Response to the PCA Report
Response to the PCA Report
Rev. Jeffrey Meyers has released a response to the Report of the PCA Study Committee on the Federal Vision. This document can be downloaded here:
30 Reasons Why it Would be Unwise for the PCA General Assembly to Adopt the Federal Vision Study Report and Its Recommendations [PDF document]
QUCK SUMMARY:
Here is an abbreviated list of reasons why it would be unwise for the PCA General Assembly to adopt the Federal Vision Study Report and its recommendations.
• The committee was not balanced in its composition and therefore did not fairly represent the diversity of theological views in the PCA. It would be very unwise for our Assembly to adopt a badly skewed Report that was produced by a committee that did not properly represent all points of view in the PCA assembly.
• Many commissioners will not receive the Report until the day before it is considered in the Assembly. It is not being sent with the Commissioners Handbook to delegates. It will be given to men when they arrive at GA as part of supplemental materials. How can it be wise to call for a vote on a detailed document like this when many commissioners will not have had time to read it, let alone digest and evaluate it carefully?
• The Report entails a much stricter understanding of confessional subscription than the PCA currently practices
• The Report effectively substitutes the Westminster Standards for the Bible as the supreme judge of all controversies of religion. The Federal Vision (hereafter FV) men have appealed to the Bible, but the committee repeats, "Westminster, Westminster, Westminster." This disregards our common commitment to sola scriptura and violates Westminster Confession 1.10.
• The Report's declarations presuppose that only one set of narrow theological terms and explanations can be compatible with the Reformed theological system of doctrine set forth in the Westminster Standards.
• The PCA men named in this document were not consulted before definitive explanations of their views were published and condemned. They will have no opportunity to defend themselves or their views before this is voted on and possibly adopted.
• By adopting the Report the PCA would be codifying an official view of the teaching of Wright, Leithart, Wilkins, Wilson, Lusk, etc. even the Report's characterization of their views is sloppy and inaccurate as I will demonstrate later in this response.
• If the Report were adopted, then its language would seem to imply that PCA men would not be allowed to teach or preach on anything contained in the Bible that is not codified in the Westminster Standards.
• The Report falsely accuses Federal Vision men of denying and/or compromising unconditional election simply because they do not always use the words "elect" and "election" in the decretal sense of these terms. The Report gives no weight to their explicit, public affirmations of unconditional election.
• The committee is asking the Assembly to declare its own declarations to be a faithful exposition of the Standards and thereby classify other expositions of these theological issues as out of accord with Westminster. The effect of passing the Report will be not simply be to condemn FV theology but also to effectively standardize a narrow tradition within Reformed Presbyterian confessional theology. The Report would require that all PCA presbyters, not just the FV men, line up on a very narrow theological line.
• The Report makes extra-confessional formulations part of the "vitals of the system of doctrine" contained in the Westminster Standards. Adoption of the Report would effectively saddle the entire Assembly with extra-confessional formulations regarding "merit," Christ's "active obedience," and more.
• The Report makes sweeping claims about the Westminster Standards that are implausible and then does not adequately support them. There are too many errors in the Report for the Assembly to adopt it.
• The Report inexcusably misrepresents FV men's positions on crucial issues.
• The Report effectively orders the presbyteries to come to a "guilty" verdict on ministers in good standing. All of the PCA men named in the Report have already been examined by their presbyteries. Some have even undergone extensive questioning. Passing the Report would overrule local presbytery decisions and this without the men being given the rights accorded to the accused in our judicial system.
• Adopting the Report would effectively squelch the on-going conversation and debate between Reformed brothers over the biblical and theological issues raised by the FV men. Why do we need a verdict from "on high" when the committee has not allowed the ministers in question a fair hearing?
PCA General Assembly: From what I understand The Study Committee report will be considered for adoption between 2:00 and 3:00 p.m. on Wednesday, June 13 at the PCA's 34th General assembly in Memphis. (source: Reformed News) Personally, I think every delegate to GA this year ought to read the "30 Reasons..." paper before going to Memphis.
Covenant Radio Note: In the next few weeks Covenant Radio will be hosting a roundtable discussion in reposne to the Report of the PCA Study Committee. This roundtable will include Jeff Meyers, Mark Horne and one or two other men. Look for more information on the Covenant Radio website.
Comments, Pingbacks:
Comment from: Sean Gerety [Visitor] 
Evidently I just got the boot from "brother" Propaganda Minster Commissar Jeff Meyers' blog site. Here's what did it. Since I was responding to you William, I thought perhaps you might have missed it. Had I not copied all of Herr Meyer's remarks and even my own, they all would be gone. God willing they will all be put to good use and shortly.
William Hill writes:
"What is completely ignored by anti-FV individuals like Geraty and the rest is this simple fact you present in your comment and what Dr. VanDixhoorn talks about in the interview. If modern day Presbyterians want to read into the Confession and insert what is certainly not there that is there business. However, in my opinion, when one makes comments that one cannot be a Christian (in the "born again" sense of the term) then they have crossed the line."
Yawn.
This is from a New Horizons piece by Dixhoorn:
"Christ's life has everything to do with our salvation: he spent his life fulfilling all righteousness; he kept the law that Adam broke. It is because of Jesus' active, lifelong obedience that God the Father sees us as righteous in Christ. The Larger Catechism, using a framework different from that of the Apostles' Creed, recognizes the importance of Christ's life. It speaks about his birth in question 47, his life in question 48, and his death in question 49, thus presenting a more balanced and biblical picture. The Shorter Catechism does something similar, summarizing these three statements in question 27. ***The Larger Catechism also recognizes the importance of Christ's life, at least implicitly, in its statements on justification (questions 70 and 71).***
Comparing the Larger and Shorter Catechism with previous catechisms is a useful exercise. It reveals that the Westminster catechisms (1) explicitly base their teaching on Scripture alone, and (2) ***emphasize Christ's life (and active obedience) as well as his death and resurrection."***
_______
William and Co., make sure you reread those highlighted sections again. Now maybe Dixhoorn has since changed his position and now advocates a more "relativistic" approach to those Post-Modern Neo-Liberals who want to rework and corrupt the doctrine of justification to suit their own perverse "Federal Vision," but that much is not clear from that short interview. He certainly recognized Christ's active obedience being taught in the Standards above. I would be curious if Dr. Dixhoorn agrees with the reasons why men such as Pastor Meyers and other Neo-Liberals mentioned in the PCA Committee Report want to do away with the imputation of Christ's active obedience – and the doctrine of imputation completely -- and whether their objections even remotely tracks with any members of the Assembly? And, even if they did, who really cares? Amyraldians were also present in the Assembly and voiced their opinions and objects too. Are we now to assume Amyraldianism is a Confessional doctrine?
Consequently, the appeal to Dixhoorn is just more obscurantic smoke and mirrors.
FWIW if you men do not want the imputation of Christ's active obedience you certainly won't have it. OTOH I do know how it works out for others who relied on their own faithful obedience and persevered in the demands of your imagined and conditional covenant. See Matthew 7:21ff.
Thursday, May 17, 2007 - 04:05 PM
William Hill writes:
"What is completely ignored by anti-FV individuals like Geraty and the rest is this simple fact you present in your comment and what Dr. VanDixhoorn talks about in the interview. If modern day Presbyterians want to read into the Confession and insert what is certainly not there that is there business. However, in my opinion, when one makes comments that one cannot be a Christian (in the "born again" sense of the term) then they have crossed the line."
Yawn.
This is from a New Horizons piece by Dixhoorn:
"Christ's life has everything to do with our salvation: he spent his life fulfilling all righteousness; he kept the law that Adam broke. It is because of Jesus' active, lifelong obedience that God the Father sees us as righteous in Christ. The Larger Catechism, using a framework different from that of the Apostles' Creed, recognizes the importance of Christ's life. It speaks about his birth in question 47, his life in question 48, and his death in question 49, thus presenting a more balanced and biblical picture. The Shorter Catechism does something similar, summarizing these three statements in question 27. ***The Larger Catechism also recognizes the importance of Christ's life, at least implicitly, in its statements on justification (questions 70 and 71).***
Comparing the Larger and Shorter Catechism with previous catechisms is a useful exercise. It reveals that the Westminster catechisms (1) explicitly base their teaching on Scripture alone, and (2) ***emphasize Christ's life (and active obedience) as well as his death and resurrection."***
_______
William and Co., make sure you reread those highlighted sections again. Now maybe Dixhoorn has since changed his position and now advocates a more "relativistic" approach to those Post-Modern Neo-Liberals who want to rework and corrupt the doctrine of justification to suit their own perverse "Federal Vision," but that much is not clear from that short interview. He certainly recognized Christ's active obedience being taught in the Standards above. I would be curious if Dr. Dixhoorn agrees with the reasons why men such as Pastor Meyers and other Neo-Liberals mentioned in the PCA Committee Report want to do away with the imputation of Christ's active obedience – and the doctrine of imputation completely -- and whether their objections even remotely tracks with any members of the Assembly? And, even if they did, who really cares? Amyraldians were also present in the Assembly and voiced their opinions and objects too. Are we now to assume Amyraldianism is a Confessional doctrine?
Consequently, the appeal to Dixhoorn is just more obscurantic smoke and mirrors.
FWIW if you men do not want the imputation of Christ's active obedience you certainly won't have it. OTOH I do know how it works out for others who relied on their own faithful obedience and persevered in the demands of your imagined and conditional covenant. See Matthew 7:21ff.
Thursday, May 17, 2007 - 04:05 PM
Permalink
05/17/07 @ 18:50
Comment from: William Hill [Member] · http://www.rtrc.net
· http://www.rtrc.net
Ya Sean, I got what you wrote on Rev. Meyers blog and you now have come to my blog to continue your nasty attacks on him. Well, that won't fly. I find your comments to be highly immature and contrary to the profession you say you hold so dear. You can debte the issue but you will not attack people or persons.
