Watching Car Crashes

I’ve been taking a much needed break from blogging, something I’m sure all my friends in the Federal Vision have been thankful for.  Think of it as a Christmas present.  Trust me, the neo-legalists of the Federal Vision are not the only ones who get sick of me blathering on about their false gospel and from every angle imaginable.  I too get sick of writing about the same tired topic over and over.  Well, strictly speaking I’m still on blog sabbatical as the Federal Visionists themselves continue to do all the hard work for me and for the three people left in the PCA still paying attention.  The most recent denial of the Christian faith comes from PCA pastor in good standing Jeffery Meyers.  Yes, that same Jeff Meyers who continues to be coddled and protected by his own apostate presbytery; the Missouri Presbytery ( yes, the same one where you’ll find the the new home for N.T. Wright studies, Covenant Seminary).  Well, this time Meyers exposition and defense of works righteousness comes via Wes White’s blog and interestingly without comment.  White simply posts Meyers words and let them stand on their own two gangrenous feet.  Here’s a sample from Meyers comments on the parable of the Pharisee and the Publican (Luke 18: 9-14):

The key is to understand what “righteous” means. It does not refer to moral purity or conformity to a legal standard (the “Lutheran” mistake). “Righteousness” in the Bible means covenant faithfulness. A person is righteous when he does what the covenant requires of him.

All I could bring myself to say is, “Wow.”   So for those who still have not completely abandoned the PCA as a Christian denomination (after all, what Christian denomination would continue to allow Christ’s sheep to be subjected to a dog like Meyers) or who just have a morbid fascination with watching a once uncompromisingly biblical and solidly Reformed denomination implode, follow this link to read the rest of PCA pastor Jeffery Meyers Christ denying lies, again, without commentary.

Advertisements
Explore posts in the same categories: Heresies, Jeff Meyers

34 Comments on “Watching Car Crashes”


  1. What saddens me even more than this heresy, is the fact that PCA Elders can’t recognize it when it is this blatant. Not only is this trash not Reformed, it’s not even Protestant. The inability, incompetence, and sheer impotence of *men steeped in Reformed systematic & biblical theology* who are *respected undershepherds entrusted with keeping watch over the flock of Christ* is truly astounding.

  2. olivianus Says:

    My favorite part is when they start quoting Romans 2 and James 2 in the context of forensic justification; as if they are being thoughtful and pious; and as if these issues were not a repeat of the same conversations that happened many centuries ago.

  3. drake Says:

    Sean,

    I looked at that blog by Wes White that you posted on assurance and I cannot help but to woner about this assurance issue. Dr. Clark was pretty clear n his book on Sanctification: Dr. Clark comments on section 18 of the confession,

    “I must confess I do not like the word infallible in this context…Scripture is infallible ; nothing else is.” (Sanctification, pg. 35-36)

    Dr. Clark lays down the other reason why infallible assurance is impossible,

    “If we wish to distinguish a valid assurance from a false assurance, how can we know that we have a sufficient theological knowledge and a sufficient degree of obedience to have met the requirements?” (pg. 38-39, Sanctification)

    William Cunningham says in The Reformers and the Theology of the Reformation pg. 118

    “It is very evident that no man can be legitimately assured of his own salvation simply by understanding and believing what is contained or implied in the actual statements of Scripture.[This is a prima facie proof that Scripturalists cannot believe an infallible assurance] Some additional element of a different kind must be brought in, in order to warrant such an assurance…And when they are called upon to state and vindicate to themselves or to others the grounds of their assurance, they must of necessity proceed, in substance, in the line of the familiar syllogism, “Whosoever believeth in the Lord Jesus Christ shall be saved; I believe, and therefore,” etc. There is no possibility of avoiding, in substance, some such process as this; and while the major proposition is proved by Scripture, , the minor can be established only by some use of materials derived from consciousness and self-examination.”

    Wes White uses the exact argument that Cunningham mentions here as his defense of an infallible assurance. The infallible assurance also posits an extra scriptural revelation. I posted my arguments for Clarks view in detail and he simply removed them form his blog without a single response. Wes White may be a good FV record keeper but in my book the guy is an Uh-Oh Spaghetti-O lightweight.

  4. Sean Gerety Says:

    First, I don’t recall making any comments on Wes’ blog concerning assurance. That doesn’t mean I didn’t, I just don’t recall so perhaps you can point me to them.

    Second, I agree with Clark that infallible assurance is probably a poor choice of words and that, at least in my reading of the Confession, the writers meant something more like an unwavering or unshakable confidence. Cunningham’s minor premise, by definition, cannot rise above the level of opinion.

    Third, White is hardly a lightweight much less a “FV record keeper,” so your book is pretty much worthless to me and is something you should learn to keep to yourself. I honestly don’t know why you feel the need to include such stupid and baseless pejoratives in describing everyone and anyone you might disagree with? You’ve done it to me and now you’re doing it in your description of White. It’s really uncalled for.

  5. drake Says:

    “a “FV record keeper,”

    What I meant is that he keeps pace with the Fv guys and keeps record of the courts and decisions regarding them. I didn’t mean to imply that he was in league with them. I don’t remember making that statement so you can spare me the “stupid and baseless perjorative” assertion.

    I don’t understand why a guy is going to start a blog if he will not deal with the arguments before him. If he doesn’t want to argue he’s in the wrong business. As far as your assertion that I have “stupidly and baselessly perjoratized” you I haven’t the faintest idea what you are talking about. I thought you wouldn’t touch my arguments on the Bostonian COG issue with Brandon which is typical with American Presbyterians, other than that I can’t surmise what it is you are referring to.

    Again, if people can’t argue, don’t start a blog.

  6. drake Says:

    “the writers meant something more like an unwavering or unshakable confidence”

    This is an assertion Sean. They thought that their sensory experiences were infallible. It was a consequence of the popular scholasticism of the time. I think you are anachronizing here.

  7. Sean Gerety Says:

    I don’t remember making that statement so you can spare me the “stupid and baseless perjorative” assertion.

    Then you must be suffering from amnesia. I find things like “FV record keeper” and “Uh-Oh Spaghetti-O lightweight” derogatory and when applied to White also stupid and baseless.

    They thought that their sensory experiences were infallible.

    “They” may have, but XVIII:2 has nothing to do with sensory experiences. It has to do with “inward evidence” which may or may not be sensual (although I don’t see how) and the “testimony of the Spirit of adoption witnessing with our spirits” which can hardly be categorized as a sensation. Even the Cunningham quote notes a difference between how the major and minor premises are arrived at. The major is “proved by Scripture,” while the minor seems to be the result of an incomplete induction which we both know is fallacious. In either case, Clark is correct and “they” are not.

  8. drake Says:

    So you serioulsly thought that I was saying that Wes White was in the Federal Vision movement after reading and commenting on an article where he attacks the FV view of Assurance? OK Sean.


  9. Drake, I know this is completely off-topic, but what is your gravatar picture from? It seems oddly familiar but I can’t remember and it’s driving me nuts.

  10. Sean Gerety Says:

    Do you really have that much difficulty following Drake? No, I don’t think you think White is in the FV movement. What do you not get?

    And, Patrick, I think it’s from Re-Animator. It’s definitely the actor.


  11. Ah. Nope, never seen it.

  12. Sean Gerety Says:

    Too bad, it’s a classic B horror film 🙂

    http://tinyurl.com/25s6548

  13. drake Says:

    This is the classic Mr. West, the mad scientist from Re-Animator.

  14. drake Says:

    My favorite quote is “You’ll never get credit for my discovery. Who’s going to believe a talking head..get a job in a side show.”
    LOL

  15. ray kikkert Says:

    I agree with Sean that it is pretty lame to accuse Wes White as a lightweight … that should be language Drake should use to describe himself.

    As long as the PCA … et al.. do not deal with the root of the FV heresy … which is conditional covenant theology … it will eat away like a cancer.

    The heretic Meyers’ statements only produce more evidence for the PCA that they fail to discipline false ministers in their midst. They have the honor of men over the glory of God.

  16. drake Says:

    ray k
    If a man starts a blog to argue, and someone comes along and adresses point by point why he’s wrong, and the owener of the blog offers not one reply and deletes the posts for no reason at all, that is a lightweight.

    By the by ray. I would like to see a website that deals as comprehensively with all matters of theology and its applications to philosophy and vice versa and takes into consideration both the Eastern and Western Philosophies as mine.

    I don’t start websites and blogs so I can run from challenges and problems with my theology. When I see problems I admit them. I don’t just delete the arguments and sear my conscience.

  17. Bob S. Says:

    People don’t always answer point by point even when they think they do and neither is an assertion an argument. Respectfully, from what I’ve seen here, I’d be careful about calling somebody a lightweight.

    Further, if you’re not happy about how Wes treats you, start your own website instead of complaining about it here. If you got the real goods, it will be obvious.

    Likewise if you don’t.

  18. David Reece Says:

    Sean,

    Is anyone working to start a new Scripturalist denomination?

    I think a new confession and a new denomination are needed to begin to rebuild.

  19. Sean Gerety Says:

    Hi David. I certainly don’t think there is any need for a new confession (after all, Clark in his reply to Mavrodes referred to the axiom of Scripture as the “Westminster principle”). Also, I don’t know of any plans for any churches, much less an entire denom, to be built on the principles entailed in Clark’s Scripturalism.

    Frankly, while I think many have started to recognize the utter bankruptcy of Van Tilianism and its sad contribution to the rise and spread of the Federal Vision, and I’ve admittedly met more pastors over the past few years who have recognized the dangers of the irrationalism of Van Til position, I know of very few who would actually call themselves Scripturalists or who have even read Clark at any depth.

    There are many reasons for this, but probably the best is due to the fact that Clark and his supporters left the OPC in disgust after the WTS faction aligned against Clark refused to submit to church disciple after losing their complaint against him. While Clark and his supporters won the legal battle they lost the long term ecclesiastic and educational one and as a result there was a big sucking sound at WTS and in the OPC, not to mention in those P&R demons that are fed by them, when they left.

    For example, Wes White recently posted on his blog reading lists from a handful of Reformed seminaries and not one included even one book by Clark (although you could find N.T. Wright). I think this is deplorable. Plus, young Scripturalists choosing to go to seminary face an uphill battle fighting the tide of Van Tilian profs like R.S. Clark at WSC and many others like him who wield considerable power over their students. Long and short, I don’t see things significantly improving any time soon.

  20. Denson Dube Says:

    Drake,
    “By the by ray. I would like to see a website that deals as comprehensively with all matters of theology and its applications to philosophy and vice versa and takes into consideration both the Eastern and Western Philosophies as mine.“

    Your little project of selling Eastern Orthodoxy to Reformed Protestant audiences in the guise of “deal[ing] as comprehensively with all matters of theology and its applications to philosophy and vice versa and tak[ing] into consideration both the Eastern and Western Philosophie“ may not fool many, including Mr White. I should imagine Mr White and many here and elsewhere consider themselves heirs of the Reformation of Luther and Calvin and do not share your broad mindedness and perverse inclusivism.

    “I don’t start websites and blogs so I can run from challenges and problems with my theology. When I see problems I admit them. I don’t just delete the arguments and sear my conscience“

    Perhaps Mr White judges your “arguments“ perverse inane blather, a waste of his time.

    warm regards,

    Denson

  21. drake Says:

    Denson,

    I notice you didn’t answer the question. 2nd, where am I selling eastern orthodoxy to anyone at my website either by direct statement or by implication? I accusse you of a gross violation of the 9th commandment. I was under the impressiont that I had spent the last year defending Reformation doctrine against Eastern Orthodoxy.

    “perverse inclusivism”
    LOL

  22. drake Says:

    David Reece,

    I am in agreement. Sean is in party politics denial. Scripturalism posits a number of exceptions to the confession. I have been working on the issue myself in my daily devotions highlighting each section in the WCF where Clark’s philosophy disagrees. It’s usually every two pages or so. Thomism is all over that Confession. There needs to be changes to the COG and the COR, the infallible assurance doctrine, the Pope being the antichrist needs to be more explicit. I have would be puritan ministers in my denomination that give the typical cop out, “well the Pope is an antichrist, but not THE ANTICHRIST.” I believe that exclusive psalm singing acapella needs to be explicitly affirmed though I think its pretty clear already, holy days need to be explicitly forbidden, there needs to be more explicit supralapsarian commitments to the confession, the second cause statement needs to be removed and occasion needs to replace it, making God the only cause, from what i remember there are a few places where that needs to be changed and more explicit, the COW needs to read that the COW promised security of life not life itself. That is confusing. Adam was born with life, his obedience simply secured it, and the Confession is ambigious there, the defintion of saving faith needs to be made more Clarkianly clear, the section on adoption needs to be developed more to show that we particpate in the eternal sonship of the Logos [per John L. Girardeau, Discusions] so it doesn’t seem like we are positing a participation in a created legal state alone. The infinite predications of God need to be revised. I could go on and on.

  23. drake Says:

    I did not mean to imply that anything that i had read by Clark or robbins convinced me of changes/clarifications in the COR, the COG, the COW, or Ep stuff. That would be unfair to say. These came by reading the Scottish guys mostly.

  24. Sean Gerety Says:

    Then you shouldn’t blame Clark for your desired revisions. He seemed quite happy with it as did JR.

    As we say in politics, “Don’t make the perfect the enemy of the good.”

    Besides, could you imagine the make up of the Committee that would decide on the proposed revisions? We don’t live in an age of exactly theological giants. I think we’re better off not tampering with it, minor disagreements notwithstanding.

  25. drake Says:

    Sean,
    Have you ever read anything that I have written that either explcitly or implictly tried to convince people of or support Eastern Orthodoxy?

  26. Sean Gerety Says:

    No, but I do gloss over a bit when you start talking about “energies” and such. =8-0

  27. drake Says:

    =8-0
    ? What? When do i talk about energies?

  28. Sean Gerety Says:

    Oh, you know, things like:

    “Energies. Sorry, negligent typing. David Bradshaw wrote a book on this called Aristotle East and West. It refers to the uncreated principle of the action of God that makes up what God is in the Eastern Theology. There is an essence which they deny knowldge of and there are energies. Therefore, we know God by his actions only.”

    Then there was this classic:

    The One Person/Metaphysical/Hypostatic Incarnation does not need to be a paradox per se. It simply requires a Eastern View of God.

    In my endeavors to understand the hypostatic union and how it was understood by the people who penned it I have taken it upon myself to fully understand the Eastern Church and I think I understand what they mean.

    “Indeed, in Christ, His two natures-so precisely defined at Chalcedon as both “inseperable” and “unconfused” – remain distinct. Therefore, deification or communion between divinity and humanity does not imply a confusion of essences or natures. It remains nevertheless real communion between the Uncreated and His creature, and real deification- not by essence, but by energy.”

    Gregory Palamas, The Triads, ed. John Meyendorf pg. 19

    The East’s understanding of the union is metaphysical, yet it is not a union of essence. Is this not the exact point we have been trying to understand? How can this be? An Eastern view of God, that is how it can be. The Eastern view posits an Essence and Energy distinction. The energies being uncreated light and the nature of salvation in their doctrine of Theosis. So when they are asked how the hypo union is metaphysical and at the same time not a union of essence they have an answer, yet the consequences are disastorous. Is this not the understanding of Cyril’s construction? If so, how can Protestant’s believe the hypostatic union without taking the rest of the East’s theology? It is in light of such considerations that at this point my conscience can only accept the Clarkian view of Christology, filled in with the Bazaar of Nestorius.


  29. I only remember Drake mentioning energies back when he was arguing that it’s the only way Eastern Orthodox justified the hypostatic union; the implication was that it was error, if I recall. At the time, Drake was arguing against the hypostatic union and “an Eastern view of God.”

  30. drake Says:

    My use of energies here was simply an exposition of the eastern palamite view. I in no way was promoting it either by direct statement or by implication. I think Cheung’s construction though escaped my criticism, a construction that I was ignorant of at the time.

  31. ray kikkert Says:

    well at any rate Drake …it’s tooting one’s horn… a “check me out and look at all the work I have done” attitude … that is like a foul stench in the nostril when someone writes …”I would like to see a website that deals as comprehensively with all matters of theology and its applications to philosophy and vice versa and takes into consideration both the Eastern and Western Philosophies as mine.“

    Then to vindicate such pomp and boasting … you continue with some kind of right wing radical Scripturalist agenda to overhaul the confessions of the reformed church … and start a new denomination in the process.

    Consider yourself a theological and philosophical pigmy with the humility to go with it … and you and I will get along a little better I reckon.

  32. drake Says:

    “Then to vindicate such pomp and boasting … you continue with some kind of right wing radical Scripturalist agenda to overhaul the confessions of the reformed church … and start a new denomination in the process.”

    LOL

    “Consider yourself a theological and philosophical pigmy with the humility to go with it … and you and I will get along a little better I reckon.”

    LOL

    Keep insulting me and I will keep my mind and hands at work trying to solve the problems instead of copping out into some right wing conservativist allegiance to tradition. ray kikkert the problem you have is that there are over 2000 different group voices in this country that speak a different religion and they all call themselves Christianity. I live in a city with almost 1 million people and there is not a church in this city that is even remotely reformed. The American experiment has failed. You need to come face to face with that reality. I have and am trying to figure out a solution. If there are others out there who are trying to do the same thing I would like to meet them. If that is the kind of thing that makes you sick I am not surprised. Where are your attempts to solve the problems Ray? Let’s see them.

  33. Sean Gerety Says:

    Not exactly where I’d hoped this discussion would go.


  34. […] which  Meyers calls “the Lutheran mistake,” can avail you nothing.  As Meyers told us in a previous post and something he also professed on the Wrightsaid group  (even if he was considerably more […]


Comments are closed.


%d bloggers like this: