Now, on top of everything else I've been called, I'm a 'cronie'. Nice job Jared.

Jared,

Never hear of him? Phil is an elder at Grace Community Chruch where John MacArthur is senior pastor. He's also runs Mac's Grace To You radio ministry and edits most of Mac's books. Dude's got mad skills!

Thor, is it backwards day or something?

I've learned all that stuff lately, but I'd honestly never heard of him before. Or, if I did, I just assumed he was the same guy as the other Phil Johnson.
Never been a big fan of John Macarthur, so that might explain it.
---

Phillip,
Yeah, I'm beginning to think that the Truly Reformed need to elect themselves a pope so we can sort the wheat from the Calvinists.

I know the term "Calvinist" is a bit of a misnomer. I'd love to just say "I affirm the five points of Reformed soteriology," but most folks would have no idea what I'm talking about. For better or worse, most people think TULIP when they hear "Calvinism," so I just go ahead and use it. It doesn't bother me if all the real Calvinists don't think I belong in the club.
---

I've got a Kent named Cronie Maroney . . .

A personal note (somewhat out of context of this post)

I "probably" affirm the five points. By that I mean that, yeah, I think the basic idea of TULIP makes the most sense, scripturally.

But I have no plans of ever using the term "Calvinist" when describing myself, and I also plan on slapping myself in the face if I let the word "TULIP" slip my mouth, unless I'm in a florists shop.

I think I'll do better to affirm God's sovereignty and staying away from the labels. I had a good talk with a pastor recently who's probably as Calvinist as anyone here but refuses the label. I'm beginning to think that's a good thing. There's too much confusion wrapped up in it.

From an outsider's perspective, I think that over time more heat than light is being generated by the term.

That's just me.

rohT: What you said.

I don't feel like I'm out of the loop. I've been reading most of the brouhaha, and I've been exchanging emails with Michael.
I don't see where he's redefining Calvinism. I see him rethinking his own journey. A few of the things he's said about Calvinists, I've taken issue with, and I've told him so. Privately. He knows I haven't liked everything he's said.

Your Jaredism/antiJaredism analogy doesn't work for me. Because it's not true.
Michael really does have people writing letters to Modern Reformation telling them what a heretic he is. He really does have people saying he's "drifting toward Rome." He really does have people saying things about him that just aren't true.
I'm not saying none of the criticism is fair or inaccurate. The blogosphere functions partly on criticism and spirited debate. I just think that, if Christians want to participate in those things, they ought to a) do so in love, b) not stake out their whole online identity as one who flames everybody not like them, and c) get their facts straight.

Show me where Michael has tried to redefine what Calvinists are. I think he's fairly clear on what sort of Calvinists his most impassioned critics are; that's why he's left the building.
I'm disappointed he does't identify as "Calvinist" anymore, but I don't take it personally. What difference does it make to you if he doesn't believe it anymore? Do you bug all the always-been-Arminians for never having been Calvinists?

I just don't get it.

Whining when confronted is indeed pathetic. Responding sarcastically when bombarded by personal attacks is understandable.

Jared

I'm on your side. I'm worried that what I wrote above and that my agreement with some of the things rohT just wrote will be misconstrued.

I admit that I often don't "get" BHT. But I don't read it near enough. I just read a wonderful post over there that I think I'm going to quote in full today.

God's peace on us all.

Here's where you're out of the loop: this flap started when James White wrote a response to one of the iMonk's essays (the I'm not Like You essay). White did this in the context of the barrage of attacks he and other Calvinists have been getting over the last year (and more) by some very nasty and dishonest types who are looking to redefine Reformed Theology and what Calvinism is. The group is the same as the Federal Vision(ists), the Auburn Avenue types, the New Perspective On Paul types, the Reformed Catholics types (many of whom were once White's colleagues in one way or another, one a co-writer of some books White did), and all the 'substance' behind it, the postmodern nonsense, the watering down and the mis-quoting Reformation theologians, the distorting of history in the name of 'uncovering the REAL history', the personal attacks on anybody who holds to a Calvinist theology that is, say, along the lines of a John Owen, and the calling of such a thing 'extremist' (just all the redefinition and propaganda that was/is going on), and into all that comes the innocent iMonk throwing his lot in with the same people, the same forces, the same new fads, and White, really just in a sort of exasperration, wrote a response (which, if you read it, is dead on) and the iMonk and his crew exploded and suddenly, because of White's audience, the BHT audience suddenly exploded from 16 to, probably 160 (OK, maybe 200); but the increase were all hardcore, take no prisoners, Calvinsts (like myself).

Now, say it's all ridiculous. Battle in the trenches for doctrine is not silly or empty. What the FV, AA, NPP, rCs, postmodernists, neo-orthodox and others are attempting is to defile Biblical doctrine from inside the tent of Calvinism. They are doing this because they know Calvinism is the Gospel. They don't call themselves anything other than Reformed or Calvinist because they know Calvinism is the truth. It is Biblical doctrine. And remember that when we merely step up to them and say, wait a minute, what you write here is not accurate, or, the way you've quoted this reformation theologian is dishonest and more than just out-of-context, though that's bad enough, and so on and so on they scream they are being persecuted. They want the field left open so they can run the ball down it with no opposition as they befoul Reformed theology all along the way. Sorry, life (especially life in the trenches of theological doctrine) doesn't work that way.

It all has effect, one way or another. Contend for the faith means contend for the faith. If you don't the forces of babel and darkness gain control, and it has effect. Be bold, and contend for the faith.

POSTSCRIPT: What people who know the truth have to do is to remember that even some of these types who seem to have been hardened in their petulant disdain for 'Reformedville' (as some of them put it) may actually see the light and we have to give them room to drift back into the truth without making them crawl on glass or something, but, personally, I havn't seen one of them that doesn't strike me as 'fully gone' in terms of a real devilish intent to defile Biblical doctrine by any means, by any strategy, by any tactic, no matter how long it takes, etc. They just seem to harden and descend into deeper degrees of shamelessness and dishonesty. You have to have spent time in exchanges with them to see this. My line to them is: be who you are, I have no problem with it; believe what you believe, see things how you see them, but...just don't call yourselves Calvinists or Reformed, OK? Because you're not. You have nothing but mocking disdain for Calvinist doctrine and for Calvinsits themselves, and your theology is nine parts Rome at this point. All you can do is quote Calvin and other reformers out of context to bizarrely dishonest degrees. OK? so just don't call yourself what you obviously aren't.

That's what it comes down to. They refuse to stop calling themselves Calvinist and Reformed (because they would get no attention if they called themselves what they actually are, neo-orthodox and Roman Catholic and liberal theologically in general. But their program is to defile Biblical doctrine and not just get attention by their chosen label, so...they get confronted. And then they scream and kick and claim PERSECUTION!!!) So be it.

Contend for the faith, against a flood of babel and dishonestly and accusations if you have to, contend for the faith. Five solas, Doctrines of Grace, Covenant of Redemption... Reduce to practice like a good experimental Calvinist beyond that...

After looking back at the IPs, I think it's fairly clear that rohT is not Thor. Why he decided to be Thor backwards right after Thor commented is very confusing. That's why I thought it was our friend Thor.

Since rohT is not my friend Thor, I'm not interested in responding anymore.

rohT is not me. I will always post under "Thor" unless I specify otherwise (or until the Very Reverend Bill tells me to change my name :)

You mean, as opposed to your real one? So you come on here with a fake name and a fake email address (even though that field is optional!) and go off about Michael Spencer.

Doesn't this sort of prove my point about pseudonymous critics being the most impassioned?

rohT, I'm not going to play with you. Go away.

Sorry. Two years of its three year history. My mistake.

By the way, Bill, thanks for your gracious words above. Much appreicated.

iMonk, my points weren't intended to be describing you. I made it clear this was the 'environment' White was responding to when he wrote that response to your essay. White admitted he didn't know anything about you when he wrote that.

Anything you wrote that was controversial to your audience prior to White making you famous beyond your audience doesn't play a part in this. (Who but 'young earth creationists' - if even them unless they made up a unique percentage of your audience - would care that you're not a young earth creationist?) As I said, you are an innocent who waded into something that was happening very much beyond you and your site(s).

Bill, God bless, if I've slandered anybody it is without my knowledge. My opinions of the people and their movements that I described are strong, but so be it. Calling it slander is a bit strange, but to each his own.

