Approved Meyers investigative committee documents now available

Posted by Wes White

The report is now available here.

I believe that this document will prove to be one of the more important Federal Vision documents to be released in a while. It is a rather complete statement of the issues on baptism, covenant, and justification by a prominent Federal Visionist to a friendly PCA Court.

What I plan to do is to publish these items section by section in separate posts on my blog for comment and discussion. If you wish to download the whole document, you can do so above. The links to the sections available in separate blog posts are as follows:

  1. Introduction
  2. Views on Covenant Theology
  3. Views on Theology of the Imputation of Christ’s Merit
  4. View on Theology of Baptism
  5. Views on Theology of Perseverance
  6. Views on Theology of Justification
  7. Report of the Subcommittee Investigating Process and Injurious Reports
  8. TE Meyers Letter of Apology
  9. Conclusion

Please check back for further updates.

Posted by Wes White



  1. David Gray said,

    January 14, 2011 at 9:15 am

    I found the part of the report where seven signatories commented on the release of the letter to a news agency to be interesting:

    “Sadly, it has come to our attention that the [LOC] was distributed publicly. It was never our intention for this to be a public letter, but rather a letter to Missouri Presbytery and Mr. Meyers. We simply wanted to lay this nformation before our brothers in Missouri Presbytery for their attention. The letter was not one of charges or accusations, but concern for clarity and doctrinal understanding. Such matters are for the courts of our church, not for the Internet. We are sincerely sorry for the public development of this situation, of which we had no part, and want to express our apology to the Missouri Presbytery and Mr. Meyers.”
    “I thought I was signing a private letter from the group of signatories to Missouri Presbytery. I was never consulted about publishing the letter and never gave permission to go public with the letter. I was as surprised as anyone that it was made public and had no idea that my name would be splashed across the Internet. I was saddened that this took place. . . . It was too late to do anything about [the LOC going public.]”
    “Moreover, I never consented to make the letter public. I do not know who is responsible for posting the letter, and I regret that this has occurred…”
    “I certainly did not advocate for or agree to the contents of the request for an investigation of TE Meyers to be made public over the Internet, and I am very sorry that it happened. I deeply regret that the contents of the letter were made public…

    “I do not know how or why the letter was published on the Internet, nor did I have knowledge that the letter would be made public. If I had, I would have objected. I think that its publication was an exceedingly unwise, if not sinful, thing to do…”
    “I do wish to assure you, I had absolutely nothing to do with the posting of the Letter of Concern Re: TE Jeff Meyers on the Internet. I was absolutely appalled that occurred and I do appreciate the way in which MO Presbytery has handled the entire situation going forward.”
    “…I do know how the LOC came to be published on the Internet after the act. No, I was not aware that the LOC was going to be made public. Yes, I did inquire about it, but in my position I allowed older and wiser men to communicate to each of the signers of the letter about the LOC being made public.”
    “Moreover, I and the other signatories of the original letter never consented to make the letter public. I do not know who is responsible for making the letter public, and I deeply regret that this has occurred…”

    These comments are to the credit of the signatories and show that a sense of honor is not dead in the PCA. Well done men.

  2. January 14, 2011 at 11:24 am

    David, I was surprised to see that list of PCA TE’s signing such a letter, and am very glad to read the comments you posted above which give context to the intent of the letter.

  3. January 14, 2011 at 9:13 pm


    I’m “surprised” to find FV TEs still preaching and teaching in the PCA, especially after the 35th GA and the rest of NAPARC, et al, overwhelmingly condemned FV. As long as such is the case, appropriate attention must be brought to the FVers, initially through their presbyteries. To do otherwise would violate our vows to uphold the peace and purity of the church.

    But then, what business is that of yours in the CREC? Don’t have enough problems of your own?

  4. David Gray said,

    January 14, 2011 at 9:20 pm

    >>I was surprised to see that list of PCA TE’s signing such a letter, and am very glad to read the comments you posted above which give context to the intent of the letter.

    It does illuminate a lot.

  5. Tim Bayly said,

    January 15, 2011 at 2:51 pm

    >>It does illuminate a lot.

    My esteemed brothers, David and Daniel,

    What’s really significant about the actions of the presbytery of the PCA there in Missouri is their effort to keep control of theological discourse and debate, and the comfort F-V men are taking from it because this time it’s not leaving them bloodied in the road. As I’ve said on Doug’s blog, this report should be little to no comfort to anyone other than Jeff Meyers who knows he’s secure within the PCA until an appeal is filed with the SJC.

    And concerning these purported statements from signatories, it’s a howler that they’re anonymous. To those with ears to hear, that says everything.

    As I said, with esteem for both of you dear brothers,

  6. Tim Bayly said,

    January 15, 2011 at 2:58 pm

    BTW, “purported” did not mean I think the men didn’t say these things. I’m sure they did, but be sure to keep in mind the pressures applied to them by public saber-rattling about investigation and discipline. Funny how little benefit of the doubt was granted to the signatories of the letter of concern while Jeff was inundated with it.


  7. jared said,

    January 15, 2011 at 11:21 pm


    Why should it “surprise” you that there are still TE in the PCA given the adoption of the study report’s declarations? Only two of those declarations are even close to accurately addressing FV concerns/issues (#4 maybe and #7) and the other seven can easily be agreed to by many (maybe most) FV advocates.

Leave a Reply

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

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

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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 )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: