Letter of March 22, 2010 to Clerk of Missouri Presbytery, with references

TE David R. Stain, Clerk
Missouri Presbytery of the PCA
1008 Balsawood Dr.
High Ridge, MO 63049

Fathers & Brothers,

Greetings in Christ. In the past, you have sought to deal carefully with the issues of Federal Vision theology through your Presbytery’s study committee and report. As you also know our General Assembly passed its own study report in which it reminded the Presbyteries of the PCA “that it is their duty ‘to exercise care over those subject to their authority’ and ‘to condemn erroneous opinions which injure the purity or peace of the Church’ (BCO 31-2; 13-9f).”
Knowing, then, that you are a Presbytery desirous of maintaining the biblical faith and giving due consideration to the declarations of our General Assembly, we bring to your attention reports that TE Jeffrey Meyers is teaching Federal Vision theology contrary to the Standards.
The reports are that TE Meyers is teaching contrary to the Standards in several areas; they are summarized here and we have attached a document giving further details and documentation. The reports are that
1. He denies the bi-covenantal structure of the Standards.
2. He rejects the idea that Christ’s merits are imputed to us.
3. He affirms that baptism effects a saving, covenantal union with Christ.
4. He affirms that this saving union occurs with all the baptized.
5. He denies that all who are saved will ultimately end up in heaven.
6. He rejects justification by faith alone (see attached document below for further explanation);
In light of the serious nature of these reports, we bring this matter before you, Fathers and Brothers, in order for you to investigate these reports as required under BCO 31-2 to determine whether they are true or not. May the Lord grant you wisdom as you do so.

Sincerely in Christ,

RE Terry Altstiel, Presbytery of the Siouxlands
TE Andrew Barnes, Mississippi Valley Presbytery
RE Dr. Mark Buckner, Tennessee Valley Presbytery
TE Charles Byrd, Great Lakes Presbytery
TE Brian Carpenter, Presbytery of the Siouxlands
TE Kevin Carroll, Rocky Mountain Presbytery
RE Dr. Robert Casey, Tennessee Valley Presbytery
RE Walt Cook, Presbytery of the Siouxlands
RE Bobby Duck, Tennessee Valley Presbytery
TE James Hakim, Iowa Presbytery
Jordan Harris, Trinity PCA, Rochester, MN
TE Irfon Hughes, Central Carolina Presbytery
TE Dr. Jeffrey Hutchinson, Western Carolina Presbytery
RE Brad Isbell, Tennessee Valley Presbytery
TE Lane Keister, Presbytery of the Siouxlands
RE Robert Kemp, Presbytery of the Siouxlands
Brad Lindvall, member, Grace PCA, Indianapolis, IN
RE Bob Mattes, Potomac Presbytery
TE Ryan McGraw, Palmetto Presbytery
RE Dr. William Prater, Tennessee Valley Presbytery
TE Ken Pierce, Mississippi Valley Presbytery
RE Dr. Marv Poutsma, Tennessee Valley Presbytery
TE Dr. Joey Pipa, Calvary Presbytery
RE Wes Reynolds, Great Lakes Presbytery
TE Dave Sarafolean, Great Lakes Presbytery
RE Kenneth Senter, Tennessee Valley Presbytery
TE Andy Webb, Central Carolina Presbytery
TE Wes White, Presbytery of the Siouxlands
TE Dr. Nick Willborn, Tennessee Valley Presbytery

How TE Jeffrey Myers Opposes the Westminster Standards

1. TE Meyers rejects the bi-covenantal structure of Scripture as represented in the Westminster Standards (i.e., his views do not merely take issue with the terminology, but the essence of the first/second covenant framework) contrary to those Standards.

a. Speaking on this very point, TE Meyers says that his rejection of the bi-covenantal structure of the Standards demands a reworking of the entire system:

I do think the latest scholarly work in biblical theology demands that we go back and redo a great deal of the Westminster standards. They were written when people still thought of the covenant as a contract and believed that ‘merit’ had some role to play in our covenantal relations with God. The whole bi-polar covenant of works/grace schema has got to go. And if that goes, the whole ‘system’ must be reworked (The Wrightsaid Group, November or December, 2003).

Thus, by his own admission his views place him outside the current system of doctrine in the Standards. This is contrary to our ordination vow which states, “Do you sincerely receive and adopt the Confession of Faith and the Catechisms of this Church, as containing the system of doctrine taught in the Holy Scriptures?”

b. TE Meyers believes “the triune God is the archetype of all covenantal relations” (Joint Federal Vision Profession [JFVP], 2). This is contrary to the Standards which state that the covenant is a way by which God voluntarily condescends to man so that man can have God as His blessedness (WCF 7.1).

c. TE Meyers believes that God opened up this covenant amongst the Trinity to include Adam when he was created (Corrigendo Denuo [CD], 8/31/2007).

d. TE Meyers states that we are saved into the same covenant into which Adam was created at the beginning of the world (Ibid.). Consequently, TE Meyers’ view is radically monocovenantal. Also, since the covenant into which Adam was created at creation was broken, the covenant in which we stand must also not guarantee perseverance contrary to WCF 17.2.

e. TE Meyers states that the new covenant is the old one transformed:

The first covenant with Adam (Gen. 2; call it what you want, but it was definitely a covenant) gives way to a new one after the fall. The “new covenant” (Gen. 3) is the old one transformed and adopted to a new situation. It takes up what was in the old one and transforms it. There are new dimensions to God’s covenantal dealings with man after the fall–banishment from the Garden, sacrificial worship, the promise of a “seed,” etc. (Cacoethes Scribiendi [CS], 4/26/2004).

In contrast, the Confession teaches that the covenant of grace is a second covenant with an entirely different structure (7.2-3).

f. TE Meyers also applies the language of faith alone to the pre-fall situation (JFVP, 4), which confuses the meaning of this term, which the Confession applies to the post-fall situation alone and describes in such a way that it can only apply to the post-fall situation (WCF 11.1-2).

g. TE Meyers also denies that for Adam to continue in the covenant was in any way a payment for work rendered (JFVP, 5, cf. CS 12/4/2004). This is contrary to WCF 7.2, WSC 12, WLC 20, which teach that life was offered upon the condition of perfect and perpetual obedience.

2. TE Meyers calls into question the idea of merit in general and that Christ has merited for His people and that His merits are imputed to His people specifically.

a. TE Meyers denies that “that Adam had to earn or merit righteousness, life, glorification, or anything else.” This is contrary to the WCF which teaches that under the covenant of works Adam would have been justified by obedience to the law (19.6) and that life would be given upon condition of perfect and perpetual obedience (7.2).

b. In his discussion on the website De Regno Christi (9/28/2008), TE Meyers stated, “The controversy is about this notion of the merit of Christ’s ‘active works’ of obedience being transferred to us. We see no biblical support for such a conception.” This is contrary to the WCF which states that Christ purchased an everlasting inheritance for us by His obedience (8.5) and that our perseverance depends upon the merit of Christ (17.2).

c. He also went on to say, “Yeah, he uses the word merit, but EXCLUSIVELY to refer to the satisfaction rendered by means of Christ’s death. I don’t really have a problem with that, even though the Bible does not use that language. What I do have a problem with is speaking of the works of Christ during his life in such a way that he is thought to have racked up points to earn God’s favor according to some fictional, still-in-force-after-the-fall, strict-justice covenant of works, and that these merits are then transferred to Christians” (Ibid.).

3. TE Meyers teaches that baptism establishes a covenantal union with Christ contrary to the Standards.

a. TE Meyers teaches that “God formally unites a person to Christ and to His covenant people through baptism into the triune Name” (JFVP, 5). He also states on the Biblical Horizons Blog (1/28/2008), “Baptism unites us to Christ and therefore makes us participate in the circumcision of Christ.” And, “Baptism unites us to Christ so that we can be said to have died and to have risen with him.”

b. This is contrary to the Westminster Standards which teach that baptism is a seal of union with Christ and not that which effects it (WCF 28.1). In addition, it teaches that we are united to Christ in our effectual calling (WSC 30).

4. TE Meyers teaches that this covenantal union unites all who are baptized to Christ in a saving way.

a. “All who are baptized into the triune Name are united with Christ in His covenantal life” (JFVP, 7).

b. Some may wonder what TE Meyers means by “covenantal life.” For Meyers, this does not mean an external covenant association. Christ’s covenantal life is His love relationship with the Father and the Spirit. He writes:

From eternity the Godhead, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit share a fullness of covenantal life, love, glory in their personal relations with one another; and it is this covenantal personal fellowship of the Trinity that is the life of the covenant into which we are graciously admitted. (CD, 8/22/2007).

This is what it means to share in Christ’s covenantal life, as he says, “He created us for and now saves us to participate in his covenantal life” (CD, 8/31/2007).

c. TE Meyers describes this union with Christ that all the baptized are brought into as partaking in the benefits of Christ’s death and resurrection. He states, “We affirm not only that Christ is our full obedience, but also that through our union with Him we partake of the benefits of His death, burial, resurrection, ascension, and enthronement at the right hand of God the Father” (JFVP, 5). TE Meyers also stated that “All who are baptized into the triune Name are united with Christ in His covenantal life.”

d. Thus, TE Meyers believes that the full obedience of Christ belongs to those who are “united to Christ” but yet can ultimately fall away and end up in hell contrary to WCF 11.1-2 and WCF 3.6 which teach that only the elect partake of the full obedience of Christ for justification. Further, the Confession identifies union with Christ in His death and resurrection with sanctification (WCF 13.1), which is a benefit that it reserves for the elect alone (WCF 3.6).

5. TE Meyers teaches that there are some who are united to Christ and experience saving benefits in Him but yet ultimately fall away and end up in hell contrary to the Standards.

a. TE Meyers teaches that this saving union with Christ can be lost. “All who are baptized into the triune Name are united with Christ in His covenantal life, and so those who fall from that position of grace are indeed falling from grace” (JFVP, 7, cf. CD, 12/15/2007).

b. This is contrary to the Westminster Standards which teach that all those and those only who are united with Christ in grace are also united to Him in glory (WLC 64-66). It states that God calls only the elect out of a state of sin and death and into a state of grace (WCF 10.1, 4) and states that they can never fall from that state of grace (WCF 17, WLC 79).

6. TE Meyers teaches that justification is by works by including faithfulness in faith and thus denies the sola fide of the Reformation contrary to the Westminster Standards.

a. TE Meyers teaches, “We deny that the faith which is the sole instrument of justification can be understood as anything other than the only kind of faith which God gives, which is to say, a living, active, and personally loyal faith” (JFVP, 6). The problem is that he includes loyalty or faithfulness in the instrument of justification. In the Confession, faith is one thing and faithfulness is another. The Confession teaches that good works and other virtues are things that accompany faith but are not part of faith itself (WLC 73). It teaches that faith is the only instrument by which a sinner receives and applies the righteousness of Christ (Ibid., cf. 11.2).

b. What TE Meyers means is elucidated by what he says under the sacraments, “Baptism obligates such a one to lifelong covenant loyalty to the triune God” (p. 5). Yet TE Meyers says that loyalty is part of the faith that justifies us. This is a salvation wrought by obedience and justification by works contrary to the Standards, the Bible, and the entire Protestant Reformation.

Sources

1. “The Joint Federal Vision Statement.” Document Online: http://www.federal-vision.com/joint_statement.html.

2. Corrigenda Denuo, TE Meyers’ current web site: http://jeffreyjmeyers.blogspot.com/.

3. Cacoethes Scribendi II and Cacoethes Scribendi, TE Meyers’ previous web sites. They are linked on http://jeffreyjmeyers.blogspot.com/.

4. Biblical Horizons website: http://www.biblicalhorizons.com/.

5. Biblical Horizons blog: http://biblicalhorizons.wordpress.com/