This statement is simply not true. The comment in question was written twenty minutes before I even mailed a request for a clarification.

I am grateful that Mr. Fields clarified that HE did not mean to imply anything untoward in his original Fide-O comment. I would remind us all that what the readers of that comment drew from it on their own, cannot be apologized for, since the nature of the comment left the door open, and the cow is already out, so to speak, and remains out today to those who would selectively quote.

I am happy to say that Mr. Field clarified the comment and is not to be seen in the light of my 3/25 comment above.

You said, “I’ve made it clear that I am not going to subject myself to what is currently going on with one Mr. Ken Fields, a Fide-O commenter, right now: insinuating that I have secret moral failures that I am “hiding.” This kind of life-destroying, slanderous trash is dished out, not by you or Frank or even Scott and Jason, but by people like C.T. and others of even more perverse motives, convinced that nothing is unfair if it saves the Gospel from the hands of the iMonk.”

I am rather befuddled and disturbed by these comments in reference to me. What you say about me and my intentions at the FIDE-O blog is misconstrued and simply untrue. I have emailed you a clarification…and even posted it at FIDE-O. My comments at FIDE-O had nothing to do with your personal life, and I find it a bit disconcerting that you took them as such. I was considerate enough to publicly clarify my statements (the very same day)…I’m wondering if you would show that same consideration (when you immediately requested it of me)…now that it’s been nearly two weeks that you have failed to correct the above comment. And according to the times that the comments were posted, you had already received my email clarification when you made this statement impugning my character.

I will patiently wait for your public clarification…as I have for nearly two weeks.

http://www.boarsheadtavern.com/archives/2006/03/28/23039736.html

1) There are 4 voting members who run the bht. 3 are against it.
2) The majority of the almost 40 members are against it.
3) The move to a blog client that would allow individually controlled, moderated comments would be massive.
4) I don’t have time to moderate hundreds of comments a week.
5) IM comments are open, so is email. That’s the options.
6) If you want to discuss things with the BHT fellows, join the BHT.
7) I am not going to open comments just so a small group of reformed Baptists can take over what is one of the most interesting reading experiences on the web. It almost killed the discussion at the bht before. We stopped interacting with one another- which is the point- and talked with commenters. That’s a forum. That’s not the BHT.

mjb

>On a side note, if you’ll allow me some candid criticism, I think the atmosphere at the pub you operate actually fosters that kind of juvenile hotheadedness. Worse, by disallowing comments–even moderated ones–you’ve permitted some pretty silly opinions to go unchallenged and be restated so many times that they have come to be regarded as fact by BHT regulars. That’s why I think you have actually had more strife, not less, since you disallowed all comments. If someone wants to respond to some profoundly disturbing comment at the BHT, such as this one, one has to do it from a distance, which has the effect of making the Tavernistas circle their wagons and become more entrenched in whatever questionable opinion has been floated amongst them. If you don’t perceive that the Tavern has become a darker, nastier place since you closed off comments a year ago, a lot of us do. Just an observation from someone who is genuinely concerned about the drift of the “conversation” in your establishment.

First, Much of your criticism of the BHT is accepted by me and I’m sure by many of us. The BHT was never established to be a “serious” forum. I find the idea that every reformed blog must be a little seminary to be silly. In fact, I find the whole blogosphere a little silly. The idea that Michael Spencer is worth your time because of what I write on a blog is simply bizarre, and I think all of us could stand to remember that this medium is as inflated as Yahoo stock.

Second, I believe that more opinions- in house and out- are challenged at the BHT than anywhere else on the net. What annoys Reformed Baptists is that the BHT doesn’t give anyone=especially them- the last word. Josh doesn’t have the last word on Lutheranism. Dennis and Matthew don’t have the last word on Arminianism. Bill and Phillip don’t have the last word on Calvinism. Jim doesn’t have the last word on raving lunacy. Alex and Josh- graduate students in prestigious universities- do not have the last word on philosophy. Your continued insistence that I impose the last word, and such a last word be acceptable to reformed Baptists isn’t going to happen.

Third, you are well aware that James White has no comments. If you are going to tell me that I can go on his webcast or chat room and take him on personally, that doesn’t solve the problem. I actually listen to White’s program and it is not hard to see why the comments are closed and few critics walk into the “webcast” environment. Particularly, it is incredible to imagine that I could close comments at the BHT and then demand that you meet me on a webcast/chatroom to vindicate yourself. I’ve made it clear that I am not going to subject myself to what is currently going on with one Mr. Ken Fields, a Fide-O commenter, right now: insinuating that I have secret moral failures that I am “hiding.” This kind of life-destroying, slanderous trash is dished out, not by you or Frank or even Scott and Jason, but by people like C.T. and others of even more perverse motives, convinced that nothing is unfair if it saves the Gospel from the hands of the iMonk. I’ll not be involved in that, and until there is a technical ability to stop it, the BHT won’t have comments.

Is the BHT “darker” than a year ago? Since a year ago I have worked hard to balance out the BHT with non-reformed, emerging churchers, RCCs, ECUSA/Anglicans, Arminians and so on. The majority of the BHT are PCA or SBC Calvinists. We do not have anyone from the GCC/MS fold. That tells the story, in my opinion. I understand your frustration that your POV isn’t represented in the discussion, but if you think I have failed to admit someone from your side of the fence, you would be mistaken. I’d be happy to do so, if they could live with the rules we’ve established.

As I said, criticisms well taken. I appreciate them, and I appreciate you. Thanks for the dialogue.

As I followed along with what was going on between Jason and Imonk, I got the sense from Jason’s words that, if you were a “true” expositor who did “real” exegesis, the only conclusion you could come to is that in JN 3:16 is that kosmos refers to the believing world, not humanity. I remembered JM writing a lot about JN 3:16 in THE LOVE OF GOD, and posted his view, mainly to point out that two expositors can have differing views.