TE Jeffrey Meyers trial transcripts available

Posted by Bob Mattes

The transcripts for TE Jeffrey Meyers trial in Missouri Presbytery, PCA, can be downloaded from this link. There’s a lot of reading there. I haven’t been through the transcripts yet. I’ll obviously have more to say as time goes on.

Arguments Concerning the Papacy

I have been recently contemplating the nature of the evidence concerning the claims of Rome, and asking myself this question: what is the linchpin of Romanist claims? Surely, it is the Petrine succession argument for the Popes. Without an ironshod succession from Peter to Benedict XVI, there is no sacramental magisterial authority at all. It does no good at this point to claim that the apostolic succession can be legitimated without the Papal succession, since the Papal succession is what legitimates all the rest of the succession down to the ordination of priests. If the Papal claims are void, then so are the ordinations that come from a false Papacy.

So, the question then becomes this: is it historically plausible to claim that Peter was the first bishop of Rome? We will be delving into this question in the next several posts, and asking the historical questions concerning it. The reason why this question is the easiest to probe is that there is one simple fact that comes into play here: if Romanists use tradition and the Magisterium to settle the question of the authority of tradition and the Magisterium, that is circular. There are many claims that the so-called individualist interpretations of Scripture by Protestants are circular. I would disagree, since the interpretations of the Reformers have a solid basis not only in Scripture itself, but also in the early church fathers. But that is a side point. The point I wish to make here is that this is a historical question, concerning the succession of the Papacy. Therefore, using the Papacy to legitimate the Papacy won’t work. There are a few typos in this article, but I suggest it as initial background reading for the exegetical questions concerning Matthew 16, as well as the historical arguments concerning whether Peter was ever bishop at Rome.

The main point I wish to raise here is the methodological one: on what basis do we evaluate the claims of the Papacy? Here, exegetical questions arise (especially the interpretations of the church fathers, which, as you will see by reading the article, are not in favor of the Romanist claims, as even Roman Catholics have admitted), as well as historical questions. On the historical rise of the Papacy, so far I haven’t found anything more eye-opening than Richard Bennett’s account (chapters 4-6). We will, of course, be examining Romanist accounts of the Papacy as well as Protestant ones.

Futility, What Futility?

by Reed DePace

Let’s label it D3. The Bible teaches that in some manner the historical Fall of Adam brought about the introduction of three things as a curse-judgment on Adam and Eve’s sin: death, decay and destruction – D3.

If you believe in a historical Adam and a historical Fall, what does it mean for God to judicially administer these as judgment for sin? (If you do not believe in a historical Adam or a historical Fall, no disrespect, but this post is not addressed to you.)

If you think the death, decay and destruction existed before the fall:

Do you believe these things were in some manner also introduced in response to sin? If so, how are pre-fall forms of D3 different from post-fall forms of D3?

Do you think there is no difference between the pre-fall and post-fall forms of D3? If so, then what does God’s judicial administration of these on sin actually consist of?

If you want to limit the extent of God’s judicial administration of D3 on sin to just man, then what is the nature of the futility that the created order has been subjected to on account of sin (Rom 8:20)?

Do you believe God uses actual physical things to both picture and apply the gospel? If so, did God actually use a rainbow as a physical picture for a story that didn’t happen? Did God provide a real tree for a mythical test in a mythical garden? Etc., how do you determine where history ends and myth begins?

Sincerely, it does not appear that we are thinking through the necessary ramifications of affirming some sort of theistic evolution position.

by Reed DePace

POSTSCRIPT: these and the last two posts on this topic were written at the same time, last week. Nothing I’ve said in these may be construed ad specific responses to any discussion on these previous threads.

My focus in these posts has not been to make a positive argument for a specific pre-fall death scheme. Instead my focus has been ask my theistic evolution persuaded brothers to think about what this position does to the reality of a historic fall and God’s curse-judgment response to it. I do not believe theistic evolution enables an adequate explanation of sin and death. Please disagree. Please do not take personal offense.

POST-POSTSCRIPT: here is a good starting article to consider problems evolution: What Are the Top Ten Problems with Darwinian Evolution? This is a scientific perspective, not a biblical perspective. For those interested in an informed and reasonable critique of evolution from a science perspective, I recommend this site.

Posted Guidelines

To all readers, I have posted rules and guidelines on a permanent page here. I have also moved up the “pages” widget so that the guidelines are more easily accessible. Please read and follow these guidelines.

In Him Was Life- John 1:2-5

Verses 2-5 as a whole: Do the terms “life” and “light” have a creation or salvation connotation in these verses? Hendriksen, Hengstenberg, Hughes, and Lenski all agree that salvation is the connotation of these words in this context. This passage proves the divinity of the Son by His manifestations of creative power (Hutcheson). How does this prove the thesis of 20:31 (that the Christ is Jesus, and that by believing, we might have life in His name)? If the Messiah is going to be powerful enough to save us from our sins, then He has to have re-creative power (Keddie). The flip side of that is that here we learn about the exceeding sinfulness of sin. “Let us often read these first five verses of St. John’s Gospel. Let us mark what kind of Being the Redeemer of mankind must needs be, in order to provide eternal redemption for sinners. If no one less than the Eternal God, the Creator and Preserver of all things, could take away the sin of the world, sin must be a far more abominable thing in the sight of God than most men suppose. The right measure of sin’s sinfulness is the dignity of Him who came into the world to save sinners” (J.C. Ryle). McHugh says it well: “One may then recall that in Gen 1, the creation proceeds from day to day, in a careful logical succession, establishing the conditions in which living things may grow until on the sixth day, when all is at last ready for the completion of the work, God creates the land-based beasts and finally the human race. In Genesis, all these things, from the first creation (light) to the last, were brought into existence through God’s Word. So in the Fourth Gospel. All proceeds towards the restoration of life for the entire human race on the sixth day of the final week of Jesus’ earthly life, with Paradise Restored.”

Verse 2: “Houtos” (“This one”) implies “none other” (Beasley-Murray). Lenski also argues that this sums up verse 1 in one word. This verse says that the relationship of Jesus with the Father is eternal (Bernard). Westcott tells the profound truth that it is not only the Father and the Son (as persons) who were responsible for the creation of the World. But it is also their relationship that was involved (God speaking through His Son, the Word). Of course, we know from Genesis 1 that the Holy Spirit was involved as well. Creation was a result of the eternal fellowship among the persons of the Trinity.

Verse 3: This verse states the same thing twice, once positively, once negatively (Barrett). The “all things” is completely comprehensive of all created things. There is great comfort from this verse, in that nothing is outside God’s control, if nothing is outside His creative power (Schaff).

Verses 3-4: A punctuation issue: does “which came to pass” go with verse 3 or verse 4? An example of the former is the ESV: “All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made.” An example of the latter is the NRSV: “All things came into being through him, and without him not one thing came into being. What has come into being, etc.” Most translations have the phrase go with verse 3. In favor of having it go with verse 4 is that “any thing made that was made” sounds a bit redundant. One could answer to this objection that this phrase could be consciously excluding the Word Himself as someone who was begotten, but not made. He was not created, but was rather the Word by Whom all things were created. In favor of having it go with verse 3 is that it is difficult to know what “What has come into being in Him was life” actually means (so many commentators). To this it could be answered that in Christ’s person and work the way of salvation has come into being. The new creation that Jesus accomplished in the resurrection is life (for us!) that has come into being in Him. I marginally favor the latter reading (with verse 4), but it’s certainly not a hill on which I desire to perish.

Verse 4a: “The life which was eternally in the Word, when it goes forth, issues in created life, and this is true both of the physical world and the spiritual world” (Bernard). Hutcheson says that “the life of all living creatures was ‘in him’ as in the fountain cause, as the stream is in the fountain, and the rays of light in the sun.” Keddie says that “the logic of the text is that the Creator of life must be the very essence and definition of life.” Keener notes that the Jews believed that life and light both resided in the Torah. That belief would be in contrast to what John teaches here. Meyer argues that any and all kinds of life are here included.

Verse 4b: See Genesis 1:3 (“Let there be light”) leading to John 8:12 (“I am the light of the world”) (Bernard). Of course, light is what makes it possible for life to exist (Kostenberger). It also leads to a choice which has to be made. See Boice, vol 1, pp. 46-47, for a good illustration of the difference between lesser lights and the great light of Jesus Christ.

Verse 5: Note the present tense of “shines” (Bernard). “Darkness” has an ethical quality here (Barrett). Brown interprets “the darkness” to be the fall in Genesis 3. Hengstenberg adds that the darkness is both a deficient religious condition and also the end result, hence darkness implies death. Ambrose tells us that the darkness is not a protection, since the light will always expose what is done in darkness. Isaiah 9:2 (“the people walking in darkness have seen a great light”). Light and darkness are opposites, but not of equal strength, contra dualism (Bruce). Besser (quoted by Lenski) says “In Christ is the life-light, outside is the night of death.” He now shines in us (Lenski). See 12:35 (“Walk while you have the light”) for application (Lincoln). John does not leave us in suspense: the story has a happy ending (Michaels). Luther notes that this verse hurls a thunderbolt against all human reason, since the light exists only in Jesus, not in us. In us is darkness. The so-called Enlightenment isn’t.

Verse 5: (Translation issue: is “katelaben” to be translated “overcome” or “comprehend”?) Maybe it plays on the two meanings (Barrett). Hendriksen argues a litotes here emphasizing the absolute antithesis between darkness and light. Perhaps the best translation is one that incorporates both connotations: “mastered” is my favorite way of translating the term.

Fall, What Fall?

by Reed DePace

Theistic evolution maintains that the natural processes currently seen in the physical world are part of God’s original creation. That is, these are the processes he has used to bring into being all that we see.

Thus stars and planets evolved over billions of years through processes involving death, decay and destruction. The ecosystems of our planet (geology, meteorological, biological, etc.) similarly evolved over millions of years through processes involving death, decay, and destruction. And God was in charge of it all.

O.k., got it.

So what does that mean for God’s claim that He made everything good, very good, that is perfect? What does it mean that God created everything without the reign of death to be found anywhere in the created order?

Well, the deadly poison of theistic evolution can be seen in the kinds of arguments that are being offered by young folks raised to believe both that God created everything and that He created everything perfect. Watch the Q&A discussion Doug Wilson has with such young folk at the Indiana University, Bloomington. Their arguments demonstrate that they hold to the following convictions:

  • God created everything, including me.
  • God created everything perfect, including me.
  • God created the capacity to love as a part of this perfect creation, including in me.
  • I was born with the desire to love members of my own gender.
  • Therefore Christians who say homosexuality is wrong are acting wickedly – they are sinning!

It is not a surprise at all to find young folk raised in:

  • Schools teaching them that everything came about via evolution,
  • Communities that protect and promote their self-esteem,
  • Churches that tell them God loves them and has a wonderful plan for their lives, and
  • A Culture that says God (if He actually exists) doesn’t make mistakes,

Would reach the conclusion that their same gender sexual attractions are pure and holy.

Now, as Theistic Evolution has already affirmed that death, decay, and destruction are a normal, good, wholesome, beneficial part of God’s original creation,

How are we ever going to be able to justify the idea of sin and judgment?

It is no surprise when such folks, acting consistent with the necessary conclusions of Theistic Evolution, want to shut us up when we tell them the gospel.

“Fall, WHAT FALL! There is nothing wrong with me. You’re just a judgmental jerk!!”

by Reed DePace

POSTSCRIPT: For those who think I’m making ridiculous connections in this post, here is another example:

The Little Boy Who Wanted To Be a Girl

So how do you explain to these folks that the problem is the fall? How do you explain to them that God did not create this child this way? After all, mankind keeps evolving, right? If you follow theistic evolution you have no alternatives here.

POST-POSTSCRIPT: here is a good starting article to consider problems evolution: What Are the Top Ten Problems with Darwinian Evolution? This is a scientific perspective, not a biblical perspective. For those interested in an informed and reasonable critique of evolution from a science perspective, I recommend this site.

Theistic Evolution – PCA

by Reed DePace

Some of you already know this, but it may be new to others. Please do not think I am writing against theistic evolution because I want to drive adherents to it out of the PCA. As men formally acknowledged to be called by the Spirit to undershepherd Christ’s Church, the teaching and ruling elders of the PCA are already in agreement that theistic evolution is inconsistent with the gospel that we are to preach and teach.

A number of items demonstrate this:

One, while not as explicit, the PCA Creation Report does provide exceptional nuancing into the issues surrounding this whole topic. It is a must read starting point for discussing this topic within our circles. At the very least this report is unfriendly to theistic evolution.

Two, one of the decisions at this year’s PCA General Assembly makes it clear that at least in regard to a theistic evolution understanding of Adam and Eve, this is already out of bounds for the PCA. In response to a number of overtures to issue an in thesi statement on the historicity of Adam and Eve’s creation, the PCA GA went with an overture that rejected issuing such a statement. Among the reasoning for this was that the Westminster Larger Catechism already provides sufficient clarity to deny a theistic evolutionary model for Adam and Eve’s creation. In other words, the GA decided that there was no reason to issue a statement saying what we already say we believe. The PCA is already on record as saying that any teaching that Adam and Eve were created through evolutionary means is contradictory to what we believe the Bible to teach.

Three, the teaching of theistic evolution in the PCA has already been explicitly denied in a previous judicial case involving this question. This was a matter that eventually found its way into the hands of our Standing Judicial Commission, where the decision to declare theistic evolution out of bounds was upheld. As all such SJC decisions must be accepted or rejected by the GA, and this one was accepted, this is a formal and explicit declaration on the part of the PCA –

The teaching of theistic evolution is contrary to the Bible and not to be taught in our churches.

If someone believes this is wrong there are reasonable biblical-ecclesiological options to address this and see the (supposed) error corrected. Among those options IS NOT to ignore the decision of our fathers. Brothers, let us not be among those who takes vows lightheartedly.

by Reed DePace

POSTSCRIPT: here is a good starting article to consider problems evolution: What Are the Top Ten Problems with Darwinian Evolution? This is a scientific perspective, not a biblical perspective. For those interested in an informed and reasonable critique of evolution from a science perspective, I recommend this site.

In the Beginning- John 1:1

References to names in parentheses are references to the commentary written by that individual and are cited according to their comments on that passage, unless otherwise noted.

Verse as a whole: Genesis 1:1 is the obvious background (Godet writes, “Moses descends the stream of time and reaches the creation of man (ver 26). John, having started from the same point, follows the reverse course and ascends from the beginning of things to eternity”), Proverbs 8:22 (on which, see Bultmann, who says, “She is pre-existent, and is God’s partner at the creation. She seeks a dwelling on earth among men, but is rejected: she comes to her own possession, but her own do not accept her.”), 1 John 1:1-4. The “en” is expressive of “continuous timeless existence” (Bernard).

Logos: John introduces the term with no explanation (Westcott). This implies that people would have had a good idea of what it meant. “As a word is a means of revealing a man’s mind to others, so Christ hath revealed the Father in his own person” (Hutcheson). Pink expands on this, and says, “He is God’s alphabet, the One who spells out Deity, the One who utters all God has to say…Christ then, is the One who has made the incomprehensible God intelligible…The Scriptures reveal God’s mind, express His will, make known His perfections, and lay bare His heart. This is precisely what the Lord Jesus has done for the Father…It is only in Christ that God is fully told out.” If you want to know God, then study Jesus (Pink and Boice).” “Logos” implies inward thought and outward speech (Barrett). This is “ratio” (thought) and “oratio” (speech) (Keddie). Michaels (quoted by Kostenberger) says, “Elsewhere in John’s Gospel, Jesus speaks the word, but in the prologue he is the Word, the personal embodiment of all that he proclaims.” Bultmann writes “In the O.T. the Word of God is his Word of power, which, in being uttered, is active as event.” He further writes that no silence preceded the Word. Notice that the word of God is creative and revelatory (Barrett). Isaiah 55 tells us that God’s Word is effective for accomplishing His purpose. Why the term “logos?” J.C. Ryle notes various possibilities, all of which feed into this concept: “the wisdom of God, the express image of the Father, the subject of OT prophecy, and the speaker and interpreter of God’s will.” It is also true that God does not communicate His essence to us: it must be mediated (Meyer). “The deeds and words of Jesus are the deeds and words of God; if this be not true the book is blasphemous” (Barrett). Therefore the whole of the Gospel needs to be read in light of this verse (ibid.). In fact, connecting 20:31 with this passage yields the following thought: “the one I want you to believe in, because the Christ is Jesus, this Jesus is also the pre-incarnate God Himself, the one responsible for all creation.”

Clause 1: “In Gen. 1:1 ‘In the beginning’ introduces the story of the old creation; here it introduces the story of the new creation. In both works of creation the agent is the Word of God” (Bruce). “Beginning” denotes the period before creation (Brown). Carson notes, “Since Mark begins his Gospel with the same word, ‘The Beginning,’ it is also possible that John is making an allusion to his colleague’s work, saying in effect, “Mark has told about the beginning of Jesus’ public ministry; I want to show you that the starting point of the gospel can be traced farther back than that, before the beginning of the entire universe.” Notice the difference between “was” and “became” (Bernard). This clause refutes the Arians, who say that there was a time when then Son was not.

Clause 2: Kostenberger says (connecting the first clause with the second) that “Since the Word existed in the beginning, one might think that either the Word was God or the Word was with God. John affirms both.” Here John “may already be pointing out, rather subtly, that the ‘Word’ he is talking about is a person, with God and therefore distinguishable from God, and enjoying a personal relationship with him” (Carson). Not only does the “pros” establish a relationship between God and the Word, but also it distinguishes the two from each other” (Brown, quoted in Kostenberger). See also Genesis 1:26. This refutes the Sabellian heresy (which denied distinction of persons).

Clause 3: Jesus did NOT falsely claim to be God (see 10:33, 5:18). Keener says, “Jesus did not ‘make himself’ God; he shared glory with the Father before the world began.” NEB translation is excellent: “What God was, the Word was.” This refutes Socinians and Unitarians.

Anarthrous “theos” comments: If “theos” had the definite article “ho,” then it would have implied that “no divine being existed outside the second person of the Trinity” (Barrett). Note Colwell’s rule, which refutes the JW’s. Colwell’s rule, applied in this instance, is relatively simple. There are two nouns in the nominative case. To discover which one is the subject of the sentence, and which is the predicate, simply look for which noun has the definite article. In this case, “logos” has the definite article, and is therefore the subject of the sentence, even though it comes after the word “theos” in word order.

Eastern Mysticism, Robert Jordan, and Eschatology

Eastern Mysticism (abbr. EM) is a catch-all term that would describe a number of differing beliefs. I would use it primarily to refer to Hinduism, Buddhism, and the various off-shoots of such religions. One element that is common among many of the EM religions is pantheism, the belief that God is everything. Some scholars hold that panentheism is a more appropriate term (the definition of which is that God is IN all things). From my perspective, though, it seems that pantheism is a more accurate description of EM’s general characteristic.

The hugely popular fantasy series (and one of my very favorites!) by Robert Jordan and Brandon Sanderson, entitled The Wheel of Time™, bears many resemblances to EM. There is a sort of yin and yang aspect to the male and female elements of the source of power, not to mention the standardized beginning of each novel, that states categorically that there are no beginnings or endings to the wheel of time. There is certainly a cyclical understanding of time, rather than a linear model.

In comparing EM to Robert Jordan, the question that arises in my mind is that of eschatology and the problem of evil. Evil, by the way, is not just a difficulty for Christianity. In many ways, it is more of a problem for EM and pantheists. How so? Simply put, if everything is God, then evil also is God. If evil is God, then there is no real hope for ridding the world of it. There can be no true eschatology. This is why their systems of belief are circular. The best you can do with evil is contain it in the wheel of time. That is why I will be incredibly interested to see how eschatological the final volume of the series (due to come out in early January) will be. I want to see if the series will be ultimately more contradictory (though FAR more satisfying), by having the Dark One eliminated, or whether he will be sealed back up in his own (or perhaps a new) prison, like he was before. The former option would be borrowed capital from the Christian viewpoint. Of course, Robert Jordan has already borrowed aspects from Christianity by his terming the final battle Tarmon Gai’don, which sounds suspiciously like Armageddon.

In Christian eschatology, Jesus Christ gave the death blow to evil, which will be finalized at the Second Coming, when evil itself will be eliminated. So God is not simply letting things go (as the Deists hopelessly believe), nor is God equal to the world (as EM believes), but instead God is personally involved with the problem of evil, while being simultaneously transcendent, and is doing something about evil. He has done the ultimate thing at the cross, and will deliver the final blow at the end of time.

Pastorally speaking, our problem is that we are not patient enough. We want evil to be eliminated right now. There are many reasons why evil is not gone yet. God has made room in time for grace. God wants to glorify Himself through using us as His instruments against evil. He wants us to grow in grace and knowledge. He wants our faith tested by being attacked. He wants us to trust Him more and more. And there are many more reasons for God’s not eliminating evil on our time-table. But just because God is not conforming to our time-table does not mean that God is sitting by idly. We will do well to remember that.

Theistic Evolution and the PCA

by Reed DePace, TE, PCA

O.k., I know this is a touchy subject. Yet it is important. I’m not going to name names, as to do that with the respect owed to brothers would take up much more space than I have here. I am however, going to say that I am persuaded that the teaching of theistic evolution is occurring within the PCA.

Some of this is overt; those involved know that this is what they are teaching. Some of this is under layers of rationalizing that hides the connection to theistic evolution (sometimes even from those supporting the rationalizations). Either way, there is support for theistic evolution going in our denomination.

So what! Right? Well, mark me as a trouble maker if you wish, but theistic evolution is deadly. It is a doctrine that presupposes the validity of an origins theory that fundamentally denies the Biblical origins doctrine. And in doing so, it proves a fatal poison to the gospel.

We can spend our time trying to parse out what “death” is, but we doomed to fail up front because evolution in theistic evolution is antithetical to the Bible. Evolution is fundamentally opposed to the Bible’s explanation of death. We may think we can wall off some limited form of death that protects the historic credibility of the Fall into sin and the ensuing curse of all creation. Yet beginning from a position that affirms that in any manner, to any degree, the reign of death now being experienced throughout the created order is actually how God created things in the first place leaves us with no hope.

Evolution calls good everything the Bible says is God’s judgment on Man’s sin. It truly is a matter of darkness denying the light. There is no compromise with it that will succeed. We don’t have a choice if we are to maintain the Bible’s integrity. Whatever the natural processes before the fall (biological, geological, astronomical, et.al.) they cannot partake of what God calls the reign of death. They cannot be a variation of it or a perfected form of it.

To so argue makes biblical interpretation no more than metaphor. If first Adam is nothing more than a metaphor, then last Adam is likewise nothing more than a metaphor. You agree in even a small way that the reign of death IS NOT exclusively a result of the fall and you lose the gospel. No fall, no judgment; no judgment, no atonement; no atonement, no gospel.

It is that simple.

by Reed DePace, TE, PCA

POSTSCRIPT: here is a good starting article to consider problems evolution: What Are the Top Ten Problems with Darwinian Evolution? This is a scientific perspective, not a biblical perspective. For those interested in an informed and reasonable critique of evolution from a science perspective, I recommend this site.

« Older entries

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 349 other followers