Complaint Filed
A complaint has been filed by TE M. Jay Bennett and TE Joseph E. Rolison against the Missouri Presbytery charging them with spiritual delinquency and incompetence (my words) in their pitiful handling and recent exoneration of Federal Visionist and false teacher Jeffrey Meyers (forgive the redundancy). They write in part:
Missouri Presbytery … failed in its duty to condemn erroneous doctrines and practices that injure the peace, purity, and unity of the Church. Missouri Presbytery erred in determining that there was insufficient evidence to raise a strong presumption of guilt in TE Meyers….
TE Meyers stated:
“I do think the latest scholarly work in biblical theology demands that we go back and redo a great deal of the Westminster standards. They were written when people still thought of the covenant as a contract and believed that “merit” had some role to play in our covenantal relations with God. The whole bi-polar covenant of works/grace schema has got to go. And if that goes, the whole “system” must be reworked. (MICR, 67)”
Meyers and those who defend him seem to think that his rejection of the law/gospel distinction (what he calls the “works/grace schema”) has not place him outside of the Reformed faith as expressed in the Reformed confessions (something Meyers still pretends to be “bound to”). Meyers and the MOP are both wrong. His rejection of the “works/grace schema” has placed himself outside of the Christian faith entirely.
Meyers is a brazen wolf and the Missouri Presbytery in their exoneration of him have only demonstrated the depth of their own apostasy. The problem here, and what makes the MOP situation somewhat unique, is that I’m inclined to think that the likelihood for repentance is commensurate with a lack of power and prestige. You know, blessed are the poor in spirit and all. Seeing that a large portion of the MOP are Covenant Seminary professors and former professors, it could be that this time the PCA is in for a showdown. This isn’t the Louisiana Presbytery after all.
Please read the rest of their complaint here.
Explore posts in the same categories: Heresies, Jeff Meyers
God's Hammer 
January 19, 2011 at 5:20 pm
Jeffrey*
January 19, 2011 at 5:56 pm
Thanks.
January 19, 2011 at 6:39 pm
Cryptic, you two!
January 19, 2011 at 6:43 pm
C’mon, Sean stop the sugar-coating, and please tell us what you *really* think!
spiritual delinquency and incompetence…
Federal Visionist and false teacher Jeffrey Meyers (forgive the redundancy)…
outside of the Christian faith entirely…
Meyers is a brazen wolf…
the Missouri Presbytery in their exoneration of him have only demonstrated the depth of their own apostasy…
January 19, 2011 at 6:50 pm
On a more serious note, Sean, do you think this MO Presbytery is irredeemable and must be abandoned?
You said they’ve “demonstrated the depth of their own apostasy.”
We’ve been discussing leaving churches over @ “PCA-Will-its-Fight”, and I point out the diff between the OPC/ PCA & the likes of TEC (Episcopal).*
Is the PCA (& the OPC for that matter) beyond redemption and to be abandoned by God-fearing Bible-believing saints?
Thanks.
* Or, say, the PCUSA. Is the PCA as wretched as PCUSA? You claim apostasy of a presbytery, which indicates to me that it’s hopeless.
January 19, 2011 at 6:53 pm
That should read
“We’ve been discussing leaving churches over @ “PCA-Will-Lose-its-Fight”…”
January 19, 2011 at 10:04 pm
No, I don’t think it should be abandoned, yet. And, FWIW, I don’t think it will be abandoned regardless of the outcome of this case.
When push comes to shove I think it is a mistake to think these men will do an about face like the men in the LAP. As I mentioned on White’s blog and expanding a bit up on what I wrote above, there are other variables in this case that were not there when the SJC heard an identical complaint against the LAP as a result of their twice exoneration of Steve Wilkins. Two of those variables are SJC members David Coffin and Bryan Chapell. In the case of Coffin, we already have some experience with at least one of those variables and how it affected the outcome of one SJC decision and it wasn’t good. Another is the positions of many of those who put their names on the MOP’s decision clearing Meyers on all counts. Perhaps this is where that other unknown variable might come into play.
If things get to that point where the SJC will get directly involved, and I think they will, it is always possible that when the SJC pushes back that the men of the MOP might call their bluff. Anyway, it will be interesting to watch.
January 20, 2011 at 11:22 pm
So long, ‘sola fide’ in the PCA…
January 22, 2011 at 5:42 pm
If the SJC does not either make the presbyteries deal decisively with Leithart and Meyers, or do it themselves, then it has denied the Third Mark of the true visible church, and is well on its way to denying the First and Second marks. As such I think that a case could be made to call the Christians to separate themselves from her.
The real question is whether or not the true Christians would do so.
January 23, 2011 at 5:32 pm
Dr. Leithart is an interesting, well-read scholar and pastor. He’s a noble Christian gentleman. I’ve read him and am convinced he could not possess such a testimony if he were not a royal Chritian gentleman. You may not like all of his ideas. Your theological preferences may be different. But to consider him heretical is I think to go beyond being a purist. You would want only a faith expression that you yourself would give at any moment. Who else would have it then? Elizabeth I said she found too many Puritan preachers and their parishioners dissatisfied. They always complained. And they went on for too long. Their sermons lasted forever. It seemed to give them more time to find something wrong. Appalachian Presbyterians would sometimes run the pastor out of town if they thought he was at some point incorrect. This is a long tradition with us Americans and it started back in the British Isles. We may need to become a bit more flexible.
January 23, 2011 at 8:01 pm
Brad,
Now, now, I thought we were going to be biblical, and not partisan, preferential or judgmental.
How dare you judge Dr Leithart as being ‘noble’ or ‘royal’*? How can you assume his piety based on a few readings that you liked?
Maybe he’s a Pharisee – they could mouth great swelling words, too, having men’s persons in admiration because of advantage.
Or worse, maybe both you and he are unregenerate and outside the kingdom, playing silly word games and playing fast and loose with the gospel in a world of wax-nosed creeds and paradoxicological nonsense?
* Whatever THAT means.
January 24, 2011 at 1:16 am
Now Hugh, this goes both ways. The one who accuses is typically associated with the Devil…so how do we know you and “God’s Hammer” aren’t the Devil’s own tool? Are you sure you’re * GOD’s * hammer? God calls all who call on Him in sincere faith His brothers, EVEN if they don’t have their theological “t”s crossed. Imagine that. Good thing too.
You see…I would call Dr. Leithart “noble”…and even “royal.” And that’s not because I read a few books of his (I have read some – he writes them faster than I can read them). I know the man. I know his wife, and kids (he has a bunch).
He is a man that fears God (and doesn’t fear man), a man who is trusting in Christ alone for his eternal security, and who loves the Church. I just listened to his associate pastor preach (Toby Sumpter – a younger pastor he has trained over the years), and I have rarely heard such a beautiful and powerful exposition of the doctrines of Grace as that sermon. (you can find it online in the next week or so on http://www.canonwired.com)
You careful and precise theologians find so many quibbles that always mount to something that “Strikes the vitals of our doctrines,” but meanwhile two churches are fed a healthy dose of grace-filled preaching here in Moscow, Idaho. And they will continue to preach the free gospel of grace and salvation while men like you scrutinize their every word.
When all the scrutinizing is done, and all is accomplished, I still hope to see you all in the resurrection. And I think I will. I just hope that these blogs won’t end up being “chaff” that is burnt up. Any chance we can kingdom build together before then?
January 24, 2011 at 1:36 am
I haven’t found the “free gospel of grace and salvation” coming from any church in Moscow, ID, much less from the pen of Peter Leithart. I have to think there are Christian churches in Moscow Daniel F, but I’m only familiar with those in the FV CREC.
My prayer that when the SJC overturns the innocent verdict almost assuredly coming from the nearly completely apostate PNWP following Leithart’s upcoming trial, that this “noble” fraud will accept the discipline of the church and resign himself permanently from teaching and preaching. Of course, if I were a betting man, I think he’ll simply continue to spread the same FV false gospel as a CREC minister, which is what he is anyway.
January 24, 2011 at 3:54 am
Brad, Daniel,
Do you believe that a man will go to hell if he dies believing that justification is by faith and works?
January 24, 2011 at 6:32 am
We are saved by faith, a faith that works as we learn in James. Justification, if at the last day, would then be on that basis. I suppose that’s where much confusion arises.
January 24, 2011 at 9:04 am
Thank you Brad. You make my case perfectly.
January 24, 2011 at 9:20 am
So, I am a tad confused on your three short sentences.
Romans 3:28 Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith apart from the deeds of the law.
James is rebuking Christians for being judgers and talkers like the pharisees but not doers. His point is that if you have faith then the spirit produces works, but the works does not contribute to the faith.
The point being that real salvation shows forth real changes in a man.
Are you suggesting that the works James talks about in any way contribute to the salvation itself?
January 24, 2011 at 9:47 am
Michael, Brad is a devoted follower of Peter Leithart, N.T. Wright, and I would assume the rest of the FV/NPP crowd. For men like Brad and Daniel F faith means doing. That is, after all, what it means for Leithart and Wright. For example, Wright writes:
“Is there then no ‘reckoning of righteousness’ in, for instance, Romans 5.14–21? Yes, there is; but my case is that this is not God’s own righteousness, or Christ’s own righteousness, that is reckoned to God’s redeemed people, but rather the fresh status of ‘covenant member’, and/or ‘justified sinner’, which is accredited to those who are in Christ, who have heard the gospel and responded with ‘the obedience of faith’. [emphasis added]”
Leithart follows suit by confessing:
“And, yes, covenant faithfulness is the way to salvation, for the “doers of the law will be justified” at the final judgment. But this is all done in union with Christ, so that “our” covenant faithfulness is dependent on the work of the Spirit of Christ in us, and our covenant faithfulness is about faith, trusting the Spirit to will and to do according to His good pleasure.”
What is tragic is that the PCA’s highest court has officially recognized that the FV/NPP present a “parallel” soteriology that strike at the vitals, the non-negotiables, of the faith, yet the largely apostate lower courts like the PNWP and now the MOP have exonerated two of the leading proponents of the above works righteousness. The Siouxlands exonerated one of the lesser lights in the FV, Joshua Moon. Not one Presbytery has been able to properly deal with any of these FV men, including your own James River Pres which has been utterly ineffective in dealing with Wally Sherbon or even Calvary Reformed in Hampton which has a long history of inviting FV men to speak at their youth conferences.
Unless the PCA takes decisive action very soon (which is a joke at this point) by removing Leithart, Meyers and the rest of these false teachers the PCA will be lost completely if it isn’t already.
January 24, 2011 at 10:30 am
Greetings Daniel F.
I too know or have met Mr. Leithart, as well as am familiar with some of the players in the PAcNW presbytery, tho it has been ages since I was a member of or attended a PCA church.
Yet regardless of his personal qualities – whether or not he kicks his dog regularly, never mind the wife and children – what is at issue, is what the man thinks, teaches and preaches as minister of the gospel.
IOW FWIW the post that follows, got pulled from GB due in part, no? to another faithful fan and advocate of the FV. While it seems he particularly objected to mine of #29 addressed to RcJr. re. Mr. J. Meyers, which also got pulled (along with #30 to Mr. B Carpenter) why sweat the details?
But to quote Horatio hisself (sic):
Thank you for your time and attention to this matter. I’m sorry to bother you.
Likewise.
*********************************
31bsuden said,
January 19, 2011 at 12:46 am
13
Dear Mr. Foucachon,
While we can’t all dare to be a Daniel, FWIW and whether you or anybody else agrees, what we are watching in our day and before our very eyes is yet another campaign in the ongoing war on the faith, worship and govt. of the reformed church, albeit conducted by those from within the camp of the saints.
As one of the select members of the happy-clappy Framen Warrior Children who aggressively champion the very compassionate standard of pacific latitudinarianism, J Meyers has assaulted the second mark of the church.
Indirectly he does this by denying the RPW, a tactic first initiated by J. Framen’s biblically enthusiastic Worship In Spite of the Truth which largely consists of the fallacy of many questions. But regardless of the barrage of question-begging questions by the FWC, the truth still stands: whatsoever sacrament that is not instituted by Christ is forbidden in the NT church.
Moreover, the FV take on the sacraments is a direct attack in subverting their application to the elect and at least taking a halfway house position between the elect and all recipients, if not that reprobates truly partake of the substance of the sacraments. Mr. Meyers has also conveniently ignored the third mark, the government and discipline of the church, by not taking his scruples and disagreements with the WS to the proper court, his session and then MOP.
All this, in order to then make an assault on the first mark of the church, the preaching of sound doctrine, much more JBFA: All those who are baptized are truly united with Christ and can truly fall away. The covenant is not with the elect, but with the visible church, which is the only real church and we will of course, be judged by our faith and works according to gospel of James, which is a far, far better thing than Luther’s gospel of Paul’s in Romans.
A Further Necessary Disclaimer for Possibly Weaker/Skeptical Brethren.
If Mr. Meyers – again no relation to anybody that anybody might know – has not himself personally taught these doctrines, he has aided, abetted and fraternized promiscuously, if not conspiratorially with various bilious yahoos that have. Many times in public and on the internet, no less.
These include one JBJordan, as well as a certain avuncular Uncle Doug, who presides over the Presbyterian and Reformed Potempkin Village and WasteTreatment Plant of Little Moscow, in Idaho, hard by the banks of the mighty River Snake, who has told us as recently as Aug. 16, 2010 that this commotion over the FV has been his “big promotion”.
Indeed it has. As a hip ecclesiastically correct descendant of the French philosophes of the Enlightenment, Mr. Wilson has finally come into his own, as well as never seen a covenant he couldn’t photograph and it is high time Annie Liebowitz put him down in black and white. Because being a theological Rolling Stone is not half the reformed millstone some presbyterians might think it is.
Yes, I know. Mr. Wilson is very gifted – and very glib; he is quite fluent – and quite fraudulent. On the one hand if Doug can praise John Knox highly, on the other, he countenances, congratulates and collaborates effusively with Mr. Schlissel, another Framen Warrior Chillun in training bent on deconstructing the RPW, a fundamental doctrine for John Knox and the Scottish Reformation.
If Knox in his work on predestination, cannot laud the doctrine of election highly enough, Mr. Wilson sets it at naught and puts the vague and amorphous “covenant” in its place in Reformed Is Not Enough. But liars should have good memories and Mr. Wilson should also realize that not everybody was born yesterday.
(And don’t bother with any of the usual pseudo- pious pap about respeck (sic). Mr. Wilson is a past master at and engages at will quite readily in raillery and tomfoolery, so neither he nor any of his have room to pretend to be offended by the obvious.)
Yet the emperor has no clothes, Rome has no gospel, the Federales have no Vision and Mr. Meyers has no credibility – but not that Mr. Meyers, the invisible one. Like the church.
Carthago delenda est.
cordially
****************************
32[but now 29] Mark Horne said,
January 19, 2011 at 2:21 am
Hey, Lane, it’s up to you but I volunteer the opinion that I’m reading some pretty harsh claims about another man’s moral character in some comments (especially #XX).
I know you think I’ve crossed this line sometimes, and you may decide I’m wrong in this case, but I ask you to consider Bob’s value to your blog.
Thank you for your time and attention to this matter. I’m sorry to bother you.
**********************
January 24, 2011 at 10:41 am
Oops, my bad.
Mr. Foucachon was speaking of the FV vis a vis Mr. Meyers and here re. Mr. Leithart.
Very well.
Yet the following might put the kaleidoscope in better focus by explicitly mentioning PL.
IOW from the bowels of the great internet boneyard, wasteland and delete file, yet another ecclesiastically incorrect/intemperate post retrieved from well deserved obscurity.
*******************************
30 January 19, 2011 at 12:03 am
10 Mr. Carpenter
I think for Meyers, anyone that asks for clarification is a dead porcine. As opposed to pearl jam.
But not toe jam. Swine have hooves and the expedition for the Hunting of the Snark captained by Lewis Carroll and Clark will be leaving St. Louis for the NW Presbytery Territory shortly. All hands on deck and smartly now.
But regardless of who Meyers starts with, you would think the MOP would start with his ACTIONS in the same 5 year period. Lemme see. Yep. The JFVS was in 2007.
And one J. Meyers – obviously no relation a’tall to the individual who makes this apology – signs the Joint FV Statement along with a bunch of other rabid FV advocates, apostles and parties of interest, such as James Jordan, Doug Wilson, Peter Leithart [emph. added], Mark Horne and Steve Wilkins etc. with Meyers and the last three, all just happening to be ministerial members of various PCA presbyteries. Ahem. Maybe the JFVS really is a harmless statement, but then the whole idea of avoiding even the appearance of evil seems to have escaped all parties concerned. Dunno, but superiors are not supposed to be stumbling their inferiors.
And don’t quote me on this, but I might have to pseudo-piously examine my heart and NOT my actions. After all I myself did NOT personally sign the JFVS during the 5 year examination window and would therefore have to repent publicly, but only halfheartedly, of my gross sin of omission.
I don’t know about you, but the part that really, really like just seriously convicted me and probably, but I’m not sure, prevented me from signing the JFVS was the one on affirming creeds and confessions with a clean and clear conscience according to the plain meaning of the words and the original intent of the authors.
Of course, if we are talking about the original authors of the JFVS, that might mean something like dragging a dead fish across the trail in order to throw off any bloodhounds for orthodoxy. Like MOP? But again, did they even bother to look at it?
IOW sadly IMO MO Pres. doesn’t seem to understand the MO of the FV or of heretics and heresies.
No, this is not a whitewash/Tom Sawyer call your agent moment. (Wrong author/book.)
It is rather, all about straining gnats and swallowing camels Matt. 23:24, as well as suffering fools gladly 2 Cor. 11:19.
I’ve resisted pulling the trigger in the comments for the Machen Warrior Children thread. Originally two of three remarks concerned the PCA genesis and roots in fundamentalism and the harmonization of the Standing Judicial Commission with classic jus divinum presbyterianism with pragmaticism. One supposes a third could now be added: Certain tendencies to rank negligence/judicial hardening and blindness.
With all due apologies, genuflections to and reverent euphemisms in the direction of the Tone Police, if the PCA won’t discipline MO Presbytery for refusing to discipline Meyers, what else won’t they do? Does anybody really doubt that they won’t be pilloried in the laughingstock as beneath contempt in the square of public P&R scorn and disgust?
tank you
fare thee well
bubsudden
Prov. 14:13, Eccl. 7:3
*****************
Thank you.
January 24, 2011 at 10:54 am
“Uncle Doug, who presides over the Presbyterian and Reformed Potempkin Village and WasteTreatment Plant of Little Moscow”
🙂
January 24, 2011 at 12:28 pm
Daniel,
Thanks for commenting! My turn?
‘Now Hugh, this goes both ways. The one who accuses is typically associated with the Devil… so how do we know you and “God’s Hammer” aren’t the Devil’s own tool?’
>THAT’S interesting. Where is it written (besides by you) that, ‘The one who accuses is typically associated with the Devil’? Based on who’s research? But of course, that’s the question: How do we know who’re the good guys and who’re the baddies? (Ans: Isa.8:20, Rom.16:17, 1 The.5:21.
‘Are you sure you’re * GOD’s * hammer?’
>I AM QUITE SURE I am not. But God’s word is like a hammer that breaks the rock in pieces – it is true from the very beginning, and I trust it. As for my interaction with Brad, he’s asserting Leithart’s ‘nobility and royalty’ (whatever that means). Like you to me, I’m asking him, how does he judge another?
‘God calls all who call on Him in sincere faith His brothers, EVEN if they don’t have their theological “t”s crossed. Imagine that. Good thing too.’
>ABSOLUTELY! But we are to grow in grace and in the knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, increasingly crossing ‘t’s and dotting ‘i’s acc. to his revelation/ word. Brad seems to abhor such handwriting.
‘You see… I would call Dr. Leithart “noble”…and even “royal.”’
>FINE. Such is your right here in the USofA. Whatever ‘royal’ means – sounds to smack of papal purple, though. Rather man-exalting. Why not ‘Rabbi Leithhart,’ then, or ‘Father Peter’?
‘And that’s not because I read a few books of his (I have read some – he writes them faster than I can read them). I know the man. I know his wife, and kids (he has a bunch).’
>THIS is good ~ One is known by such fruit. But of course, Mormons & some Catholics aren’t bad family men, either.
‘He is a man that fears God (and doesn’t fear man), a man who is trusting in Christ alone for his eternal security, and who loves the Church.’
>THIS is most encouraging. But I am perplexed as to how Sean chronicles such contradictory evidence…
‘I just listened to his associate pastor preach (Toby Sumpter – a younger pastor he has trained over the years), and I have rarely heard such a beautiful and powerful exposition of the doctrines of Grace as that sermon. (you can find it online in the next week or so on http://www.canonwired.com)’
>THANK YOU. Glad someone can wax eloquent on such divine doctrine. Do Revs. Peter & Toby likewise assail works-righteousness errors such as the Federal Vision and other crypto-papistic heresies?
‘You careful and precise theologians find so many quibbles that always mount to something that “Strikes the vitals of our doctrines,” but meanwhile two churches are fed a healthy dose of grace-filled preaching here in Moscow, Idaho.’
>SURELY you don’t consider Doug & Peter & Toby to be uncareful and imprecise, do you? Silly quibble, Daniel. I hope it’s true that Idahoan Muscovites are being well-fed.
‘And they will continue to preach the free gospel of grace and salvation while men like you scrutinize their every word.’
>I AM MERELY asking questions and reading the assertions & quotes. Sean provides such; can you likewise provide evidence of Peter or Toby attacking the Federal Vision heresy? Thank you.
‘When all the scrutinizing is done, and all is accomplished, I still hope to see you all in the resurrection. And I think I will. I just hope that these blogs won’t end up being “chaff” that is burnt up.’
>AGAIN, why criticize Sean & Co for their scrutiny when Peter & Co also scrutinize? We are called to be discerning, and to test everything, holding fast to that which is true.
‘Any chance we can kingdom build together before then?’
>SURE! IF yours (unlike their’s) is not a works-righteous, postmillennial theonomic pipe-dream.
January 24, 2011 at 2:04 pm
As an ex-Episcopalian and ex-PCA Presbyterian (under care there), let me say that Wright is beyond problematic.
Anglicanism’s via media has historically been ‘twixt Rome and Geneva.
Hence, she has everything from Pike to Packer in her communion. As one priest told me, “She is like a girl being pursued by two suitors, the Puritans and Rome; she holds hands with both, but won’t go to bed with either.”
(The last clause is debatable as to Anglo-Catholics, but I digress.)
This is endemic to Anglicans, but ought not to be to Presbyterians (I naively thought).
Quotes in Sean’s post of January 24, 2011 at 9:47am are most telling.
All: Please reread those words of Wright & Leithart!
Synergism is false, terrible news.
January 24, 2011 at 5:27 pm
Both Leithart and Wright are actually reformed. I dont’ know Leithart’s personal opinions, but I’ve read a book by him that revealed tremendous insight which could not have arisen from the pen of a nonbeliever – that sort of thing is just not possible. Justification, if it happens at the last, will be on the basis of works too. Why? Because it’s at the last. That’s all. This states nothing in regard to how we are united to Christ or achieve our status in Christ, which is strictly by faith / grace. God calls us to be members of his covenant. He extends that invitation to us and we become his own. Of this we can be assured. Justification, if it is at the last, is based on faith and works, since it’s at the last. But that’s because by that time the Holy Spirit has worked through you.
January 24, 2011 at 11:59 pm
So our right standing with God and entrance into heaven is in part dependent upon our own works. Gottcha. Well, Brad, at least you are not a hard one to peg down. You’re blatantly heretical. If only everyone in the FV crowd were so honest…
January 25, 2011 at 2:27 am
Brad,
Wow. Do you realize that the false Gospel you have just explained is exactly what Paul is anathematizing in Galatians? Please, Go read Galatians right now. At least go read the first 3 chapters. You are deceived.
Please, I beg you to listen to either of these two lectures. the first is call justification and Judgment and the Second is a part of a 5 part series on Justification and errors on Justification.
I ask you out of love to listen to one or both of these. I understand that you believe we are in error, but I sincerely believe that you have rejected the Gospel of Justification by mercy alone through belief alone.
[audio src="http://www.trinitylectures.org/MP3/Justification_and_Judgment--A_Sermon_on_Matthew_7.21-23.mp3" /]
[audio src="http://www.trinitylectures.org/MP3/Justification_Collection13.mp3" /]
January 25, 2011 at 11:17 am
Amen, David R.
But as Brad has resisted all other calls to read/ listen & heed, I am dubious. Your plea is touching, nonetheless.
January 25, 2011 at 5:29 pm
We are saved by grace / faith alone. But justification, if at the last, is based on faith and works. Why? Because it is at the last. By then the HOly Spirit will have worked through us. This is not our doing. It is the Lord’s. But that doesnn’t change the fact that the jsutification takes into account what transpired. Do you see this?
