to the Lord’s Supoer. My understanding was that being examined before accepted as a member is the standard Reformed practice. Does your denomination not examine people before being granted membership? And does the OPC not require prospective members to go through a course before they’re accepted? Once you’ve been examined you’re not re-examined, so long as you’re still considered a member in good standing. I’m really not sure what the extra burdens are you’re referring to. Yes you need the token to commune, because things have to be done in an orderly fashion and we have to guard against people who have not been granted admittance partaking.

    Erik- What are these 64 questions? And does your church not examine people for membership?

    Like

  40. Alexander, we’re all on the same in terms of examination being standard practice. My point is that tokens are unnecessary if actual examination has taken place. It seems like a way to physically fence the table as opposed to spiritually fence it. What happens one examined and approved forgets or misplaces his precious token on The Big Day? Are the elements actually withheld? if so, who are the overseers to bar the one Christ approves? If not, then my point is made and tokens are a worthless and ostentatious encumbrance in the first place.

    And how do you get practical memorialism from anything I’ve said? Because the Supper should be observed at least weekly as opposed to during a special season? From my experience, memorialism usually comes with infrequency and pompous forms of observance.

    Like

  41. The anti-baptists hold it often and they’re memorialists. And of course following the old practice one can still take communion quite often, by travelling around the seasons in one’s denomination. Which, of course, encourages and facilitates fellowship with others one is already in communion with through being in the same denomination. It creates a spirit of unity and uniformity.

    If someone forgets their token on the day they can get another one. “What’s the point then?” you say. Well, it’s still the elders who give you it. And tokens, as I say, mean that those who don’t have admittance- visitors and strangers- are kept from communing. The elders have a responsibility to physically fence the table, it is to them the keys are given. It is their responsibility to ensure those communing profess and conduct themselves in the ways befitting those who would partake of the Supper.

    Like

  42. By distinguishing between visitors and strangers I mean those who are known to the congregation but are not communicant members in the denomination and those who might just show up on the day, like those on holiday. Those who are communicant members in one congregation and are visiting another for the seasons are of course welcome to commune. Those aren’t the visitors I was referring to.

    Like

  43. Alexander, practicing weekly in one’s regular church also fosters unity, etc. Also easier on the feet. Still don’t see what’s practical memorialism in anything I’ve said.

    If tokenless visitors are barred then the token system is more aligned with the closed principle (no token form elder MacLeod, no bread and wine). But in better fencing churches it is understood that unknown visitors come with the territory, and so it is sufficient to spiritually fence by simply explaining who is encouraged to commune and who is warned to abstain, and then to leave it to the work of the Spirit to persuade one way or another–not to the crude clasping of tokens.

    Like

  44. Leave it to the Spirit? Wow, awfully pietistic of you. What happened to your objective ecclesiology?

    The “token less” visitors are those who are either in other congregations of the same denomination but are not communicant members, or those who may be professing believers in their church but are unknown to a majority of the session of the particular congregation.

    The fencing in our churches is very thorough. But the session has a duty to bar those who, ecclesiastically, are not permitted to sit at the table. If they don’t know the person that person is not ecclesiastically permitted to sit at the table in that congregation.

    Like

  45. If frequency is an indicator of memorialistic tendencies, someone ought to tell John Calvin, John Owen, et al, who all argued for weekly communion.

    Like

  46. Zrim, I’m not a fan of tokens and neither did I mean to start a discussion about them (sorry!). But surely we can do more to preserve the purity of the Lord’s table than simply exhorting those assembled about worthy participation (though unfortunately that’s also my own church’s practice). That style of fencing can never stop public abuses of the table, can it? And in the case of discipline, wouldn’t you physically bar a disciplined person from admission?

    Some of the brethren churches around here have “zones” in the meeting hall where people who are not baptised or “in fellowship” in the congregation, or visitors arriving without any letter of commendation, are asked to sit. The Reformed Presbyterian churches around here were in the habit of reading of terms of communion – which, ironically, were different for members than they were for visitors and adherents.

    But access to the Table is becoming actually politicised around here. The equal provision of goods and services legislation will make it very difficult for any church that doesn’t practice strict admission to the Table to bar anyone access to it. Worst case scenario may be someone entering the church building who is obviously not a worthy participant, not heeding the exhortation to worthy participation, and sitting with the congregation. Hard to imagine how that wouldn’t ruin the meeting for everyone. I think we’ll all be pushed into “strict” / closed positions eventually.

    In the church my wife attended in Glasgow, people used to come in off the streets to drink the wine being passed around in a single cup. Lots of exhortation about worthy participation, and from some of the most famous names in Reformed Christendom, but no ability to preserve the purity of the Table, with knock-on effects for everyone involved.

    The question I keep thinking about is how can I proclaim my unity with people I don’t know?

    Like

  48. Alexander, alter-calling decisionists wonder the same thing when it is said that by Calvinists there is no need to manipulate conversions out of hearers, just preach the Word and let the Spirit do his work. Same here. There is no need to go to such great lengths to preserve the purity of the table. Sounds a lot like Uzza steadying the ark to me. That’s pietistic? My my.

    Like

  49. cg, I’m all for preserving the purity of the table, but as I’ve suggested to Alexander I’m hard-pressed to see where there is any room for the work of the Spirit in things like tokens and zoned meeting halls. It may be that extraordinary instances of abuse call for extraordinary measures, but ordinarily it seems sufficient for undershepherds to exhort by the Word and let the Spirit do his work. After doing only what God calls us to do in fencing by the spoken Word, isn’t abuse on the heads of the abusers?

    Like

  50. a—The anti-baptists hold it often and they’re memorialists.

    mark: Do you -Alexander–know some folks who are against baptists, or were you meaning to refer to a group of people who teach that Mormon water is a good first baptism but then insist on some second water?

    As for “memorialists”, did you mean to put the prefix “merely” before that? Are you entirely against memory, or are you merely against the “sola” and “only” before the “memoralists”.

    As in, not only take and remember but also this God’s sanction and seal as to the efficacy of the ritual to either bring salvation or extra curse to those born in the new covenant…Since it can kill you, it must be a means of grace….

    Like

  51. D. G. Hart
    Posted October 4, 2014 at 7:21 pm | Permalink
    cg, this is why I advocate ecclesiastical passports.

    Those who fence the Lord’s Table might stop you at the border.

    Like

  52. Mark Jones has time to write offensive posts and interact with myriad Internetters, and then has the temerity to tell folks to get a life – wagging his finger at pastors, seminary students (good luck with THAT!), retirees, trolls, et. al., while he’s quite adept at clogging the blogosphere with his own opinions, however studied.

    And, seriously, the Internet is the world, not a pious Canadian’s theological playground, much less, bully pulpit! It’s where trolls live and move and have their being.

    It’s like trying to preach standing on a street corner, and then whining that people mock you, honk at you, or mug you.

    Like

  54. Here is the latest from Mr. Busy: “Here is the first of two posts: “Why I Pour” & “Why I Baptize Babies.” They are both roughly 900 words each. 4-part responses, going into thousands of words, are welcome, if you have that sort of time. But (fair) debates typically aren’t done that way.” He just can’t help himself.
    http://www.reformation21.org/blog/2014/10/why-i-pour-when-baptizing-and.php

    The Turk shoots back: “My public appeal to Mark Jones for the sake of my clean conscience is that he stop talking to himself and talk to someone who will engage him intelligently on the matters he’s tossing out here on the Ref21 web site. That someone may not be me, but either he has the time to engage in a conversation, or else he is simply using his lack of time as an excuse to escape from being held accountable for things he is saying which, frankly, are helpful neither regarding those he disagrees with nor those with whom he allegedly agrees.” I hate having to side with the Baptist.
    http://www.reformation21.org/blog/2014/10/why-you-cant-baptize-babies-1.php

    Like

  55. Dear Chortles,

    No, I’ve never attended GA, never I have.
    Not in seersucker, muslin, with flip-flops or Vans.
    I’ve never seen a GA.
    I doubt that I can…

    Really – Do I know you?

    Like

  59. MM- By “anti-baptists” I mean those who are commonly referred to as Baptists, but shouldn’t be as they do not practice Biblical baptism. They have stolen the term, much like the Russelites who are no Jehovah’s witnesses.

    By “memorialist” I mean mere memorialist. Of course the Supper is a memorial, but memorialism is a particular (erroneous) view.

    Zrim- So, if someone were converted under the action sermon, or was for the first time given assurance of being converted, he should be admitted to the table: without any examination?! Worship must be orderly: it is not orderly to allow any and all to sit at the table.

    Cg- you’re luck you were allocated a zone and not just turned away at the door.

    Like

  60. Alexander, come again? I’ve maintained throughout the conversation that examination is necessary for communion (paedocommunionism be damned). What I’ve dismissed is needing something beyond formal elder approval, like a token. Where are you picking up no need for examination?

    Like

  62. Zrim- you said my position- the Reformed position- left no room for the work of the Spirit. What could this mean other than allowing people to go forward without being examined? What work are you waiting for, in that moment? If you mean the work of Spirit in convincing people to either go to the Table, or stay away, that gets into dangerous territory. I’ve heard of people who had access to the Table staying away because they hadn’t received their verse on the day that gave them permission to go forward. Someone either has a right to go to the Table or they don’t. Of course we must examine ourselves and not just rest on that ecclesiastical right but what you’re suggesting is too introspective; or it just results in anarchy.

    Like

  63. Alexander, my point assumes that when a pastor is fencing the table he is making it clear that those who are encouraged to partake are those who are communicant members of a Protestant church, which is to say those who have been properly examined either in the present congregation or in their own home congregation. And if this is not true of them, warned to abstain.

    When I say that your view makes little room for the work of the Spirit I mean that you don’t seem to think that such a fencing by Word is sufficient for the Spirit to then work in sorting out for each person what is true or not true for him. You want a token to do that work. And I am saying (gird they loins) a token seems prone to work for assurance much the way an image might work for worship or an altar call/sinner’s prayer work for conversion. They are additions to the ministry of Word and sacrament. But if my elders have examined me and affirmed my profession as credible, I need nothing more in order to commune with Christ in good faith. Why is that such a problem?

    Like

  64. Zrim- I know of no-one in a church which uses tokens who thinks of tokens in that way. The token is there to show who does and doesn’t have a right to sit at the Table in that congregation, based upon being examined either by that session, another session in the denomination or that the session knows the person and knows him to be a godly person. It’s not enough to say: if you are a member in good standing in an evangelical church you can sit. Because, as has been repeatedly stated ok his blog, that doesn’t mean anything. You guys over there in the PCA can’t stop complaining about other congregations in your own denomination let alone ones in others. There’s also the issue of people who like to make a point and will go forward regardless of the thoroughness of the fencing when they have no right to. A session can’t read the hearts of those who seek to sit at the Table but they can, and are charged with the responsibility of, examining them and that responsibility doesn’t disappear just because the individual isn’t part of that congregation. We don’t let lawyers qualified in one jurisdiction automatically practice in another, we require them to be examined for each jurisdiction do we not? Why would we have a lower bar for those partaking of the Lord’s own supper?

    Like

  67. Alexander, maybe because taking spiritual cues from worldly ways isn’t exactly kosher? Look, I appreciate your point about wanting to preserve the purity of the table. I’m just not convinced that tokens have the kind of power you think they do to do so. Frankly, I find it quite odd to so “go to the mat” for trinkets. Seems hardly Protestant.

    Like

  68. Zrim- a few comments above they had too much power, now no power. Which is it?

    Hmmmm, yes because there’s no use in Scripture of worldly analogies, like the law court, the bar, the market place &c. now is…oh, wait.

    Well, Protestants have been using tokens since, well, Protestantism started. So, well, there.

    Like

  69. Also, didn’t notice your problem with worldly examples when Dr. Hart bangs on about The Wire. You’re a hypocrite.

    Like

  70. Alexander, the point was something close to idolatry, as in the power men ascribe to trinkets isn’t any power at all.

    Analogies and examples are one thing, quite another to say that elders (who dispense grace) should behave like cops (who carry out law). But this takes the ability to make distinctions, something not exactly the semi-revivalist’s long suit.

    Like

Leave a comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.