Permalink
05/17/07 @ 22:15
Comment from: Sean Gerety [Visitor]
What nasty attack? Pointing out Meyers is a false teacher? That he (and you) claim Dixhoorn supports Meyer's rejection of Christ's active obedience imputed to believers, when Dixhoorn above openly affirms that Christ's active obedience IS taught in the Confession contrary to Meyers (and your) subterfuge? How is that nasty?
Is it nasty to point out that Meyers has replace the Biblical doctrine of imputation in his Romanish soteriology with some sort of Gaffinesqe anti-Christian existential and nonexistent "union" which extends to nonbelievers via the wet heads of baptism applied by some self-styled priest?
It seems you FV men whine like little schoolgirls claiming that no one understands you. So when it is repeatedly demonstrated that we all understand you loud and clear, your response is to censor and shut down your opposition. No doubt you will employ this same tactic at the PCA GA when it comes time to vote on the Committee Report on your errant and damnable theology. May you fail and resoundingly so.
Not only is your theology and eccesiology Romanish, so is your behavior. I guess we should all be thankful that you can't yet throw stones over the Internet (I'm sure their working on it).
Is it nasty to point out that Meyers has replace the Biblical doctrine of imputation in his Romanish soteriology with some sort of Gaffinesqe anti-Christian existential and nonexistent "union" which extends to nonbelievers via the wet heads of baptism applied by some self-styled priest?
It seems you FV men whine like little schoolgirls claiming that no one understands you. So when it is repeatedly demonstrated that we all understand you loud and clear, your response is to censor and shut down your opposition. No doubt you will employ this same tactic at the PCA GA when it comes time to vote on the Committee Report on your errant and damnable theology. May you fail and resoundingly so.
Not only is your theology and eccesiology Romanish, so is your behavior. I guess we should all be thankful that you can't yet throw stones over the Internet (I'm sure their working on it).
Permalink
05/18/07 @ 09:12
Comment from: William Hill [Member] · http://www.rtrc.net
· http://www.rtrc.net
Calling Jeff Meyers a false teacher is what makes your comments nasty. He is a member in good standing in the PCA and that means the burden of proof is on the Presbytery he currently teaches within. It is not yours to say and when you do you cross the line.
As far as stones are concerned, Sean, you have become quite good at that now haven't you?
As far as stones are concerned, Sean, you have become quite good at that now haven't you?
Permalink
05/18/07 @ 09:41
Comment from: William Hill [Member] · http://www.rtrc.net
· http://www.rtrc.net
Oh, for the record, I think you were shut down when you engaged him with this same sort of nastiness. It was not so much the argument but the method that got you into hot water on his blog. Now you can console yourself all day long with the notion that you were banned because you were speaking the truth -- but that does not change the facts that you are out of line and err when you call a member in good standing a "false teacher".
Permalink
05/18/07 @ 09:44
Comment from: Sean Gerety [Visitor]
Any so-called "preacher" in good standing or otherwise who would publicly DENY the imputation of Christ's active and passive obedience or in any other terms this idea might be expressed, as Jeff Meyers has, is a false teacher. If that is "nasty" in your mind, then maybe it is you who needs to be taught the gospel and not the clever counterfeit Neo-Liberals like Meyers is peddling. Perhaps you can invite some Christians to even speak at your youth indoctrination camps instead of the likes of Wilkins and Wilson?
To repeat what I pointed out to another one of your FV cohorts on Meyers blog who, like you, work furiously to create a Christian sounding veneer in an attempt to cover up and obfuscate the deadly heresies these men promote, Meyers rejection of Christ's moral obedience imputed to believers is an outright denial of the gospel.
Charles Hodge wrote:
“The Scriptures do not expressly make this distinction [i.e., active and passive obedience - sg], as they include everything that Christ did for our redemption under the term *righteousness* or *obedience.* The distinction between the active and passive obedience of Christ becomes important only when it is denied that his moral obedience is any part of the righteousness for which the believer is justified . . . .”
This is why Pastor Meyer’s rejection of Christ’s moral obedience imputed to believers (i.e., his so-called debatable point “whether Jesus merited something by all his good works he accomplished in his life that is then "imputed" to believers”) is important and why his condescending rejection of this key point cuts to the very heart of the Gospel and the future of the PCA.
If pointing such serious departures from the Christian faith seems to you as "unloving" or "natsy" that's your problem. Pastor Meyers is supposed to be a teacher and a minister of the gospel and I can safely say that the Scriptures deal with such teachers in much harsher words than I have ever used.
To repeat what I pointed out to another one of your FV cohorts on Meyers blog who, like you, work furiously to create a Christian sounding veneer in an attempt to cover up and obfuscate the deadly heresies these men promote, Meyers rejection of Christ's moral obedience imputed to believers is an outright denial of the gospel.