January 25, 2011 at 5:45 pm
Brad,
You’ve bought the Federal Visionary lie.
January 25, 2011 at 5:47 pm
Initial justification is by grace/faith alone, but final justification is by faith and works. Jesus’ work completely apart from us evidently was not enough. What I see is that you’ve learned your lessons from Wright and Leithart very well which is extremely sad.
January 25, 2011 at 5:47 pm
I know nothing of the Federal Vision, aside from these two things: They are very trinitarian (which causes them to see patterns in places others might not, and they seek a pre-Great-Awakening return to ecclesiastical authority and sacramental reliance. They do not like individualism and personal experiences. This is all I know.
January 25, 2011 at 5:49 pm
I do not follow their teachings. I’ve not learned from them. I study teh Bible. I believe that everything I’ve said can be found in the Bible, provided we’re not distracted by our systems. Our systems can keep us from seeing everything the Bible has to say. This is because of what I said about them.
January 25, 2011 at 5:51 pm
I only read one book by Leithart. Apart from that I know nothign of him. His book was phenomenally inspiring. But I don’t think it had anything to do with teh Federal Vision. I think that Leithart is relatively unknown. After all, who really has heard of him?
January 25, 2011 at 5:53 pm
No, the fact is that the average person in the pew has never heard of this fellow. I looked him up and it seemed he preaches at a hotel. I think his church rents a conference room or something. I believe he’s reformed but I don’t know what sect. He’s probably not even Presbyterian.
January 25, 2011 at 5:54 pm
BRADLEY,
You’re a false teacher with a false gospel, wherever you picked it up.
Newsflash: It happens to be the same synergistic prattle of the FV-ers, papists, et. al.
You’re as nonsensical as a Lewis Carroll creature:
“…everything I’ve said can be found in the Bible, provided we’re not distracted by our systems. Our systems can keep us from seeing everything the Bible has to say.”
Including *your* system of Bible study, of course.
Then how can you say ANYTHING with certainty?
January 25, 2011 at 5:59 pm
As I’ve said, my knowledge of the FV is extremely limited. I know they are very trinitarian and hold to a pre-Great-Awakening style. Apart from this I know nothing.
January 25, 2011 at 6:05 pm
A wonderful admission, Brad:
“I know nothing.”
NOW we’re getting somewhere!
January 25, 2011 at 6:07 pm
Tell me, who decided to have 16 blogs all dedicated to this Peter Leithart who preaches at a hotel and no one even heard of him. And then there’s this guy Clark whom you advocate as his antidote – except no one has heard of him either. These are two very obsure guys. I never would have thought they could get so much attention. You treat them like Einstein or Amelia Airheart.
January 25, 2011 at 6:11 pm
“As I’ve said, my knowledge of the FV is extremely limited.”
I disagree. After all, you consider Leithart a Christian pastor and have defended him here. Maybe you just are unfamiliar with the name of the religion you subscribe to?
January 25, 2011 at 6:14 pm
What I know of him involves his book which I read and that he is a reformed minister. I think he preaches at some kind of hotel renting a conference room.
January 25, 2011 at 6:16 pm
When I saw the conference room I got the sense he was underestablished. I thought, well, why does he have to do church at the Hilton? DOesn’t he have a building? Perhaps he does now. I don’t knwo.
January 25, 2011 at 6:22 pm
Sean,
Our boy’s testimony is simplifying, tho’ it’s taken a bajillion posts to get him here:
“I know nothing.”& “I don’t know.” (Osteen’s mantra.)
In his Carrolline world, I guess he’s the Dormouse. (See Wiki)
January 25, 2011 at 6:24 pm
This is sooo Presbyterian!!!
January 25, 2011 at 6:46 pm
No, this is sooo Presbyterian:
January 25, 2011 at 7:22 pm
Nice, Sean. They all look so happy!
I miss ECUSA, though: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SZ6KWt49wIA&feature=related
U2charist, and all that…
January 25, 2011 at 7:31 pm
OK, you win Hugh. 🙂
January 26, 2011 at 11:46 am
The Anglican church has had an interesting histoy. It always contained many strands. Yet people have always tried to reduce it to one. We haven’t seen the kind of current polarization in quite some time. I find Rowan Williams to be a fascinating man. As for Schori, I remain very unimpressed.