The PCA and Federal Vision Theology, Part II of the Jeff Meyers' Case

R. Scott Clark has posted Part II of his interview with M. Jay Bennett, one of the prosecutors in the Jeff Meyers' case.  The interview can be heard here. 

Like the first interview, this one will provide insight into how the case developed.  Of course it also touches on some of the politics in the PCA.

Ruling Elder Bob Mattes has posted his thoughts here.  He was called as a witness for the prosecution and has a lot of insight into this case.

For those who want to study this case more the entire record is available here. 

The PCA and Federal Vision Theology, Part I of the Jeff Meyers' Case

This last year has been a bit tough for those wishing that the PCA get tough in dealing with Federal Vision theology.  Two cases involving two ministers in different presbyteries, ended up with no action being taken against the ministers, even though both have signed the A Joint Federal Vision Statement (here).

Over at the Heidelblog, R. Scott Clark, of Westminster Seminary in California interviews .Rev. M. Jay Bennet, one of those who were involved with the Jeff Meyers' case in Missouri Presbytery.  After Missouri Presbytery conducted an investigation and concluded no presumption of guilt, Rev. Bennet filed a complaint because, in his opinion, the presbytery was biased in its finding.  That complain eventually went to a panel of the Standing Judicial Commission.  They reviewed the evidence and determined that there was a strong presumption of guilt and recommended a trial.  When the trial was held Rev. Bennet served as one of those prosecutors.

You can listen to the interview here.  Part two will follow.

UPDATE

Ruling elder Bob Mattes has written a nice piece over at Green Baggins.  Not only did he sign the original letter of concern (as I did) but he was called to be a witness at the Meyers' trial.  He provides some helpful insight into the actions of Missouri Presbytery as this trial unfolded.  

Protest filed in Peter Leithart case

Teaching Elder Grover Gunn has filed a protest in the Peter Leithart case. This follows the recent Standing Judicial Commission decision to respond in the negative to three overtures from last summer's General Assembly for that court to assume original jurisdiction.  The text of that protest may be found here.

What I appreciate about the protest is that it isolates the very problem our denomination has with regard to conducting trials: if a court (Pacific Northwest Presbytery in the Leithart case) conducts "a technically correct trial" (it dots all of its "i"'s and crosses all of its "t"s) then there is no means by which that decision can be re-visited.  Thus a court may actually affirm teachings that the much of the denomination rejects, and there isn't a darn thing anyone can do about.

For the record, a protest does not change the outcome of the decision one iota.  According to our Book of Church Order a protest is a way for a member of a court to express his displeasure with an action of that court.  A protest is stronger way of expressing displeasure than a dissent.  The Book of Church Order offers these definitions:

45-1. Any member of a court who had a right to vote on a question, and is
not satisfied with the action taken by that court, is entitled to have a dissent
or protest recorded.

45-2. A dissent is a declaration on the part of one or more members of a
minority, expressing a different opinion from the majority in its action on any issue
before the court, and may be accompanied with the reasons on which it is founded.

45-3. A protest is a more solemn and formal declaration by members of a
minority, bearing their testimony against what they deem an improper or
erroneous action on any issue before the court, and is generally accompanied
with the reasons on which it is founded.

45-5. If a dissent, protest, or objection be couched in temperate language, and
be respectful to the court, it shall be recorded; and the court may, if deemed
necessary, put an answer to the dissent, protest, or objection on the records along
with it. Here the matter shall end, unless the parties obtain permission to withdraw
their dissent, protest, or objection absolutely, or for the sake of amendment.

It sounds as if the the SJC will respond to this protest.  Don't look for a change of heart on the matter. Rather look for affirmation that TE Grover Gunn has correctly pointed out the weakness in our constitution and the need for future amendments.  In the meantime TE Leithart and Pacific Northwest carry on.  

Federal Vision Theology - The Missing Link?

Not long ago Gene Veith posted something that both surprised me and intrigued me.  The article had to do with whether infants can have faith or not. Veith was commenting on a review of a recent book that explores the scientific evidence for infants being able to exercise faith.  As he introduces the topic he writes this:  

A key Lutheran teaching is that infants can have faith.  This is why Lutherans see no contradiction between infant baptism and justification by faith.  Lutherans see faith not just in terms of intellectual knowledge or conscious volition, but as trust, dependence, and relationship with a Person.  Infants can trust, depend on, and have a relationship with their parents and also with their Heavenly Father.  The faith that begins with baptism then grows and matures, fed by the “milk” of God’s Word, as the child grows into adulthood, and continuing thereafter.  (That faith can also die if it is not nourished, which is why someone can have been baptized as an infant but then reject the faith and become an unbeliever in need of conversion.)

What's curious to me is how Lutherans (according to Veith) understand baptism, justification, and the possible loss of that standing before God.  I've never understood this about Lutheran theology until now.*

The interesting thing about this view is how closely this resembles Federal Vision Theology.  We are told that through baptism people become united to Christ, are welcomed into the covenant community, experience a temporary election, and are now part of the Church (visible and invisible).  All of this can be lost unless one is faithful to "keep the covenant."  

All of this raises a huge question:  Are some in the Reformed camp borrowing theological ideas from confessional Lutherans?  

To read the full Veith article go here

* This point was reinforced by Dr. Carl Trueman of Westminster Theological Seminary (Philadelphia) in a course that I am taking on Forerunners to the Reformation (CH 851) at Puritan Reformed Theological Seminary.  He argues that for Luther a person becomes regenerate through baptism BUT that work is of no lasting benefit unless it is grasped by faith.  

Luther on the Doctrine of Justification

For the last few months I have been preaching through the book of Acts. When I finished with Acts 15 I decided to make a detour to Paul's Epistle to the Galatians.  


In my research I came across the following quote from Martin Luther that pretty much gives us the context for the centrality of the doctrine of justification by faith alone, in Christ alone in redemptive history. It also underscores the perpetual enmity promised in Genesis 3:15 between the seed of the woman and the seed of the serpent.


This quote is taken from the Preface to Luther's Commentary on Galatians, translated by Philip Watson, published by James Clarke and Co. reprinted 1978.


"I myself can hardly believe I was as verbose when I lectured on St. Paul's Epistle to the Galatians, as this volume indicates…for the one doctrine which I have supremely in heart, is that of faith in Christ, from whom, through whom and unto whom all my theological thinking flows back and forth day and night…I am ashamed that my poor, uninspired comments on so great an Apostle and chosen instrument of God should be published. Yet I am compelled to forget my shame and be quite shameless in view of the horrible profanation and abomination which have always raged in the Church of God, and still rage today, against this one solid rock which we call the doctrine of justification. I mean the doctrine that we are redeemed from sin, death and the devil, and made partakers of eternal life, not by ourselves (and certainly not by our works, which are less than ourselves), but by the help of another, the only-begotten Son of God, Jesus Christ.



"This rock was shaken by Satan in Paradise, when he persuaded our first parents that they might by their own wisdom and power become like God, abandoning faith in God, who had given them life and promised its continuance. Shortly afterwards, that liar and murderer (always true to himself) incited a bother to murder his brother, for no other reason than that the latter, a godly man, had offered by faith a more excellent sacrifice, while he himself, being ungodly, had offered his own works without faith and had not pleased God. After this there followed a ceaseless and intolerable persecution of this same faith by Satan though the sons of Cain, until God was compelled to purge the world and defend Noah, the preacher of righteousness, by means of the Flood. Nevertheless, Satan continued his work in Ham, the third son of Noah, and in others too many to mention. Thereafter the whole world acted like a madman against this faith, inventing innumerable idols and religions with which everyone (as St. Paul says Acts 14:15) went his own way, hoping to placate a god or goddess, gods or goddesses, by his own works; that is, hoping without the aid of Christ and by his own works to redeem himself from evils and sins. All this is sufficiently evidenced by the doings and writings of all nations. 


"But these are nothing in comparison with that people of God, Israel, or the Synagogue, who were blessed beyond all others, not only with the sure promise given to the Fathers and with the Law given by God through angels, but also with the constant testimony of the words, miracles and examples of the prophets. Yet even among them, Satan (i.e. the fury of self-righteousness) had such success that after killing all the prophets they killed the very Son of God himself, their promised Messiah; and all for the same reason, namely, that they taught that we men are received into the favor of God by the grace of God, not by our own righteousness…


"In the Church of the Gentiles, however, things have been and are even worse, so that the madness of the synagogue may well see mere child's play in comparison. For the Jews, as St. Paul says, did not know their Messiah (I Cor. 2:8); otherwise they would not have crucified the Lord of glory. But the Church of the Gentiles has accepted Christ and confesses him to be the Son of God, who has been made our righteousness; and this it publicly sings, reads and teaches. Yet despite this confession, those who claim to be the Church kill, persecute and rage against those who believe and teach by word and deed nothing else but that Christ is precisely what they themselves are compelled (though insincerely) to confess him to be…They have a far lower opinion of him than the Jews, who at least take him for a thola, a thief who deserved his crucifixion, whereas our people regard him as a fable, like some invented god of the heathen, as can be seen at Rome in the Papal Curia and almost everywhere in Italy.


"Since, therefore, Christ is made a mockery among his Christians (for so they wish to be called), and Cain kills Able continually and the abomination of Satan now reigns supreme, it is necessary to pay the very closest heed to this doctrine, and to oppose Satan with it, whether we are eloquent or not, learned or not. For if all men kept silence, this rock ought to be proclaimed by the very rocks and stones themselves (Luke 19:40). Hence I am willing to do my duty and let this extremely verbose Commentary be published in order to stir up my brethren in Christ against the wiles and malice of Satan, who in these last days has become so infuriated at the recovery of the sound knowledge of Christ, that whereas it has hitherto seemed as if men were possessed by demons and raving mad, it now seems as if the demons themselves are possessed by worse demons and raving with a more than demonic madness – which strongly suggests that the Enemy of truth and life feels the Day of Judgment to be imminent; a dreadful day of destruction for him, but a lovely day of redemption and the end of his tyranny for us. For he has reason to be alarmed, when all his members and his powers are so assailed, just as a thief or adulterer is alarmed when the dawn breaks upon him and he is caught in his act."



This kind of puts Federal Vision theology in perspective, doesn't it?

The Beat Goes On...

I guess this photo and song title captures what happens when Federal Vision theology isn't adequately dealt with by the courts of the PCA. 

Last fall Siouxlands Presbytery voted not to find TE Greg Lawrence guilty of teaching theological views that were in conflict with the Westminster Confession of Faith (click here for a good summary).  A complaint has been filed and this issue will be revisited.  But if the situation that played out in Pacific Northwest is any indicator, this will drag out for a long while. 

Now news has broken that TE Lawrence keeps company with with some folks whose theological views are pretty questionable.  Sadly these views are being spread around the world. 

“I understood that we are not alone on the other side of the Earth… ”

by Ruslan Moroz, pastor of the Presbyterian Church of Romanovka in the Far East of Russia, about his trip to the USA this fall.

I spent the next five days in Minneapolis in a wonderful company of my brothers from our Russian seminary, and pastors and elders from the CREC. Pleasant impressions accompanied me during my entire trip in the US and these five days of my participation in the conference were not the exception. I had a chance to take part in the very well prepared and excellently planned presbytery. There was a good opportunity to meet other pastors and communicate with them in the evenings. I was impressed by unhypocritical participation of pastors and elders in problems of every church.

After the conference I spent four days in the church of Gregg Lawrence in Mankato. The elder of his church Dave Pirson came to pick us up. I was happy to find out I would spend time with James Jordan and his wife Brenda whom I met in St. Petersburg Seminary (Russia) where Jim came to teach.

We came to the small town where Dave and his wife Lenora live. They were very kind to let us live in their house.

Unexpectedly we became friends with Dave – we had so many common things to talk about. I had a great time. In the evenings we sat outside in the courtyard, drinking bear and talking about everything. And we understood each other. Dave even became my interpreter and always tried to help me in my conversations with other Christians in their church.

On Saturday James Jordan lectured in Gregg’s church. Therefore the entire Saturday was a ministry day. On Sunday I participated in the worship service of Gregg Lawrence church, talked about myself and my ministry in the Far East, answered many questions. I tried not to make the same mistake I made earlier in Pella and spent all time in fellowship with these believers.

The next day, which was Monday, Gregg drove me back to Minneapolis to the hotel near the airport. At 5am next morning I boarded the plane and headed home. By that time I had missed my family a lot.

To read the entire report, click here.

To read what Jim Jordan thinks about the PCA and its subscription to the Westminster Confession of Faith, click here. 

The beat goes on... 

Missouri Presbytery rules on Jeff Meyers Complaint

Well, the news has broken that Missouri Presbytery has denied the complaint filed by two of its members that its investigation of TE Jeff Meyers was flawed.  The photo says it all. 

Truth be told I never expected a different outcome from Missouri Presbytery.  All along they have proven reluctant to consider the possibility that one of their members had strayed from the Westminster Standards.  Their initial attack against the 29 signers of the "Letter of Concern" indicated that they were less concerned about the purity of the church than relationships and protecting one of their own (along with their own reputation).  Obviously they see themselves as the theological norm for the PCA - what they permit should be permissible for all 70+ presbyteries and what they forbid should be forbidden in all 70+ presbyteries.  So much for the Westminster Standards and the historic interpretation of those standards. 

As one who signed the original Letter of Concern I was contacted by both sub-committees of Missouri Presbytery who were conducting that investigation.  Only a small portion of what I communicated back to those committees was ever incorporated in their 123 page report exonerating TE Meyers (here).  What's galling about all of this is their accusation that the Letter of Concern was selective about TE Meyers' writings and didn't do justice to the full corpus of his work.  Yet, their investigation actually ignored the topics I personally asked them to investigate (complete with Meyers' own words along with dates and where he posted them on the internet).  And, instead of using the Letter of Concern as a starting point to conduct their own investigation they never went beyond that document.  Furthermore, I made the following request to the committee chair investigating TE Meyers' theological views:

In your investigation I trust that Missouri Presbytery would review Rev. Meyers' exceptions to our standards classifying them per RAO 16-3.e.5 and including this in the presbytery minutes.

What I hoped was that Missouri Presbytery would put a rest to all of this wrangling by clearly examining TE Meyers with regard to any exceptions he has to the Westminster Standards and classifying them per the standards noted above.  Instead Missouri Presbytery ignored the question.  They allowed TE Meyers to hide behind the word 'scruple' (a word not recognized by our constitution) and never really bothered to investigate whether his views have changed over the last 17 years. 

I would also note that once the Letter of Concern went public (something I had nothing to do with) TE Meyers issued an apology to his presbytery that was also posted on the internet.  That apology achieved two ends: First, it disarmed the presbytery by asserting that he had used intemperate and imprecise language when debating on the internet, nothing more.  Second, that apology became the demarcation of what Missouri Presbytery would investigate.  Since many of the citations in the Letter of Concern were dated to a certain period of time when TE Meyers was engaged in "intemperate and imprecise theological debate" and he was "sorry" for being unclear, Missouri Presbytery didn't pursue those things.  In the end TE Meyers absolved himself of all responsibility and Missouri Presbytery said, "Fine with us." 



For those who want to learn more go here.  For those who understand what is at stake consider this comment found at the same link: 

The truth is we have a rogue, rebellious presbytery, one that has shown itself out of accord with the mind of the General Assembly expressed in 2007.


More fundamentally, we have an entire presbytery that does not understand salvation by grace alone through faith alone.


That our denominational seminary sits right in the heart of it does not pass unnoticed.

As an alumnus of that school I am less than thrilled by what I see happening.  Furthermore, having completed my internship in Missouri Presbytery and knowing several who labor in its bounds, my opinion of that court has dropped significantly.

Complaint Filed in TE Jeffrey Meyers Case

Last week news broke that TE Jeff Meyers had been exonerated by his presbytery (Missouri Presbytery) of holding theological views outside the bounds of the Westminster Confession of Faith.  As one of the 29 who signed the "Letter of Concern" I was fairly sure that their investigation would yield this outcome. 

Now news has come forth that two members of that presbytery have filed a complaint: Complaint Against Exoneration of TE Jeffrey Meyers « Johannes Weslianus.  This means that TE Meyers 'exoneration' is pending and might be overturned.  First, Missouri Presbytery will hear the complaint and consider its merits.  If it is denied (and most assuredly it will be) then the complainers will appeal that decision to the denomination's Standing Judicial Commission.

Of note are the first two grounds of the complaint:

1) "Missouri Presbytery erred because it was biased against the signers of the letter of concern, which led to the investigation. The investigation began in the context of accusing the signers of the Letter of Concern with violating the Ninth Commandment and stating, “The good name of TE Jeffrey Meyers has already been dishonored.” This statement indicates that these men thought that the allegations were false before they conducted an investigation."

2) "Missouri Presbytery erred because it did not properly weigh the evidence. According to the Missouri Presbytery Investigative Committee Report (MICR), “Context, emphasis, purpose, and considering the full corpus of a [sic] what a person has written and taught are all crucial factors in accurately interpreting the meaning of his individual statements” (MICR, 24, emphasis original). However on several points the committee did not demonstrate that they properly considered the full corpus and context of Meyers’ writings."

I am still trying to find time to read the Missouri Presbytery report in its entirety.  From what I have read the first two grounds of this complaint resonate with my intial conclusions.

Missouri Presbytery's Report on TE Jeff Meyers

Click on the link below for the official report from Missouri Presbytery concerning TE Jeff Meyers. I've only scanned a couple of sections of the report and will refrain from comment for now.



UPDATED: MOP-Approved Meyers investigative committee report now available « Johannes Weslianus





From the little that I've read, I couldn't blame anyone if, after reading the report you start singing this song as you ponder the PCA and its future.  It's what I've been humming since last summer's General Assembly.

Selective Subscription and the 9th Commandment

Like most, I woke up yesterday totally unaware that Metro New York Presbytery had requested an investigation of Teaching Elder and former General Assembly Moderator, Dr. Dominic Aquila.  The basis for the request was an article posted on The Aquila Report, written by a someone in another denomination, that was critical of a minister in that presbytery.  Metro New York Presbytery alleged that Dr. Aquila had broken the 9th Commandment by publishing that article and requested that the court holding jurisdiction, Rocky Mountain Presbytery, conduct an investigation.  At their meeting earlier this week Rocky Mountain Presbytery voted to exonerate Dr. Aquila - Here and Here. 


A similar situation has unfolded in Siouxlands Presbytery with investigations being launched into the blogging of some of in that presbytery on the grounds that they have violated the 9th Commandment.  Two of three ministers facing these allegations were cleared of any wrong-doing -- Here.  The third may go to trial.


What's striking to me is the selective use of the Westminster Standards in going after people who have written critically about the theological views of certain ministers.  Instead of presbyteries taking these reports seriously and investigating their substance they have chosen to go after the whistle-blowers in order to silence them on the grounds that they have broken the 9th Commandment (see WLC #144 and 145 - Here).  Thus, I have coined a new term to describe this use of our confessional standards: Selective Subscription. 


When men who are charged with protecting the church from theological error choose to look the other way or drag their feet they are employing Selective Subscription.  When these same men choose to investigate a blogger because of the tone of his writing instead of looking into the allegations, they are employing Selective Subscription.  When men focus on the technicalities of the 9th Commandment and are unconcerned that a minister might be teaching something that "is hostile to the system" or that "strikes at the vitals of religion" (BCO 21-4 and RAO 16-3.e.5.d) they are engaged in Selective Subscription.  In the end Selective Subscription to the 9th Commandment is a tool to deflect attention from the issues at hand, to silence critics, and "to strain gnats while swallowing camels" (Matthew 23:24). 

Of late, I've been mulling over John 1 and Jesus' encounter with Nathanael.  When Philip told Nathanael that he had found the fulfillment of Moses' teaching and that it was embodied in the person of "Jesus of Nazareth," Nathanael replied, "Can anything good come out of Nazareth?" A short time later Nathanael met the person he had just insulted (yea, slandered).  Jesus greeted him with these words: "An Israelite in whom their is no deceit (guile)!"   What's interesting is that Jesus doesn't whip out the 9th Commandment and say to Nathanael, "How dare you insult me and the town where I am from!"  Rather, he looked at the substance of what was said and saw it as a reflection of a man who was a straight-shooter.  Though he was insulted he turned the other cheek and actually complimented Nathanael for being forthright, though a little uninformed.  

Jesus' response is 180 degrees opposite the response of those who are quick to use the 9th Commandment to cry foul.  Why won't they see the merit of what has been written and with charity, seek to investigate the substance?  Why won't they overlook the tone of someone's words who might be as blunt as Nathanael or who might simply be exasperated by the parliamentary maneuvering to deny what is apparent to many?   

In closing I point you to a piece written by Dr. Carl Trueman, reflecting on the Church of Scotland and the news (May 2009) that it ordained a practicing homosexual.  He laments the fact that for decades conservatives in that church looked the other way while all sorts of things were allowed to take root.  In his final paragraph he captures the essence of what defending the faith looks like: 

"The policy of ceding church courts to the liberals has proved disastrous. I feel for friends caught in the crossfire in Aberdeen but, as I said earlier, a petition is too little too late. These battles are not won by petitions which have no ecclesiastical status; nor are they won by preaching to the converted at large Reformed conferences or to congregations of the faithful in the big C of S churches. They are won by the nasty, brutish, hard labour of fighting in the church courts, face to face, toe to toe, eyeball to eyeball, with those who would seek to take over session, presbyteries, synods, and General Assemblies for evil."

Note: I am not calling anyone evil or a theological liberal.  The point of quoting this paragraph is the final sentence and what contending for the faith looks like.   

A.A. Hodge on God's Covenant with Man, III

The Westminster Confession of Faith defines God's relationship with Adam as "a covenant of works" (WCF 7.2).  After Adam fell that covenant of works did not disappear but remained in force and that understanding is foundational to the rest of the chapter of our confession. 

Commenting on WCF 7.3 and the phrase, "...the Lord was pleased to make a second, commonly called the covenant of grace..."  Hodge writes the following:

"Since Adam forfeited for himself and his entire race the original promise of life upon the condtion of perfect obedience, and incurred the penalty of death attached to disobedience, it follows that, if the old constitution is left without supplement or modification, man is lost.  If mankind is to be saved, there must be a new and gracious intervention on the part of God.  And if God intervenes to save men, it must be upon a definite plan, and upon certain definitely proclaimed and accurately fulfilled conditions.  That is, a new covenant must be introduced, rendering life attainable to those who are to be saved on conditions different from those offered in the preceding constitution.  The question, then, relates to what is revealed in the Scripture as to the parties to whom the promise is made, and conditions upon which it is suspended."

Read more »

A.A. Hodge on God’s Covenant with Man, II

In light of the flap that is beginning based on this minister's views I wish to continue writing about God's Covenant with Man based on chapter VII of the Westminster Confession of Faith. 

Yesterday I included a comment about Adam's relationship with God being based on the Creator/Creature distinction.  The nature of such a relationship was probationary not filial.  Hodge builds on this idea with the following words:

"In the case of men and angels, God has been pleased to promise this transcendent benefit upon certain conditions; which conditional promise is called a covenant.  There can be no doubt that this amazing gift of God's personal love and life-giving society had been offered to angels, and at the beginning was offered to the first human pair, upon conditions.  Some object that the conditional promise made to Adam in the garden is not explicitly called a covenant, and that it does not possess all the essential elements of a covenant, since it was a constitution sovereignly ordained by the Creator without consulting the will of the creature.  It is a sufficient answer to these objections, - (1.) That although Adam's will was not consulted, yet his will was unquestionably cordially consenting to this divine constitution and all the terms thereof, and hence the transaction did embrace all the elements of a covenant. (2.) That several instances of analogous transactions between God and men are expressly styled covenants in the Bible.  If God's transactions with Noah (Gen. 9:11,12) and with Abraham (Gen. 17:1-21) were covenants, then was his transaction with Adam in the garden a covenant." 

A.A. Hodge, Westminster Confession of Faith: A Commentary. Banner of Truth reprinted 2002, pages 120-121. My emphasis.

A.A. Hodge on God’s Covenant with Man, I

Over the summer I've been working through the Westminster Confession of Faith. Last Sunday we covered chapter VII entitled God's Covenant with Man. This is one of those chapters with important implications for Federal Vision (FV) theology. I found Archibald Alexander Hodge to be a very reliable guide as I navigated this section of our confession.

One of the key components of the FV is God’s relationship to Adam. While the confession views the relationship in terms of Creature & Creature, the FV puts forth a Father & Son relationship. The first is probationary: the second is gracious. Follow Scripture and the Confession this is how Hodge understands God’s relationship to Adam:

“The duty which an intelligent creature owes to its Creator is inalienable, and springs necessarily, - (1.) From the absolute, imperative obligation which is of the essence of all that is morally right – which exercises authority over the will, but does not receive authority from it; and (2.) From the relation of dependence and obligation involved in the very fact of being created. To be a created, intelligent, moral agent, is to be under all the obligation of obeying the will and of living for the glory of the absolute Owner and Governor.”

“That, on the other hand, the enjoyment of the Creator’s fullness and love by the creature is a matter of sovereign grace, depending alone upon the will of the Creator, is also self-evident. The very act of creation brings the creature under obligation to the Creator, but it cannot bring the Creator into obligation to the creature. Creation itself, being a signal act of grace, cannot endow the beneficiary with a claim for more grace. If God, for instance, has created a man with an eye, it may be eminently consistent with the divine attributes, and a ground of fair anticipation, that at some time he who has given eyes will also give light; but, surely, the creation of the first can lay the foundation of no right upon the part of man for the gift of the second. And, of course, far less can the fact that in creation God endowed men with a religious nature lay the foundation of any right on their part for the infinitely more precious gift of the personal communications of his own ineffable love and grace. God cannot be bound to take all creatures naturally capable of it into the intimacies of his own society. If he does so, it is a matter of infinite condescension and sovereign will.”

A.A. Hodge, Westminster Confession of Faith: A Commentary. Banner of Truth reprinted 2002, pages 120-121. My emphasis.

A.A. Hodge on The Fall of Man, III

Commenting on WCF 6.3 and especially the phrase, "Adam as a public person" (WLC # 22) Hodge writes,

"That Adam was, as our Standards say, "a public person," and that the covenant was made with him "not for himself only, but for his posterity," is proved from the facts --

1) That he was called by a generic name, Adam -- the Man.
2) That everything that God commanded, promised, or threatened him related to his decendants as much as to himself personally.  Thus, "obedience," "a cursed earth," "the reign of death," "painful child-bearing," and the subsequent promise of redemption through the Seed of the woman, were spoken with reference to us as much as with reference to our first parents.
3) As a matter of fact, the very penalty denounced and executed upon Adam has been executed upon all of his descendants, from birth upward.  All are born spiritually dead, "by nature children of wrath" (Emphasis mine).  A.A. Hodge, The Westminster Confession of Faith: A Commentary, pp. 111-112.

A.A. Hodge on The Fall of Man, II

Commenting further on Westminster Confession of Faith, chapter 6 Hodge writes,

"Now, although we cannot explain precisely the origin of sin in the holy soul of Adam, it is plain that the difficulty lies only in our ignorance.  We have none of us experienced the same condition of free agency as those which give characer to the case of Adam.  We have always been under the bondage of corruption, except in so far as we are momentarily assisted against nature by supernatural grace.  Now, in order that a volition shall be holy, it must spring from a positively holy affection or disposition; and as these are not native to our hearts, we cannot exercise holy volitions without grace.  But Adam was in a state of probation, holy yet fallible.  Saints and angels are holy and infallible, yet their infallibility is not essential to their natures but is a superadded divine grace sustained by the direct power of God.  While holiness must always be positive, rooting itself in divine love, it is plain that sin may originate in defect; not in positive alienation, but in want of watchfulness - in the temporary ascendency of the natural and innocent appetites of the body or constitutional tendencies of the soul of the higher powers of conscience" (my emphasis).  Westminster Confession of Faith: A Commentary.  A.A. Hodge, pp. 106-107.

A.A. Hodge on The Fall of Man, I

Commenting on WCF Chapter 6, Archibald Alexander Hodge writes the following,

"It appears to be God's general plan, and one eminently wise and righteous, to introduce all the new-created subjects of moral government into a state of probation for a time, in which he makes their permanent characer and destiny depend upon their own action.  He creates them holy, yet capable of falling.  In this state he subjects them to a moral test for a time.  If they stand the test, the reward is that their moral characters are confirmed and rendered infallible, and they are introduced into an inalienable blessedness for ever.  If they fail, they are judicially excluded from God's favour and communion for ever, and hence morally and eternally dead.  This certainly has been his method of dealing with new-created angels and men.  In the case of mankind the specific test to which our first parents were subjected was their abstaining from eating of the fruit of a single tree.  As this was a matter in itself morally indifferent, it was admirable adapted to be a test of their implicit allegiance to God, of their absolute faith and submission" (emphasis mine). 

 The Westminster Confession of Faith: A Commentary.  A.A. Hodge, pp. 105-106. 

Cutting Through the Fog

Last week I posted a couple of updates about the 'slow' progress in dealing with Federal Vision Theology in the PCA. Now I understand a bit more clearly, why that is the case.

In this week's Heidelcast, Dr. R. Scott Clark interviewed PCA pastor Jason Stellman. Jason serves in the Seattle area and has been at the forefront of those in his presbytery concerned about the theology of Dr. Peter Leithart. The first half of the interview explains why his presbytery (Pacific Northwest) has been dragging its feet on the matter - a desire to be relevant. Added to this are a few comments about the PCA's proposed Strategic Plan that was recently unveiled.

The second half of the interview explores the theme of relevance as it relates to culture. Here Stellman and Clark touch on the issue that is perhaps the most divisive in the PCA. On the one side are those are who argue that all of life is spiritual and should be redeemed for Christ. Following Abraham Kuyper they see the Kingdom of God as equivalent to all legitimate activities in which Christians might be engaged. On the other are those who understand the Kingdom of God as chiefly spiritual, centered on the church, with God breaking into this present evil age through Word and Sacrament. It understands the church as a pilgrim people who suffer as their Lord suffered. The first seeks to be relevant: the second seeks to be faithful. If you want to understand the currents that are flowing within the PCA you need to understand these two perspectives.

Click on the following link to learn more. You won't be disappointed.

Jason Stellman on “Relevance” and the Two Kingdoms « Heidelblog

Missouri Presbytery Asked to Investigate TE Jeff Meyers (updated)

Last week the internet lit up when news hit that a letter signed by 29 elders in the PCA was sent to the Missouri Presbytery requesting it investigate one of its ministers, Rev. Jeff Meyers.  I was one of those who signed the letter.  I want to take a minute to explain my decision. 

Federal Vision theology is a relatively new issue gaining prominence in the last ten years.  To date at least seven NAPARC (North American Presbyterian and Reformed Council) denominations have drafted statements condemning it.  During this time Rev. Meyers has been in the thick of the debate alleging that the Westminster Confession of Faith is hopelessly flawed necessitating major revisions. 

As far back as 1999 or 2000, when Rev. Burke Shade was investigated by the Illiana Presbytery, TE Meyers, was called to testify on his behalf.  He testified that TE Shade's views were "not outside mainstream reformed thought."  However, the Illiana Presbytery thought otherwise and on the eve of being deposed from office Rev. Shade fled church discipline by affiliating with another ecclesiastical body.  In 2007 when the PCA drafted a position paper condemning Federal Vision theology TE Meyers sent a thirty (30) page letter to every church in the denomination explaining why they should vote "no" to adopting the paper.  When the Standing Judicial Commission of the PCA ruled earlier this year that Rev. Peter Leithart's views were outside the bounds of the Westminster Confession of Faith Rev. Meyers was one of the first to cry "Foul" and likened the commission's work to a witch hunt.  The time has come for Rev. Meyers to explain what is wrong with the Westminster Confession of Faith. 

To read the letter to the Missouri Presbytery click here

To read Rev. Meyers' response click here
_____________________________________________________

Related to this letter is a bit of a debate concerning Covenant Theological Seminary.  Some who signed this letter have recently been critical of the school which has led others to wonder if there is conspiracy* to attack the school and damage its reputation.  I am unaware of any such conspiracy.  Do a couple of blog posts (here and here) and a book review (here) constitute an attack on the school?  Hardly.  The authors are dealing with serious theological issues in their presbytery and those being questioned are pointing the fingers back at the seminary as the source of those teachings. Seems like good detective work to me.

* Postscript:  I chose this word based on the comments posted on some well-known blogs.  It seems that some might be trying to connect the dots to assert that those who signed the Jeff Meyers letter are automatically involved with the blog posts critical of CTS.  I, for one, knew nothing about the book review or the blog posts until they were posted on the internet.  DMS 4/7/10.

Siouxlands Presbytery - Theatre of the Absurd

On the heels of the SJC ruling on Peter Leithart now comes word from Siouxlands Presbytery that a pastor and his elders at the center of the Federal Vision debate are pointing fingers at one of their critics accusing him of defamatory language. I first read about this last night on Brian Carpenter's blog and couldn't believe my eyes.  Things are going from bad to worse. 

Brian reports how the elders of the church in Mankato, Minnesota, whose pastor Greg Lawrence is at the center of the Federal Vision debate, have now decided to press charges against TE Wes White for defamatory language on his blog. Instead of heeding the advice of their brethren who have spoken in two investigative committee reports which found their pastor teaching outside the bounds of the Westminster Confession of Faith they have decided to circle the wagons to protect him.  THEY SHOULD BE PROTECTING THE FLOCK UNDER THEIR CARE NOT OBSTRUCTING THE INVESTIGATIVE WORK OF THE PRESBYTERY. CAPICHE? Click on this link to read his report Well, Isn't That Special?

Pastor Wes White writes his own account about Answering Wilson's Attack Dogs.  

For those who wonder what can be done our Book of Church Order has a mechanism whereby other presbyteries can get involved.  It's too early to know if those options should be pursued.  Stay tuned. 

Clark & Keister on the Leithart Case, James Jordan, & the Theocratic Background of the FV Movement « Heidelblog

Here is part II of Scott Clark's interview with PCA pastor Lane Keister. It picks up where last week's discussion of Federal Vision theology left off. Between those interviews the Standing Judicial Commission of the PCA rendered its opinion on the Peter Leithart case. This clip begins with a discussion of the implications of that ruling.

The second half of this broadcast explores theonomy as espoused by James Jordan, who is considered by many to the be the godfather of the Federal Vision movement. Recently Jordan has made some public comments that show his true colors, and perhaps the colors of many who are Federal vision. Clark plays some of those clips and along with Keister they offer comment. This is not to say that all Federal Vision folks are theonomic but there are some influences that might not be readily apparent. 

One thing that Jordan says that I strongly agree with is that the time has come for Federal Vision folks in the PCA and other denominations to leave.  He realizes that the FV views will not be tolerated and his advice is to leave rather than put one's family and church through a lengthy investigation and/or trial.  NOTE: these comments were made prior to the SJC decision on Peter Leithart. 

You would do well to spend a few minutes listening to this podcast. I think that you will see Federal Vision in a new light.

Heidelcast 14 March 2010: Clark & Keister on the Leithart Case, James Jordan, & the Theocratic Background of the FV Movement « Heidelblog