Charles Hodge wrote:
“The Scriptures do not expressly make this distinction [i.e., active and passive obedience - sg], as they include everything that Christ did for our redemption under the term *righteousness* or *obedience.* The distinction between the active and passive obedience of Christ becomes important only when it is denied that his moral obedience is any part of the righteousness for which the believer is justified . . . .”
This is why Pastor Meyer’s rejection of Christ’s moral obedience imputed to believers (i.e., his so-called debatable point “whether Jesus merited something by all his good works he accomplished in his life that is then "imputed" to believers”) is important and why his condescending rejection of this key point cuts to the very heart of the Gospel and the future of the PCA.
If pointing such serious departures from the Christian faith seems to you as "unloving" or "natsy" that's your problem. Pastor Meyers is supposed to be a teacher and a minister of the gospel and I can safely say that the Scriptures deal with such teachers in much harsher words than I have ever used.
Permalink
05/18/07 @ 11:56
Comment from: William Hill [Member] · http://www.rtrc.net
· http://www.rtrc.net
Sean,
I will be contacting the clerk of your Session to further discuss your actions here on this blog and elsewhere. Unless you want to repent of your rude and anti-Christian comments against Rev. Meyers and a sister congregation in the James River Presbytery this will be my next course of action.
The issue will center on two points:
1. Your vicious attack on Rev. Meyers, a minister in good standing in the PCA and..
2. Your vicious attack on a sister congregation in the James River Presbytery, PCA.
I will be contacting the clerk of your Session to further discuss your actions here on this blog and elsewhere. Unless you want to repent of your rude and anti-Christian comments against Rev. Meyers and a sister congregation in the James River Presbytery this will be my next course of action.
The issue will center on two points:
1. Your vicious attack on Rev. Meyers, a minister in good standing in the PCA and..
2. Your vicious attack on a sister congregation in the James River Presbytery, PCA.
Permalink
05/18/07 @ 12:07
Comment from: Jeff McCormack [Member] · http://www.apologiabooks.com
· http://www.apologiabooks.com Charles Hodge wrote:
“The Scriptures do not expressly make this distinction [i.e., active and passive obedience - sg], as they include everything that Christ did for our redemption under the term *righteousness* or *obedience.* The distinction between the active and passive obedience of Christ becomes important only when it is denied that his moral obedience is any part of the righteousness for which the believer is justified . . . .”
This is why Pastor Meyer’s rejection of Christ’s moral obedience imputed to believers (i.e., his so-called debatable point “whether Jesus merited something by all his good works he accomplished in his life that is then "imputed" to believers”) is important and why his condescending rejection of this key point cuts to the very heart of the Gospel and the future of the PCA.
Well, Sean,
I guess your point must be 100% accurate then, quoting Hodge and all (though a reference would be nice to assure Hodge went on to say any deniers were heretics like you say). After all, we all know Hodge had all of his ducks in a row and everything he ever said and believed was 100% accurate and scriptural, and he never had any controversial issues or disagreements with anyone.
Thanks for clearing that up...and also double thanks for your charitable and kind words about my church too. I guess we can't all be perfect like you and yours.
You da man....rock on!
Permalink
05/18/07 @ 12:25
Comment from: Sean Gerety [Visitor]
Please do William. I've already sent virtually ALL of my exchange with Pastor Meyers (prior to his systematically censoring them) which includes the remarks I've made here to a member of my Session who will be going to the GA. I want to make sure he is aware what kind of men he is up against. FWIW, and since I know him quite well, I'm confident he does anyway. :)
Jeff, the Hodge quote was taken from the collection, Not What My Hands Have Done (http://www.trinitylectures.org/product_info.php?cPath=21&products_id=158 ).
The volume includes The Everlasting Righteousness, by Horatius Bonar and
Justification by Faith Alone, by Charles Hodge.
You should read it. Scratch that. You need to read it.
Jeff, the Hodge quote was taken from the collection, Not What My Hands Have Done (http://www.trinitylectures.org/product_info.php?cPath=21&products_id=158 ).
The volume includes The Everlasting Righteousness, by Horatius Bonar and
Justification by Faith Alone, by Charles Hodge.
You should read it. Scratch that. You need to read it.
Permalink
05/18/07 @ 13:00
Comment from: Jeff McCormack [Member] · http://www.apologiabooks.com
· http://www.apologiabooks.com
Excuse me?!? Just who the heck do you think you are? You don't have a clue what I "need" to do.
I have not been following all of this back and forth that you have been causing here and elsewhere, but from what I can tell from the little I have read, I understand why you cause such turmoil. You are very presumptuous, arrogant, and demeaning. These are not the traits of a man of God who is looking for peace and purity in the church. Of course, I know you'll respond with some ridiculous accusation that their is no peace and purity with heretics...but until this has been formally declared by those who have that authority (which is NOT you, btw), then you should just keep silent with your slanderous speech.
You act like you know it all, and you hold the keys to all truth. If this controversy was so clearly wrong as you seem to feel, it sure is odd that much greater men than you are still either on the fence or at odds with you. Men with more training and more years in the ministry than you have not taken such a stance as you. Even this PCA report doesn't take the harsh stand you do. If it was such a clear matter, it seems odd that there is such a split of opinions on this.
You are arguing for an issue that has been controversial for centuries. You take one side, others are opposed. You have no right to think you are so high and mighty that you hold the truth and no one else does. Just who DO you think you are? Charles Hodge wasn't perfect...your quote is as irrelevant as if I gave you a dozen quotes that opposed his view. Men have their positions...they write their position...but there are always opposing positions...so what is your point in such quotes. YAY! Hodge believed that...does that mean anyone who disagrees is a heretic? There are plenty of people in today's PCA churches that take issue with Hodge on many issues, so again, your point is silly.
The point is, you are portraying an arrogant know-it-all attitude, and such an attitude it neither Christ-like, nor helpful or beneficial in such a controversy as this. Your name calling is going beyond your authority and position in this, as well as causing further division and confusion in this matter. You are arguing a point from basic scriptural silence (as Hodge stated), so why not take a hint and remain silent yourself, you aren't helping anything.
I have not been following all of this back and forth that you have been causing here and elsewhere, but from what I can tell from the little I have read, I understand why you cause such turmoil. You are very presumptuous, arrogant, and demeaning. These are not the traits of a man of God who is looking for peace and purity in the church. Of course, I know you'll respond with some ridiculous accusation that their is no peace and purity with heretics...but until this has been formally declared by those who have that authority (which is NOT you, btw), then you should just keep silent with your slanderous speech.
You act like you know it all, and you hold the keys to all truth. If this controversy was so clearly wrong as you seem to feel, it sure is odd that much greater men than you are still either on the fence or at odds with you. Men with more training and more years in the ministry than you have not taken such a stance as you. Even this PCA report doesn't take the harsh stand you do. If it was such a clear matter, it seems odd that there is such a split of opinions on this.
You are arguing for an issue that has been controversial for centuries. You take one side, others are opposed. You have no right to think you are so high and mighty that you hold the truth and no one else does. Just who DO you think you are? Charles Hodge wasn't perfect...your quote is as irrelevant as if I gave you a dozen quotes that opposed his view. Men have their positions...they write their position...but there are always opposing positions...so what is your point in such quotes. YAY! Hodge believed that...does that mean anyone who disagrees is a heretic? There are plenty of people in today's PCA churches that take issue with Hodge on many issues, so again, your point is silly.
The point is, you are portraying an arrogant know-it-all attitude, and such an attitude it neither Christ-like, nor helpful or beneficial in such a controversy as this. Your name calling is going beyond your authority and position in this, as well as causing further division and confusion in this matter. You are arguing a point from basic scriptural silence (as Hodge stated), so why not take a hint and remain silent yourself, you aren't helping anything.
Permalink
05/18/07 @ 15:49
Comment from: Sean Gerety [Visitor]
"Excuse me?!? Just who the heck do you think you are? You don't have a clue what I "need" to do."
So don't read it, what do I care? Keep feeding from the FV teet of Wilkins, Wilson and the rest of those Auburnites who continue to pollute the peace and purity of the church you're so concerned about. Who am I to stop you?
You seem to think the doctrine of justification is a debatable point. Pastor Meyers does. Maybe Rome was wright . . . I mean right after all and salvation is by faith and works. =8-P
So don't read it, what do I care? Keep feeding from the FV teet of Wilkins, Wilson and the rest of those Auburnites who continue to pollute the peace and purity of the church you're so concerned about. Who am I to stop you?
You seem to think the doctrine of justification is a debatable point. Pastor Meyers does. Maybe Rome was wright . . . I mean right after all and salvation is by faith and works. =8-P
Permalink
05/18/07 @ 16:19
Comment from: Sean Gerety [Visitor]
Hey Jeff, you do realize that what has been debated is whether or not Christ's perfect obedience and full satisfaction is imputed to believers? Do you believe this is a question that good Christian men can disagree on? Just wondering?
Permalink
05/18/07 @ 17:23
Comment from: Michael Miller [Visitor]
Bill,
By the way, where is your position paper on the FV that you mentioned last December? I agree with Sean that this is not an issue that we can "agree to disagree on."
By the way, where is your position paper on the FV that you mentioned last December? I agree with Sean that this is not an issue that we can "agree to disagree on."
Permalink
05/18/07 @ 23:19
Comment from: William Hill [Member] · http://www.rtrc.net
· http://www.rtrc.net
Sean,
Until you can learn to act like a gentlemen on my blog please refrain from posting anymore comments (and if you cannot behave yourself I will forcibly remove you from this blog). I don't mind disagreement but your mode of attack is over the top and extremely immature, especially coming from a Christian. Believe me, I recognize the symptoms as one who is also prone, far too often, of going to far with my words (something my wife reminds me about quite often).
So, please do not comment until such time as you have learned to temper your speech with more grace. You can disagree with Meyers and you can even personally believe he is a heretic or false teacher but you cannot come on this blog and say these things outloud since he is, after all, a member in good standing in the PCA.
Also, I agree with Jeff McCormack, the language of the PCA Study Committee Paper was far less attacking than yours even in disagreement with some of the FV positions. Is there something to be learned in that? I think so...
Until you can learn to act like a gentlemen on my blog please refrain from posting anymore comments (and if you cannot behave yourself I will forcibly remove you from this blog). I don't mind disagreement but your mode of attack is over the top and extremely immature, especially coming from a Christian. Believe me, I recognize the symptoms as one who is also prone, far too often, of going to far with my words (something my wife reminds me about quite often).
So, please do not comment until such time as you have learned to temper your speech with more grace. You can disagree with Meyers and you can even personally believe he is a heretic or false teacher but you cannot come on this blog and say these things outloud since he is, after all, a member in good standing in the PCA.
Also, I agree with Jeff McCormack, the language of the PCA Study Committee Paper was far less attacking than yours even in disagreement with some of the FV positions. Is there something to be learned in that? I think so...
Permalink
05/18/07 @ 23:43
Comment from: Jeff McCormack [Member] · http://www.apologiabooks.com
· http://www.apologiabooks.com
No Sean,
The point is, you comment that I need to read it...as if you are assuming you know anything about where I stand on this, or what my beliefs are, etc. Your comments were very demeaning to me personally, as if you thought I need to follow your instruction. So, again, it is all about your approach and comments. You think too much of yourself obviously.
As far as what was debatable, I was speaking more generally, in that all kind of these "FV" issues have been debated for centuries, yet you feel you have all the answers, and that all of these men before you and even now are obviously just a bunch of ignorant buffoons. You need an attitude adjustment that only the Spirit can accomplish.
The point is, you comment that I need to read it...as if you are assuming you know anything about where I stand on this, or what my beliefs are, etc. Your comments were very demeaning to me personally, as if you thought I need to follow your instruction. So, again, it is all about your approach and comments. You think too much of yourself obviously.
As far as what was debatable, I was speaking more generally, in that all kind of these "FV" issues have been debated for centuries, yet you feel you have all the answers, and that all of these men before you and even now are obviously just a bunch of ignorant buffoons. You need an attitude adjustment that only the Spirit can accomplish.
Permalink
05/19/07 @ 01:05
Comment from: Sean Gerety [Visitor]
#
This is for William and Jeff since I posted this on Greenbaggins (Lane Keister's blog site). I think it might bring the issue into sharper focus for some. And a quick hello to Michael since he at least can see what's at stake even if you men do not.
Sean Gerety said,
May 19, 2007 at 8:20 am
I think it is important to recognize that for Meyers his rejection of Christ’s active obedience is not because he thinks the distinction between active and passive can apply both to Christ’s moral obedience and cross work and therefore is a somewhat artificial distinction. What Meyers denies is that Christ’s moral obedience is imputed to believers.
Per Meyers:
“What is being debated and his been a mater of controversy WITHIN Reformed theology for centuries is whether Jesus merited something by all his good works he accomplished in his life that is then “imputed” to believers.”
Therefore, I think everyone needs to be clear on this point, for Meyers when he reads, say, LC 70 and that justification is “but only for the perfect obedience and full satisfaction of Christ, by God imputed to them, and received by faith alone,” he does not see “perfect obedience” as applying to all Christ’s “good works he accomplished in his life that is then ‘imputed’ to believers.”
Active/passive distinction aside, for Meyers Christ’s moral obedience is not imputed to believers by faith alone and that this is somehow a “matter of controversy” amongst Protestants. That is unbelievable and a clearer rejection of the Christian doctrine of imputation, the very heart of the Gospel, could hardly be found . . . anywhere. FWIW I have debated Roman Catholics who haven’t been as forthright and candid about their rejection of the Gospel.
Finally, regardless of whether or not the Committee Report is accepted, and it most definitely should be, it would be a greater tragedy if men like Meyers are ever allowed to leave the PCA without being brought under disciplined for such a brazen departure from the faith. The OPC failed miserably in its duty in the case of Norm Shepherd who was allowed to leave the OPC in “good standing” and continued to teach and preach his false gospel in the CRC. While that’s only one example, the case of John Kinnaird is another, the OPC will be held accountable for her many failures in dealing with this controversy and her little report on FV/NPP will be held up to her shame. I just fear the PCA will follow suit and think she has really accomplished something by adopting a Committee report, even one as praise worthy as the one being discussed.
___________
P.S. William, Norm Shepherd was a minister in "good standing" in the OPC and then in the CRC. He's still in "good standing" in many people's books. Would you ever call Norm Shepherd a "false teacher?" I guess you wouldn't.
This is for William and Jeff since I posted this on Greenbaggins (Lane Keister's blog site). I think it might bring the issue into sharper focus for some. And a quick hello to Michael since he at least can see what's at stake even if you men do not.
Sean Gerety said,
May 19, 2007 at 8:20 am
I think it is important to recognize that for Meyers his rejection of Christ’s active obedience is not because he thinks the distinction between active and passive can apply both to Christ’s moral obedience and cross work and therefore is a somewhat artificial distinction. What Meyers denies is that Christ’s moral obedience is imputed to believers.
Per Meyers:
“What is being debated and his been a mater of controversy WITHIN Reformed theology for centuries is whether Jesus merited something by all his good works he accomplished in his life that is then “imputed” to believers.”
Therefore, I think everyone needs to be clear on this point, for Meyers when he reads, say, LC 70 and that justification is “but only for the perfect obedience and full satisfaction of Christ, by God imputed to them, and received by faith alone,” he does not see “perfect obedience” as applying to all Christ’s “good works he accomplished in his life that is then ‘imputed’ to believers.”
Active/passive distinction aside, for Meyers Christ’s moral obedience is not imputed to believers by faith alone and that this is somehow a “matter of controversy” amongst Protestants. That is unbelievable and a clearer rejection of the Christian doctrine of imputation, the very heart of the Gospel, could hardly be found . . . anywhere. FWIW I have debated Roman Catholics who haven’t been as forthright and candid about their rejection of the Gospel.
Finally, regardless of whether or not the Committee Report is accepted, and it most definitely should be, it would be a greater tragedy if men like Meyers are ever allowed to leave the PCA without being brought under disciplined for such a brazen departure from the faith. The OPC failed miserably in its duty in the case of Norm Shepherd who was allowed to leave the OPC in “good standing” and continued to teach and preach his false gospel in the CRC. While that’s only one example, the case of John Kinnaird is another, the OPC will be held accountable for her many failures in dealing with this controversy and her little report on FV/NPP will be held up to her shame. I just fear the PCA will follow suit and think she has really accomplished something by adopting a Committee report, even one as praise worthy as the one being discussed.
___________
P.S. William, Norm Shepherd was a minister in "good standing" in the OPC and then in the CRC. He's still in "good standing" in many people's books. Would you ever call Norm Shepherd a "false teacher?" I guess you wouldn't.
Permalink
05/19/07 @ 09:31
Comment from: William Hill [Member] · http://www.rtrc.net
· http://www.rtrc.net
Hey Sean...why don't you pick up a phone and give Meyers a call and discuss your concerns with him?
I am betting you won't try that but I would encourage you to do so.
I am betting you won't try that but I would encourage you to do so.
Permalink
05/19/07 @ 15:41
Comment from: William Hill [Member] · http://www.rtrc.net
· http://www.rtrc.net
And for the record, I know what is at stake and it is greater than even you think it is...
Permalink
05/19/07 @ 15:41
Comment from: Sean Gerety [Visitor]
Hey William, why should I call Meyers? What will that accomplish? He said what he said online and in public. Even if he chooses to delete the relevant posts, which he has, I saved them all.
I noticed you didn't answer my question concerning Norm Shepherd? Not surprising.
I noticed you didn't answer my question concerning Norm Shepherd? Not surprising.
Permalink
05/19/07 @ 16:25
Comment from: William Hill [Member] · http://www.rtrc.net
· http://www.rtrc.net
What's not surprising is that you won't call him and talk about it like a man. Instead you are content to sit on your keyboard and launch bombs. So be it.
I do not consider Shepherd to be a "false teacher" by the way. Of course, I am sure that will not sit well with you but that is fine with me.
I do not consider Shepherd to be a "false teacher" by the way. Of course, I am sure that will not sit well with you but that is fine with me.
Permalink
05/19/07 @ 16:31
Comment from: Sean Gerety [Visitor]
"I do not consider Shepherd to be a "false teacher" by the way. Of course, I am sure that will not sit well with you but that is fine with me."
Sit well? I completely expected it.
Sit well? I completely expected it.
Permalink
05/19/07 @ 18:02
Comment from: William Hill [Member] · http://www.rtrc.net
· http://www.rtrc.net
Sean,
I am sure you expected my answer and that is fine (which, of course, begs the question of why you asked me in the first place but anyhow...).
Mike,
It (my position paper on the FV) is a work in progress but it is forthcoming. I wish I had more time to work on it but when it is done I will present it on my blog.
I am sure you expected my answer and that is fine (which, of course, begs the question of why you asked me in the first place but anyhow...).
Mike,
It (my position paper on the FV) is a work in progress but it is forthcoming. I wish I had more time to work on it but when it is done I will present it on my blog.
Permalink
05/20/07 @ 08:15
Comment from: Sean Gerety [Visitor]
"I am sure you expected my answer and that is fine (which, of course, begs the question of why you asked me in the first place but anyhow...)."
It's nice to get people like you on record from time to time. That's why I was so please and surprised when I was able to document and save (before he deleted it) Meyers' affirmation of the Confessional language concerning Christ's active obedience (WCF 1:3) followed by his rejection of that same language as it relates to imputation (WCF 1:1).
BTW, even though I realize that nothing will ever change your (hard) heart, you should read the OPC report on justification specifically as it relates to Christ's active obedience imputed to believer.
Meyers position (even as he expressed it in his 30 reasons, particularly point 17) is no different from the old Liberals in the 1920's who thought doctrines like the Virgin Birth or inerrancy were also "second-order theological formulations" that Christians could disagree on.
Like the Liberals back in Machen's day, you are on the wrong side in this fight William.
It's nice to get people like you on record from time to time. That's why I was so please and surprised when I was able to document and save (before he deleted it) Meyers' affirmation of the Confessional language concerning Christ's active obedience (WCF 1:3) followed by his rejection of that same language as it relates to imputation (WCF 1:1).
BTW, even though I realize that nothing will ever change your (hard) heart, you should read the OPC report on justification specifically as it relates to Christ's active obedience imputed to believer.
Meyers position (even as he expressed it in his 30 reasons, particularly point 17) is no different from the old Liberals in the 1920's who thought doctrines like the Virgin Birth or inerrancy were also "second-order theological formulations" that Christians could disagree on.
Like the Liberals back in Machen's day, you are on the wrong side in this fight William.
Permalink
05/20/07 @ 11:03
Comment from: William Hill [Member] · http://www.rtrc.net
· http://www.rtrc.net
This is precisely why I do not like to discuss these matters with you Sean. It is because of statements like this:
I am sure my heart is hard from time to time (probably more than I would desire). However, I do not think my heart is hard over this matter. You do not have it all figured out Sean and frankly, I find your laments quite tiresome. Even when you are admonished to call Meyers on the phone to talk with him about these concerns you raise you refuse to do so. That is what a man, nay, a Christian would do if really concerned over the well being of another. However, from everything I have read from you on the internet and elsewhere you would be pleased if your opponents simply dropped dead.
Anyhow, your comment was, again, uncalled for and just another attempt to needle me. That is all fine and good because your opinion of me is pretty close to meaningless. I have met and debated and talked with people like you many times in my life and each time I walk away feeling as though I was in a discussion with a child. This time is no different. What you ought to read more of, sir, is books on practical Christianity. My advice to you would be to lay of the heavy doses of theology and read some simple practical stuff in order to crenter your life.
BTW, even though I realize that nothing will ever change your (hard) heart
I am sure my heart is hard from time to time (probably more than I would desire). However, I do not think my heart is hard over this matter. You do not have it all figured out Sean and frankly, I find your laments quite tiresome. Even when you are admonished to call Meyers on the phone to talk with him about these concerns you raise you refuse to do so. That is what a man, nay, a Christian would do if really concerned over the well being of another. However, from everything I have read from you on the internet and elsewhere you would be pleased if your opponents simply dropped dead.
Anyhow, your comment was, again, uncalled for and just another attempt to needle me. That is all fine and good because your opinion of me is pretty close to meaningless. I have met and debated and talked with people like you many times in my life and each time I walk away feeling as though I was in a discussion with a child. This time is no different. What you ought to read more of, sir, is books on practical Christianity. My advice to you would be to lay of the heavy doses of theology and read some simple practical stuff in order to crenter your life.
Permalink
05/20/07 @ 23:54
Comment from: William Hill [Member] · http://www.rtrc.net
· http://www.rtrc.net
Oh, I almost forgot. You ought to rad my latest article about internet accountability. Read it woth your heart and ask yourself some things: "do I do these things?" "Am I guilty of any of the things mentioned here?
I know that I am guilty of most of what I wrote against. May God help me to behave more appropriately while using the internet.
I know that I am guilty of most of what I wrote against. May God help me to behave more appropriately while using the internet.
Permalink
05/20/07 @ 23:56
Comment from: William Hill [Member] · http://www.rtrc.net
· http://www.rtrc.net you should read the OPC report on justification specifically as it relates to Christ's active obedience imputed to believer.
I have read quite a bit of it. I have also read just about every article out there on this issue. I have a very large notebook filled with article after article on the FV. However, I have done one thing you are apparently not willing to do. I have had open and honest conversations with Wilson, Wilkins, Meyers, Horne, Lusk and Mark Duncan (chairman of the committee to re-examine Wilkins). I have asked them some pretty tough questions and listened to their answers carefully. In fact, I had Wilkins in my home for a meal and we had a good conversation. Monday night I am having dinner with Mark Duncan and I am sure we will discuss the issue and all the implications. So I have done more than just read I have spoken with and listened to those men you call heretics and false teachers and I have to tell you Sean, you really are off base in most, if not all of your accusations. Will you agree with that? Of course not. However, until you are ready to act like a Christian and speak with these men directly then all of your shouting and antics are only that. The one thing a fighter needs is a fight and you are a fighter to be sure. Again, it is not the fight that is wrong it is the tactics.
You say you are contending for the truth (an admirable quality) but you go about it all the wrong way. Again, I am sure this will fall on deaf ears but you will never be able to say you have not heard it before. Something tells me you have been told that before and I am sure someone else somewhere will tell you that again. Maybe God is trying to get your attention.
Permalink
05/21/07 @ 00:36 Leave a comment: