Mark Horne’s Reply

Mark Horne has replied to some of my posts on Jeff Meyers here. Aside from calling me a Satanic, non-sanctified, non-academic, non-intellectual, discipline-averting (internet vs. church courts), wickedly insinuating troubler of the PCA, Mark and I appear to be getting along just fine. Wow. I wonder why he even reads my blog at all, sometimes, if he thinks I’m that dumb. But, of course, name-calling is not logical argumentation. He simply asks people to compare Meyers and my statements, claiming that I have no answer. I wonder where Mark learned logic. He doesn’t seem to be demonstrating very much logic here. Jeff responded on my blog saying that he believed in the imputation of Christ’s righteousness (though not in the IAOC). I said I believed him. Evidently, Mark is not willing to extend credibility to such statements. But Mark did not answer the argument concerning Meyers’s statement on the mechanics of justification (how Christ’s death and our justification are related). That remains utterly unanswered. Furthermore, my point about imputation was that some FV’ers do not believe in imputation. Jeff’s statement allows them free reign, whatever he himself believes.

Point 23 is a non-answer, since Mark confuses the term “conditional.” He thinks that he can make covenantal election unconditional simply by affirming God’s sovereignty. But since God’s sovereignty can include sovereignty over the conditionality in the covenant, he hasn’t answered the point.

Regarding 25 and 26, I can only say that I am not willing to steal the committee’s own thunder. I have a perfectly good explanation for the Wilson misquotation. But a committee member specifically directed me not to explain it, so that it can be explained on the floor of GA. So, once again, Mark’s assumptions get him into trouble, and GA will certainly vindicate me on this point.

Update Me

This is an open invitation to post links in the comments section to comments made on this blog that you feel have not been answered, or that need my attention. I have no wish to make anyone feel that they have been ignored. So, please direct my attention to your good arguments, and I will look into it. Thanks much.


I am incredibly sorry for all those who have had to watch as vandals have taken over my blog. I hope that I have not only cleaned up the mess, but prevented future problems. From now on, anyone wishing to comment on my blog must have had a previously approved comment. This will be something of a compromise. I didn’t want to have all comments waiting in the Queue, since I quite frankly don’t have that kind of time. But at the same time, there needs to be some sort of gate-keeping. My special apologies to Anne Ivy, who has really gotten walloped for notifying me. But this raises the question: how do we respond when people persecute us, and say all manner of negative things about us? Here is how we respond: we pray for those who persecute us. So pray for Benny (I am pretty sure that that is his name). It is the work of one individual.

Anyway, a heads up to all my readers: you will not be able to post comments until I approve one of your comments. I believe this means that your next comment will have to be approved. So, if you would like to post on my blog in future, send a test comment, and I will approve it. On the other hand, the this works might be grandfathered in. I deleted all the past comments, and you might not have to have your next comment moderated. That would certainly be easier. I sincerely hope this works.