POSTSCRIPT: The line about their being 20 different kinds of Calvinists... The self-identified Calvinists I was describing above mock sola Scriptura, for instance. In fact they mock and show disdain for the five solas in general. Calvin was a systematizer and consolidater of Reformation doctrine, and that doctrine is best, or classically, summed up in the five solas. If you mock the five solas and still call yourself Reformed or Calvinist you are up to mischief and not being honest with what you are calling yourself. As I said above, these are things that have been going on in seminaries and in publishing and in churches and on the internet and have nothing to do with the iMonk other than White chose to respond to one of his essays to make a broader point. He could have have, and should have, chose another target (and I'm sure he regrets pulling the poor iMonk into the fray).

rohT--- Thanks for the clarification.

Readers might find it interesting that in the midst of the four post autopsy by White, I continually received emails from his supporters urging me to go on his radio show. He also used the controversy to plug an item on his site's store (a "no compromise" bracelet)

The BHT has been selling t-shirts ridiculing the Lutheran view of the Lord's Supper for about a year, so that should explain our occasional flare-ups with Josh :-)

I appreciate anyone's zeal, but I hope there is a Damascus Road in the future, at least as the rest of the Body of Christ is concerned.

Imonk: JW was pushing a "no compromise". You're kidding, right?

Richard, thanks for mentioning the "liar" thing. I wondered if it might get glossed over.

rohT, slander is the word used when someone makes untrue accusations against someone else's character. Since you've now added "Michael made up the letter writing" to your list of accusations, we can add calling him a liar to your list of slanderous accusations.

You do seem a bit more rational than I had initially taken you for. But does it not occur to you that it might be wrong to make accusations against people that aren't or might not be true?

Everyone:

How about we just disengage? This is getting us nowhere. . .

Intimidating? INTIMIDATING??? Good grief, man! I simply called you out on your charge that imonk is a liar, that he "made up" some of his claims. Is that "intimidating"? Do I sound like I want to beat you up or something. Intimidation was the furthest thing from my mind. Sorry if you interpreted me as such.

If I may add something here, rohT, I would say that while "I'm not like you" I used to be something like you. I'm guessing that you're somewhere in your 20's and that you have known Christ for less than 10 years. Am I right? Back when I was in my twenties but a mere toddler in Christ (say 4 years) I too was arrogant (sorry!). I thought I knew it all because I had read a bit of Packer and Josh McDowell and Hal Lindsay (yes!). I had all the answers. I knew two theological colors, black and white. Anyone who didn't agree with me on any point was suspect. Anyone who didn't agree with me on more than a few points was outside the camp. Catholics, of course, were all headed for hell simply because they were catholic (a sad overreaction to the faith I had left behind)... But then, over the next 20+ years something happened to change my infantile "convictions"... LIFE happened! I read some more. I lived the Christian life. I involved myself with hurting people. I started asking questions that could not be neatly answered by Packer or McDowell (and least of all Lindsay). I read the Bible. I acquired a wife and children. I got grey hair and a job. I allowed myself to have friends who don't all think like me. What came of all this (and what continues to come - It's a journey:-}) is less certainty about a whole bunch of things that are on the periphery of the faith and an ever stronger set of convictions about what is at the core - and that's Jesus.

I've changed over the years, rohT. And (mark it) you will too!

Finally, a favorite quote from Robert Louis Stephenson:
"To hold the same views at forty as we held at twenty is to have been stupefied for a score of years, and take rank, not as a prophet, but as an unteachable brat, well birched and none the wiser."

Blessings on you

Here are two letters to Mod Ref:
http://www.boarsheadtavern.com/archives/2005/06/03/13029361.html

rohT, that'll do it.

Sure I can believe someone would send a death threat to someone like the iMonk. Heck, you're getting all worked up about him right now. There's bound to be characters more unhinged than you out there.

And you're going to demand he provide evidence right after he links to some? Bizarre.
The real oddity here isn't that all of these harsh things are happening to a nice guy like Michael, but that someone would think a nice guy like Michael would make all of them up. The logic is bewildering.

But since you've decided this thread will be the dumping ground for your anti-monk tirades, you've gotten the boot. I won't spare you my moralising or anything else on my site. You have no rights here save what you earn by following the rules and the spirit of the site. For ignoring my warnings and continuing to call my friend a liar (all the while lying yourself), you've lost the commenting privilege.

Buh-bye.

See, if you guys were Methodists instead of weenie (bill?) Baptists, you wouldn't care what people like White or his followers have to say ;-)

And you could have a Guinness...I'm on the South Beach diet so you can have what's left of my last sixer.

You know, I like Jared more and more everyday. I'm thinking about getting the Babdist church across the street to immerse me and fill out an application for citizenship in Thinklingland.

Y'all got any bars in Thinklingland?

I can tell you the Thinklings continue to make audacious claims like being the center of the intellectual universe ONLY because they are a bunch of teetotalers. How else could you explain such a statement.

Meanwhile...we would go with "The BHT: A Place To Hate Someone Who Is Already Mad Anyway, So What The Heck."

There were about twelve revisions of the Institutes during his lifetime....all because he never changed his mind from the time he was twenty.

All you twenty-somethings read that sentence....and if it makes sense to you...hit yourself in the head....hard.

Matthew: "if you guys were Methodists instead of weenie (bill?) Baptists"

Jared: "Matthew, there are only three Southern Baptist Thinklings. The rest of us include two nondenominationals (one charismatic, one seeker-church-style), one Church of Christer, and one Free-Will Baptist. There's even more variety among the honorary Thinklings."

Don't listen to Jared! He's hiding from the Baptist he has hidden deep inside him. Here, let me hip you to the truth

Jared is TOTALLY a Baptist. He just goes to a Baptist church now that doesn't know it's Baptist :-)

Asbell is . . . not a Baptist. But he reposes on a much higher plane and doth not sully his robes in the Thinklings Morass.

Kenny is a BAPTIST. OK, not a Southern Baptist, but only Jared (the closet Baptist) was asserting that false dichotomy. The Great Panduku be Baptist, yo.

Blo - COMPLETELY SOUTHERN BAPTIST, to the core. Goes to one of the largest SBC churches in the nation, leads the men's ministry there. If he wasn't such a mythical zephyr he might be able to incarnate for a second and defend himself.

Bird - TOTALLY a Baptist, although I think he's taken a short detour into the same world that Jared's in (going to Baptist churches that don't know they're baptist, but that anyone looking in from the outside could not tell the difference between their church's and good ol' first baptist church of weebee, texas).

Phil - He's a freakin' Southern Baptist Pastor. Completely Baptist.

Bill - well, I'm a weenie. But I'm a weenie who goes to a Baptist church.

Now for the honoraries: Daniel - I think he leads worship at a Baptist church but I'm not sure. Rob T - this graphics big-dog works for an SBC church. Quaid and Stroke - ditto. They are SBC and on staff.

Am I missing an honorary? Not sure.

Bottom line: Jared is making us sound way more diverse than we are.

I raise my lime-flavored Diet Coke in Baptist salute to you.

Actually, I must admit I went a little far on Bird. He goes to a church that the Ladies Auxiliary of 1BC Weebee probably wouldn't recognize.

But Bird was raised Baptist, and his dad actually works for a Baptist state convention.

Michael

Royal Ambassadors?

Altar Calls?

WMU?

You haven't been in a baptist church in awhile

Just kidding . . . I know all those things are still common (and all good things, in my book)

But I go to a pretty "different" BC these days, I guess.

Jared's flirting with Paedobaptism, true. Guess he's wanting to get back to the way people baptised in the Bible, dang it!

[ducking]

p.s. Jared - what set me off was the idea that our honoraries are all diverse. Heck, the ones who actually post now and then all go to the same SBC church.

I said my PAST....*shudder*

you know, this makes me think i should add iMonk to my blogroll.

I think I just figured out who rohT is. Hint: The sentence "the truth exists and it can be grasped" gave it away. (Of course, I may well be wrong)

Boy, that would be a relief. Not that I'd be *surprised* that more than one mentally-unstable person with not enough to do and "on a mission from God" is floating around, but it'd be nice to pretend there's only one.

Baptist, baptist, baptist. I wasn't aware it was an insult, but since I've splased my babies, I guess I'll use it in that sense. Besides, it'll annoy the right sort of people. :-)

"What would your author have thought"

That's funny. As if Richard has Robert Louis Stephenson in his basement or something typing away manifestos for comment fodder.

I hate it when people get Das Boot. (Not saying it wasn't self-imposed - but still.) What's up with all the hatin?

This site is bananas.

(b-a-n-a-n-a-s)

Thank you Marla. It is worth reading now.

Jared, are you prescient or what?