Jeffrey Meyers – Covenant Theology Bibliography

The  ad hoc Committee of the Missouri Presbytery that exonerated Federal Vision front-man,  Jeffrey Meyers, accused the signers of  the “Letter of Concern” (the document that started the ball rolling) of taking Meyers out of context.   The Meyers Investigative Committee (MIC) argued:

“Context, emphasis, purpose, and considering the full corpus of a what a person has written and taught are all crucial factors in accurately interpreting the meaning of his individual statements (emphasis in the original).

To that end, below is a comment Meyers posted on the Wrightsaid Yahoo Group that will provide a better sense of his “full corpus.”

In this installment I would like to look at the works Meyers told the Committee that have shaped his thinking on the convenant.   In his answer to the MIC, Meyers cites Wilson Benton, O. Palmer Robertson, and John Murray as the primary sources critical to his re-thinking of covenant theology.   Nowhere does he mention Federal Visionists Ralph Smith, James Jordan, and Peter Leithart.   In fact, you won’t find the names of any of these men anywhere in the MIC report.  Now, that’s not entirely true because Meyers does briefly reference Peter Leithart’s piece  “Judge Me, O God: Biblical Perspectives on Justification”  in passing, but adds that he has “not read this article  carefully. ”

So, to further appreciate Meyers’ “full corpus,”  here is message number 5302 from the Wrightsaid Group (all emphasis mine, although the photos are Meyers’ and were taken at the 2008 Auburn Avenue Pastors Conference where he and the rest of his FV brothers thought it would be funny to thumb their oversize noses at the PCA during the time when Steve Wilkins was still being investigated):

_______________________________________________________________________________________

From: Jeff Meyers
Date: Wed Aug 11, 2004 7:59 am
Subject: Re: Re: critique of Horton

On Aug 11, 2004, at 9:16 AM, watchblack wrote:

> One suggestion is Mark Karlberg’s “Covenant Theology in Reformed  Perspective” I believe you can find this online electronically at http://www.twoagepress.org/books.htm

Oh, my.   This is a perfectly awful book. What’s worse Karlberg is a Titus 3:10 man.

Men on this list favorable to N.T. Wright should read these books on the covenant.   They are by far and away the best on the subject:

James B. Jordan, _Through New Eyes: Developing a Biblical View of the World_

http://tinyurl.com/4tz4h

Jordan, _Covenant Sequence in Leviticus and Deuteronomy_

Available from Biblical Horizons – see below.

Ralph Smith, _Eternal Covenant_

http://www.canonpress.org/pages/bibstudies.asp#eternalcov

Peter J. Leithart, _A House for My Name_

http://www.canonpress.org/pages/bibstudies.asp#house

And above all, make sure you write Jordan and ask for his series “Biblical Theology Basics” (No. 1-14, Jan. 2002 – Feb. 2003).

This is must reading for understanding the biblical theology of the covenants.

You can order them here:

Biblical Horizons
P.O. Box 1096
Niceville, Florida 32588
850-897-5299

I think you can order all of the books I’ve mentioned above directly from Jordan.

Jordan’s works have been foundational in my own thinking and ministry.

Even if you don’t agree with everything he says, no one who reads these books comes away looking at the Bible the same way. I highly recommend them.

Jeffrey J. Meyers
Providence Reformed Presbyterian Church
9229 Lawndale Drive
St. Louis, MO 63126
314-842-9329
jeffmeyers@…

http://www.prpc-stl.org

http://www.corrigenda.blogspot.com

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

44 Comments on “Jeffrey Meyers – Covenant Theology Bibliography”

  1. Hugh McCann Says:

    Sean,

    Why do you continue to cloud these issues with pesky facts and direct quotes?!

    “It’s better to be nice than accurate,” and, “Truth can’t hold a candle to pleasant.”

    Yours,
    Wormwood


  2. So, Meyers was calling Dr.Karlberg a heretic?

    Is this the end of the matter, or will appeal be made to the General Assembly?

  3. Stephen Says:

    Sean, thanks for this post. I am not sure where Meyers gets the idea that Roberton influneced his rethinking of the covenant, but this is non-sense. I had Palmer Robertson as a seminary professor and he was strongly confessional and never deviated from the federal framework of the WCOF. He wrote a wonderful book on the Justification Controversy in light of the Shepherd fiasco at Westminster/Phil. Jeff is looking for someone to validate his denial of the standards, but he cannot lay that false claim on Palmer. Murray certainly saw the covenant only in terms of grace, but he affirmed the federal view and the imputation of the active obedience of Christ. Wilson Benton clearly departed from the Federal view and Reymond in his New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith refers to this point. Jeff has been influenced by Bishops Jordan and Wilson and noone else.

  4. Stephen Says:

    Lawyer, I hope this is not the end of the matter. Charges have been filed against the MO Presbytery decision, so we will see where it goes.

    So you have read Karlberg’s work? It is very enlighting and helpful.


  5. No, I’ve read Karlberg’s “The Changing of the Guard” and Dr. Robbins’ comments regarding him.

  6. Sean Gerety Says:

    I am not sure where Meyers gets the idea that Roberton influneced his rethinking of the covenant

    Meyers can no more claim Robertson for his view of the Covenant than he can claim Calvin for his view of justification. That is, after all, the point. But, Robertson is a hero of the faith and the back story on why Trinity Foundation ended up publishing his history of the Shepherd controversy instead of the Cov Seminary Theological Journal pretty much explains why Meyers can get away with his ridiculous deception today.

  7. Hugh McCann Says:

    In light of your comment on his influences, Sean, one wonders just how much orthodoxy Meyers is “guilty” & could be “convicted” of.

    Meyers is throwing up a smoke screen, as do all heretics. They claim fealty to the Bible, their confessions, etc., but in works they deny Christ, go about establishing their own righteousness, paying but lip service to the righteousness of God in Christ.

    DID THE MoP ACTUALLY *READ* MEYERS’ CORPUS? I guess one can spew heresy as long as he also says good stuff. Shades of Kinnaird!

    John R. was again prophetic: http://www.trinityfoundation.org/PDF/243-244-WhyHereticsWinBattles.pdf

    “Why Heretics Win Battles” ???

    Sean, you need a sequel to your PCA book with, _How Heretics Won the PCA_.


  8. Hugh,

    Are you already conceding victory to the heretcs in the PCA? Is the PCA now no different from the PCUSA?

  9. Sean Gerety Says:

    Not to answer for Hugh, but let’s see Pat. If you count the LAP which got its hand slapped for twice exonerating Wilkins only after Wilkins successfully avoided process by running into the loving arms of the CREC, there have been 4 separate Presbyteries that have officially exonerated known Federal Visionists. That’s not counting Presbyteries like the like Ohio or James River that turn a blind eye or are simply unable or unwilling to do anything about the FV/NPP men in their midst. Further, the SJC upholding the exoneration of Joshua Moon has made it pretty near impossible to do anything about him.

    Beyond that, and while this is only anecdotal, a Reformed Baptist pastor recently told Brandon Adams:

    Folks in our Church, and our elders, aren’t big fans of the forced Lutheranesque paradigm that Escondido is fighting for. I see you are likely no fan of Wilson, Leithart, etc., but I think they have been slandered in many ways. You can disagree with them, but don’t deny to them the many qualifications they make. I’m not FV, but Clark and Escondido are starting to loss in the public opinion polls of folks around me. Their arguments prove too much. Even my URC friends wish they would relent on Wilson and co. The same can be said from my PCA friends. All of the FV guys have been exonerated in every Presbytery trial. The more Clark pushes, the more Escondido is becoming a ghetto of a very narrow reading of Scripture. The broader Reformed world is actually coalescing around Wilson. Driscoll and some other ACTS 29 guys will be speaking at Wilson’s Church this year. Piper called Wilson’s critics “stupid”, prompting a fist bump from Matt Chandler and Mark Driscoll.

    I moderate a local Reformation Society here, and it includes OPC, PCA, URC, ACTS 29, and some Baptists. All parties involved, with the exception of 1 or 2, are more sympathetic to Wilson than Clark.(all emphasis mine).

    You might have noticed in recent months, and ever since he shutdown his combox, Scott Clark been virtually silent on the FV/NPP front. My guess is pressure came down from on high, so it looks like this clueless RB pastor got his wish.

    So, is the PCA now no different from the PCUSA? I think there are differences, but the heretics in the PCA certainly do have the upper hand even if they don’t totally control the denom like they do in the PCUSA. That day is quickly approaching though.


  10. Strange, considering the fact that the PCA seemed to come down pretty conclusively against FV/NPP in their report, even more so than the OPC report.

    It seems the issue today is whether a pastor/teacher in the PCA is teaching/promoting FV/NPP teaching. Many FV/NPP have already moved on out of the PCA to the CREC.

    Again, it is strange that there are heretics, FV/NPP advocates in the PCA when the PCA is officially against such. And, it is strange to think that the PCA is “quickly approaching” a total control by FV/NPP advocates. Are you sure you’re not taking a defeatist attitude, seeking to have congregations remove themselves from the PCA? Why not stick it out, fight it out, until it is clearly (officially) upholding error? Yes, failure to discipline is a lack of a mark of a true church, but is the PCA really showing itself not to be a/the true Church, though its congregations are?

    BTW, what is LAP?

  11. Sean Gerety Says:

    Louisiana Pres.

    To say that “Many FV/NPP have already moved on out of the PCA to the CREC” is simply false. As for the FV/NPP report, it is not binding in anyway on anyone or any presbytery. Passage of the report was ecclesiastic theater. You may think that’s “defeatist,” but I’d say that’s the reality.


  12. Well, ok, maybe not “many”, but surely SOME have moved on the CREC.

    Yes, the PCA’s Report on FV/NPP is not binding, but has the support of the PCA, and is used as a prima facie case against FV/NPP advocates.

    The reality is that the PCA does not officially advocate FV/NPP. If it did, then that would be the day to leave the PCA, or if as a whole, the denomination fails to discipline heretics, thus marking itself as not a true church/denomination. Then again, I don’t think presbyterianism is biblical, but rather that each congregation is autonomous, having the duty and power to discipline its members, showing itself to be a true church along with other true churches among which it willing and joyfully associates with in the truth.

  13. Sean Gerety Says:

    Sounds like a sure formula for ecclesiastic tyranny either from the top down or the mob (i.e., the “congregation”). I think I’ll stay with Presbyterianism (which is biblical). At least there is still the theoretic potential that the disciplinarians can be disciplined though an appeal to a higher court if necessary.


  14. Appeals work both ways, as you have noticed. One who is found guilty, such as Kinnarid, can be exonerated by the higher court.

    No, it is not biblical that a larger ecclesiastical body rule over a local assembly. Rather, a local church’s judgments ought to be final. The Church is ruled by Elders, which today is only local; there are no longer universal Elders/Apostles who have authority over all the local churches.

    But the Elders don’t have absolute rule, but the decision of who is a member of the church, is a corporate one. “Tell it to the Church”; “remove the offender”/excommunication is what a church does, not a board of Elders.

    Ecclesiastical tyranny (One man or body of Elders dictating to the congregation or mob/congregation ruling apart from the mature godly wisdom of leaders) in a local congregation or in a group of congregations. It’s just a matter of numbers.

  15. Sean Gerety Says:

    And the Jerusalem Council was really just a congregational meeting. Thanks for commenting Pat.

  16. Louis Says:

    I recall John Robbins once warning against being implicated in the sins of other people. As long as you are part of a denomination, you are implicated on the congregational level. Seems to me the Biblical way is to come out from amongst them.

  17. Hugh McCann Says:

    WOW! Who is this, Sean?

    …I see you are likely no fan of Wilson, Leithart, etc., but I think they have been slandered in many ways. You can disagree with them, but don’t deny to them the many qualifications they make…
    >> “Lying liars” comes to mind. Why can’t these see that such “qualifications” are a red flag?!

    I’m not FV, but Clark and Escondido are starting to loss [sic] in the public opinion polls of folks around me.
    >> Spurgeon said, “Truth is often in the minority.” Sad to read an RB minister who counts noses.

    Their arguments prove too much. Even my URC friends wish they would relent on Wilson and co. The same can be said from my PCA friends. All of the FV guys have been exonerated in every Presbytery trial.
    >> Counting Presbyterian noses, no less!

    The more Clark pushes, the more Escondido is becoming a ghetto of a very narrow reading of Scripture. The broader Reformed world is actually coalescing around Wilson.
    >> The world is running after Wilson, is it?

    Driscoll and some other ACTS 29 guys will be speaking at Wilson’s Church this year. Piper called Wilson’s critics “stupid”, prompting a fist bump from Matt Chandler and Mark Driscoll.
    >> Ah! The *ultimate* imprimatur, and final court of church law!

    I moderate a local Reformation Society here, and it includes OPC, PCA, URC, ACTS 29, and some Baptists. All parties involved, with the exception of 1 or 2, are more sympathetic to Wilson than Clark.
    >> Oh, well, I guess we’re all wrong, then!

  18. Louis Says:

    Please do not take my comment as a vote against presbyterianism. Problem is that synods back here in South Africa do not even agree on the most fundamental of issues such as the authority of Scripture; on that basis participation becomes impossible. Here FV triumphed by default because spirituality replaced dogma and the preaching of love (works) replaced the call to faith alone.

  19. Hugh McCann Says:

    JOHN PIPER: Doug Wilson & N.T. Wright do not preach another gospel
    (DW has people around him who are DUMB):

  20. Stephen Says:

    Sean, you said, “As for the FV/NPP report, it is not binding in anyway on anyone or any presbytery. Passage of the report was ecclesiastic theater. You may think that’s “defeatist,” but I’d say that’s the reality.”

    I am afraid you are correct on this. I thought the PCA General Assembly report was good, but it had no teeth. If this report that was passed at our GA was good why are we not prosecuting men for heresy. It has become more of a guideline than a directive. The RPCUS had one of the strongest reports on the FV heresy.

  21. Jim Butler Says:

    In the Piper clip, he says that Doug Wilson has peole around him that are dumb? Do you think Piper means fellow-FVers, critics of the FV, or the presbytery that examined him?

    It seems like an ambiguous statement.

    jim


  22. I think Piper was referring to followers of Wilson (which he later referred to) which one would think are FVers.

    I think Piper keeps bending over backwards trying to make Wilson and Wright orthodox. I think he just can’t believe that they actually believe what their writings claim. He is willing to go so far as to say that Wright’s writings are confused, unhelpful articulations of Reformed doctrine, and he is hoping beyond hope that some day Wright will write or say some something that will clearly put his teaching in the main stream of orthodox Reformed doctrine. He needs to wake up from his dream.

  23. Hugh McCann Says:

    John Piper is not stupid, but he’s surrounded by people who are DUMB!

    E.g. Wilson & Warren.

    Anyone know about Driscoll & Chandler?

    Amen to LT’s last paragraph!

  24. David Reece Says:

    John Piper is not a Christian. John Piper preaches a false gospel. John Piper is a monocovenantalist who believes in justification by infused righteousness.

    Back when I was a Baptist(I grew up Baptist by the way) I loved John Piper. I read everything of his I could get my hands on. The problem was I became totally unsure of my salvation, and thus I became depressed and started to have trouble being motivated to do anything. His writings, like the monkish cloisters of Rome, lead to Luther’s self examination that always leaves one feeling guilty before God. You never know if you are justified.

    When I was 21 I found Monty Collier (Red Beetle), on youtube, by looking for videos on Calvinism. He had posted John Robbins’ article on John Piper called “Pied Piper” in a series of videos called “John Piper Exposed”. That video introduced me to the Trinity Foundation and helped me to correct my thinking about assurance of salvation and to realize that not all who call themselves Calvinists are Calvinists.

    Monty’s Video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RNWzjWLttRg

    the Trinity Foundation article against Piper: http://trinityfoundation.org/journal.php?id=113


  25. David,

    John Piper is a Christian. Despite what he had written in “Future Grace”, he has made clear his views of justification by faith, including the imputation of Christ’s righteousness to us as the basis of our justification, especially in his most recent book ” The Future of Justification.” It’s too bad that Dr. Robbins had not lived to see Piper’s later writings. Then again, I think Robbins may have gone a little too far with respect to Piper, implying and/or calling him to be a false teacher and a heretic. This was beyond his usual MO of simply dealing with the teaching and not making judgments about the person.

    We need to be careful not to go overboard in our zeal for the truth, and start making everyone who doesn’t speak perfectly as we would like or in the language we want to be “Outside the Camp” (Marc Carpenter).

  26. Lauren Says:

    As soon as we left the PCA a few years ago, the Federal Vision had free reign in our former presbytery – we were the last to attempt to oppose it. If we hadn’t left, we would have faced some form of discipline. The shepherding committee was still trying to go after both of us without any due process for a comment I posted on ByFaithonline way years before when the Federal Vision was just popping up on the PCA radar screen. According to them, my husband was not managing his household well – specifically not keeping his wife in proper submission – for allowing her to post her concerns.

    To even post this comment as a PCA member would be grounds for excommunication with the FV folks. I imagine I am still a thorn in their flesh, aren’t I guys?

    I think the only way to get rid of the Federal Vision is to defund it. Once the host (PCA) runs out of money which according to another blog it seems to be doing, the parasite (FV) has nothing left to feed on. The Federal Vision cannot survive on its own or be its own denomination. The CREC would not survive without the PCA feeding it. All their Doug Wilson classical schools where they propagate their false doctrine in children would close down. Did you notice that some of the presbyteries that approved whole or in part the mandatory funding of the AC were presbyteries that have embraced the Federal Vision?


  27. @Jim: I understood Piper’s comment to mean that Wilson’s partners (FVers) were dumb. I also understood the fist bump to mean “here we are, sitting around John Piper, and we’re dumb in comparison,” kind of self-deprecating. At least that was my initial reaction, but there’s not much to go on.

    IMHO, the PCA (as a whole) verbally condemning FV, but not acting when it comes to ridding the denom of false teachers, is the equivalent to FVers parroting Reformed soteriology under questioning, but continuing to preach Justification by Covenant Faithfulness.

  28. David Reece Says:

    LawyerTheologian,

    “John Piper is a Christian. Despite what he had written in ‘Future Grace’, he has made clear his views of justification by faith, including the imputation of Christ’s righteousness to us as the basis of our justification, especially in his most recent book ‘The Future of Justification.'”

    I have carefully examined “The Future of Justification”, and Piper still holsd to what he said in Future Grace. He says in many foot notes that His positions is defined on such and such page of “Future Grace”. John Piper preaches a false Gospel.

    “It’s too bad that Dr. Robbins had not lived to see Piper’s later writings. Then again, I think Robbins may have gone a little too far with respect to Piper, implying and/or calling him to be a false teacher and a heretic. This was beyond his usual MO of simply dealing with the teaching and not making judgments about the person.”

    Robbins clearly believed that John Piper was in the same school of heresy as the FV/NPP guys. I agree with him. I think they say a lot of things that are true and follow them up with falsehood. A confused Gospel is no Gospel at all.I am not talking about imperfect formulations. I am talking about a meticulous effort at hiding works righteousness behind the mask of grace. I have never heard the word grace thrown around more than by the people who deny that grace is simply an attitude of God in His mind.

    “We need to be careful not to go overboard in our zeal for the truth, and start making everyone who doesn’t speak perfectly as we would like or in the language we want to be ‘Outside the Camp’ (Marc Carpenter).”

    This is true LT, and I don’t mean to be hostile to you. i just think you are wrong about Piper. I think Piper is as bad as they get. So close, yet so far from the true Gospel.

    Please look at the footnotes in “The Future of Justification” and follow them. Piper is still the guy who wrote and never retracted “Future Grace”.

    Please take this as a warning of love. I used to think of John Piper as my favorite preacher. i have gone to conferences where he spoke. He preaches a false gospel. He preaches that saving faith is faithfulness.

  29. Sean Gerety Says:

    Robbins clearly believed that John Piper was in the same school of heresy as the FV/NPP guys.

    This is a bit overreaching. I pointed out to John a piece I had read by Piper subsequent to FG where he clearly defends the Gospel, JBFA and the doctrine of imputation. It may have been in a piece he wrote in response to Wright. John’s response was something to the affect that Piper is confused. I’ll try and find the correspondence if I still have it, but I think that was a fair assessment. FWIW I read FG and I thought it was worse than John’s review even made it out to be. Regardless of where Piper really stands, I think it’s safe to say he’s on the wrong side of this battle and it will be something he will answer for.


  30. David,

    Have you read “The Future of Justification?” Read that before you make such a hasty judgment. That book is the best written against N.T. Wright and FV/NPP. And forget about “The future of Justification.” It don’t count any more.

    BTW, Monty Collier (Red Beetle) is a notorious false accuser. He has a lot of video of many preachers he claims are preaching a false gospel, but when you watch the videos, you see that it is not so; he takes them out of context.

  31. Sean Gerety Says:

    Pat, you only need to listen to the vid posted above to see that Piper is a man, at best, that is not to be trusted. Years ago I made the mistake of writing Piper after reading Desiring God (my pastor at the time had recommended it as it was his favorite book). Naively I took issue with his belief that God desires the salvation of all men and that, according to Piper, this was a mystery, etc. I received a terse response that we would have to agree to disagree, nothing near the 11,000 word response Piper received from Wright, but then who am I?

    Again, Piper is on the wrong side in the battle against the FV and his remarks above per Wilson explain why. There is no excuse for it, but I’ve come to expect very little from Reformed Baptists. There are exceptions, but generally they are clueless (James White comes to mind and he’s head and shoulders better than Piper).

  32. David Reece Says:

    Lawyertheologian,

    You said, “Have you read ‘The Future of Justification?’ Read that before you make such a hasty judgment. That book is the best written against N.T. Wright and FV/NPP. And forget about ‘The future of Justification.’ It don’t count any more.”

    I don’t understand the last two sentences here, but as to your question, “Have you read ‘the Future of Justification’?” Yes I have read it and I have looked at it in detail. If you read what I said in my previous post that is clear.

    I said, “I have carefully examined ‘The Future of Justification’, and Piper still holds to what he said in ‘Future Grace’.”

    I made the point that in his footnotes he defines his terms and offers clarification by citing texts and pages from “Future Grace”.

    “BTW, Monty Collier (Red Beetle) is a notorious false accuser. He has a lot of video of many preachers he claims are preaching a false gospel, but when you watch the videos, you see that it is not so; he takes them out of context.”

    LT, have you expressed this concern to Monty? I think it might be good if we asked him about that on this board since he posts here sometimes. I don’t want to recommend him if that is the case, but I also don’t want to throw him under the bus.

    Sean Gerety, do you agree with LT’s opinion of Monty Collier as a false accuser?

  33. David Reece Says:

    Sean Gerety,

    You quoted me as saying, “Robbins clearly believed that John Piper was in the same school of heresy as the FV/NPP guys.”

    You then said,”This is a bit overreaching. I pointed out to John a piece I had read by Piper subsequent to FG where he clearly defends the Gospel, JBFA and the doctrine of imputation. It may have been in a piece he wrote in response to Wright. John’s response was something to the affect that Piper is confused. I’ll try and find the correspondence if I still have it, but I think that was a fair assessment. FWIW I read FG and I thought it was worse than John’s review even made it out to be. Regardless of where Piper really stands, I think it’s safe to say he’s on the wrong side of this battle and it will be something he will answer for.”

    I stand corrected.

    John Robbins was of the opinion that Piper was at least very confused on the important issues, and that Piper made some of the same errors as the FV and NPP guys. I agree with his statements in “Pied Piper”.

    Do you think this statement is fair, Sean?

  34. Sean Gerety Says:

    Very fair David.

  35. David Reece Says:

    LawyerTheologian,

    I asked Monty Collier to check out this conversation in the hopes that either he would repent of sin in all or some cases and/or explain why the accusation is false in all or some cases.

  36. Denson Dube Says:

    Sean,
    [quote]I’ve come to expect very little from Reformed Baptists. There are exceptions, but generally they are clueless (James White comes to mind and he’s head and shoulders better than Piper).[/quote]
    Which leaves one wandering if Dr Crampton didn´t make a hasty decision in joining Baptists, over paedobaptism! He could have hung around and just tell himself that he is ¨surrounded by dumb people¨! It might prove to be a case of jumping from the frying pan into the fire! Only time will tell!

    The case of John Piper is one where I have drawn the line. This is a man who boasts that he was influenced by a wolf, Daniel Fuller, then claims Jonathan Edwards as a mentor, and the contradiction seems lost to him! I simply do not accept this hypocritical picking and choosing who to call a heretic and who to call confused! Confusion is demonic, and is not from God! Does calling him merely confused make his devastating errors less destructive of the faith of those unfortunate enough to fall under his spell?
    If he was merely confused he would be amenable to correction, but it seems he is incorrigible! That makes him just another heretic, an enemy of the faith, hiding behind pious sounding flowery pink prose and sentimental nonsense, poetry so-called — while poisoning the minds of his hapless victims!

    regards,

    Denson.

  37. Sean Gerety Says:

    Correction: The Piper book was The Pleasures of God not Desiring God which was Packer’s book.


  38. Actually Piper wrote both of those books, and I still think they are good books. Pleasure is not the bad thing, but what we take pleasure in. Christian hedonism may be a strange phrase, but if understand it as simply desiring/taking pleasure in God, then yes that is what it’s all about.

  39. Sean Gerety Says:

    You’re right. I stand corrected again. Should never post before finishing my first cup of coffee. Knowing God is Packer. I’ve never read Desiring God.

    Sorry for the confusion.

  40. ray kikkert Says:

    “BTW, Monty Collier (Red Beetle) is a notorious false accuser. He has a lot of video of many preachers he claims are preaching a false gospel, but when you watch the videos, you see that it is not so; he takes them out of context.”

    LT, have you expressed this concern to Monty? I think it might be good if we asked him about that on this board since he posts here sometimes. I don’t want to recommend him if that is the case, but I also don’t want to throw him under the bus.

    Sean Gerety, do you agree with LT’s opinion of Monty Collier as a false accuser?”

    Kind of a coincidence … but I was thinking the same thing about the red beetle. 2 weekends ago I was checking out articles on youtube from the prc and saw red beetle charges the prc of heresy and prof. engelsma as promoting heresy. This from a guy who beforehand admired what the prc stood for. Well … I had to listen and check this out …since before any of this …I had interacted with red beetle on other forums and found his statments to be fair.
    Not this time though… and when I wanted to respond to him regarding the 2 articles I was either asked to subscribe to his site … or the respond box was closed down. Both of these claims are false and a twisting of words and worse … the words themselves were never even used … it is quite a stretch. The prc is not above reproof and why i gave the charges the time of day … but I can see that red beetle has gone AWOL and is not to be recommended … he has gone down the same road as Mark Carpenter. I would not recommend his site or his nutty commentaries via youtube.

  41. Sean Gerety Says:

    Sean Gerety, do you agree with LT’s opinion of Monty Collier as a false accuser?”

    Hi Ray. Short answer is no I do not.

    I do know that he has taken issue with Engelsma’s “Bound To Join.” I think Monty believes that Engelsma teaches that in order to be saved one must become a member of an instituted church. I haven’t read the book so I can’t comment.

    I know he got into it on the PB sometime ago over a similar idea being advanced by Scott Clark but I think that whole thing came down to Clark inadvertently leaving out the idea of there not being any *ordinary possibility of salvation* outside of the visible church (see WCF XXV:2).

    In any case, I would not compare Monty to Marc Carpenter. Maybe Monty is mistaken at times (aren’t we all), but the problem with Carpenter is that he has a very definite, air tight, and completely fallacious formula for judging a person “lost.” Basically if person X says Y and Y is wrong, the Holy Spirit would never allow a person to to say Y, therefore X is lost. Of course, the whole argument stands or falls on the whether or not Y is wrong and whether or not saying it is the equivalent of unforgivable sin. Last I checked, Monty may have a beef with Prof E, but I don’t recall him pronouncing him “lost.”

  42. Hugh McCann Says:

    LawyerTheologian: ‘BTW, Monty Collier (Red Beetle) is a notorious false accuser. He has a lot of video of many preachers he claims are preaching a false gospel, but when you watch the videos, you see that it is not so; he takes them out of context.’

    Yup & amen, LT. Sans contexts & charity, RedBeetle has unhelpfully branded men like MacArthur and Sproul as false teachers. He doth ironically protest too loudly, methinks!

    Sean is right that Beetlejuice isn’t yet round the bend with the Carp (or the baneful Bain), but he’s a fellow traveler, as per Mr. Kikkert: ‘red beetle has gone AWOL and is not to be recommended … he has gone down the same road as Mark Carpenter.’

    Give him time: Beets will find fault with JR or GHC and add them to his false teachers’ list!

  43. Sean Gerety Says:

    FWIW I’ll let Ray respond if he wants, but then I would like the comments to get back on track, or at least pretend to have some relevance to the above post. =8-)

  44. ray kikkert Says:

    Only that I am surprised Sean think’s Monty ….NOT to be a false accuser.

    …as Hugh said …. give it time.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: