# J. Myers's Reaction to Guy Waters



## R. Scott Clark (Jun 29, 2006)

I didn't want this to get lost in the GW thread. This blog by Myers needs to be read.

If there was any ambiguity about where these fellows stand (and there is plenty by design) it is slowly fading into clarity.

As I say: All heretics quote scripture. Here's a bit of Myers' diatribe:



> To the consternation of strict confessional Presbyterians, Waters included, the reason so much of this is resonating with people is because the sixteenth- and seventeenth-century confessions and catechisms are no longer sufficient guides for the modern church. A book like Waters's, that critiques the FV men for breaking away from tradition, will not succeed in convincing men and women who confess that the Bible is the church's primary authority.



It was "but we're just following the tradition"

Then it was, "well, there isn't really A tradition, there are lots of ways of being Reformed"

Now it's, "We're just following the Bible. Those confessional-historical types, they just can't read the Bible properly."

As my students sometimes say: "Whatever."

rsc


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Jun 29, 2006)

Whatever...

See you tomorrow.


----------



## DTK (Jun 29, 2006)

> _Originally posted by R. Scott Clark_
> I didn't want this to get lost in the GW thread. This blog by Meyers needs to be read.
> 
> If there was any ambiguity about where these fellows stand (and there is plenty by design) it is slowly fading into clarity.
> ...


My copy of Dr. Waters new book, _The Federal Vision and Covenant Theology_ arrived Tuesday; and to borrow from Mr. Meyers expressed vocabulary, it is resonating with me concerning the views of the men of the FV. Thus, such a response can be claimed by both sides. I read the forward, the preface, and then jumped ahead to peek at areas of particular interest to me, before going back to start again where I left off reading. One point that Waters makes, not an area that he explores at length, but rather a comment he makes in passing - is one that expresses my own observation. It's found on pp. 210-211...


> By way of preface, we may note that Lusk's argument is filled with quotations from Calvin, other sixteenth-century Reformers, and certain seventeenth-century divines. He points to these quotations as evidence that he position has some pedigree and precedent in the Reformed tradition. To engage each of these quotes _seriatim_ would distract us from our primary concern: to offer an exposition and a biblical, theological, and confessional critique of the distinguishing doctrines of the FV. But we may make a couple of general observations regarding the way in which this historical material is used.


And then Dr Waters goes on to discuss the problems involved with Lusk's _modus operandi_ in the use of such sources...little or no context, no historical background to provide a feel for what the writer is addressing, etc. This has been my own experience with the way some of them have employed Holifield E. Brooks' work, _The Covenant Sealed: The Development of Puritan Sacramental Theology in Old and New England, 1570-1720_, where any time Brooks cites men with holding deviant theological views, these FV writers have taken that to mean, "See, there were respected men of the day who differed from the prevailing position, and their views were accepted within the pale of orthodoxy." Two of the men to whom FV writers have often pointed have been *Cornelius Burges* and *Samuel Ward*, as examples of their own views of sacramentology. They have found these examples in Brooks' work referenced above. But when reading Brooks, one finds a very different impression as I think the following, extended quote demonstrates...


> *E. Brooks Holifield:* The vocabulary of the sacramentalists revealed their intention: to elevate baptism by combining two theological traditions, Reformed orthodoxy and medieval scholasticism. To speak of the Christian life in terms of potency, or form, and actualization, or matter, was to appropriate scholastic imagery. "œInitial grace" was a Reformed adaptation of the medieval _gratia prima_, also given to children in baptism. Baxter recognized later the similarity between "œseminal grace" and the scholastic notion of infused habits. *Burges* and *Ward* carefully inserted the older language into their orthodox Calvinism, but they could not entirely eliminate the incommensurabilities. The medieval language depicted the Christian pilgrimage as a gradual development, approximate to salvation in ascending stages and levels of growth, nourished by sacramental grace from beginning to end. Earlier Reformed theologians spoke of progressive sanctification after the effectual call, and they argued about preparatory development in adults prior to the experience of saving grace, but the sacramentalist language seemed to depict the whole of a man´s spiritual life, from infancy to glorification, as an unbroken continuum beginning with baptism. The problem was to combine that vocabulary with a traditional Puritan notion of genuine conversion as a specifiable experience, restricted to the elect, moving them into a new sphere of life, discontinuous with their past. Puritan theology often consisted of the artful manipulation of images, and *Burges* and *Ward* accordingly proposed a sacramental theology based on medieval images of salvation as a new creation.
> Few of their Puritan contemporaries shared their vision, however, and the initial response was therefore hostile. When *Ward* first published his ideas around 1627, a close friend, John Davenant, advised that he not "œsett that controversy on foot," and when *Burges* published his treatise he complained that he received for his effort nothing but "œclamors, slanders, and revilings without end or measure." E. Brooks Holifield, _The Covenant Sealed: The Development of Sacramental Theology in Old and New England, 1570-1720_ (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1974), pp. 85-86.


This is one example which shows how (at least in my mind) that FV writers have misrepresented such examples that Brooks gave in his work.

So when Mr. Meyers registers his complaint, and questions why P&R would ever undertake the publishing of Dr. Waters book, my response is, "Well and fine, your complaint is duly noted. Let the dogs bark, the caravan moves on." They act as if they are above critique. As I remarked to Dr. Duncan once at the Twin Lakes Fellowship: "They're all for the magisterium, just so long as they're it." Conciliar authority means a great deal to them, i.e., unless they happen to fall on the side of those to whom such authority is opposed. 

In short, Mr. Meyers response takes none of us by surprise, but even worse, it's simply a complaint without substance.

DTK


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Jun 29, 2006)

Fallen people hate Christ's authority.

The FV guys simply hate Christ's authority with more passion than most even they they appeal to the Bible (like Sabellius, Arius, The Mormons, JWS, Joel Osteen, and a host of other "appealers").

[Edited on 6-30-2006 by C. Matthew McMahon]


----------



## lwadkins (Jun 30, 2006)

Coming to the church as an adult, I naively believed that those in the church believed that God meant what He said. I was amazed to find the plethora of ways that men could twist and distort Scripture to make It seem to endorse their BETTER ideas. Finding that God's Word was no longer considered sufficient, but had to be supplemented by human ideas and enhancements, caused me much confusion early in my pilgrimage. The clear passages of Scripture were being informed by less clear passages instead of the reverse. Hearing the Scriptures quoted from the pulpit, seemingly clear in their meaning, and then observing the way they were twisted by complex and convoluted arguments and proofs, as well as being distorted in practice within the Body, induced in me great discomfort.

Many churches of my experience no longer insist that prospective church members be informed in the beliefs held by the institution (if they hold any coherent beliefs at all) to which they aspire to belong or, in fact, insist they learn after joining. I wonder how many members of evangelical or even reformed churches, when asked "œWho was the head of the church?" would get it wrong. How many could articulate why it is necessary to belong to a church at all? How many could state who the person is whom they look to for salvation? Could they even recognize why they need a savior at all?

The lack of serious instruction, by many churches, make their members easy prey for such false teachings as FV and NPP. You have to be able to recognize the genuine article in order to spot the counterfeit when it is presented to you. Too many are incapable of identifying the genuine article.

Therefore my heart goes out to the immature Christians who still struggle under the weight of these false teachings. They often lack the resources necessary to find a quick exit from the wilderness. (As I once lacked as well.) Due to this I always try to point these burdened folks to resources that can help them to more quickly find the truth, rather then the lies of men. This of course is not always, in the beginning, welcome. I know that the Holy Spirit will guide God's chosen people out of the wilderness, but it is distressing that there are so many wildernesses out there. There are few precise guides to lead the way out.

[Edited on 6-30-2006 by lwadkins]


----------



## R. Scott Clark (Jun 30, 2006)

Bruce, 

Great to see you at the RPTS conference!

Blessings on your ministry,

S




> _Originally posted by Contra_Mundum_
> Whatever...
> 
> See you tomorrow.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Jun 30, 2006)

Thanks Dr. Clark. It was a pleasure to meet you. And I enjoyed your lecture. Have a safe trip home.


----------



## LadyFlynt (Jul 1, 2006)

Guess I'm trying to figure out "what is it to her anyhow?" Sounds like she is coming to FV defense...but "why?" 

Confuddled...


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jul 1, 2006)

He really didn't say anything of substance. He just attacked confessional people and said the FV people were seeking a more accurate interpretation of the Scriptures. He didn't even comment on the departures that the FV has from Covenant Theology, which is what the book is about. At least that is what the title implies. Looking forward to reading it. I am ordering it tonight. Can you spell *distracted*. That is what he is at best.


[Edited on 7-1-2006 by puritancovenanter]


----------



## R. Scott Clark (Jul 1, 2006)

Historically, the Anabaptists, Socinians, the Arminians, and the Amyraldians have all claimed that they were "just following the Bible." 

That's why we have confessions: To sort out what we think is biblical and what is not. If Myers and co don't think that our confession is biblical then I hasten to remind him and them that the church is a voluntary society (considered in re civil society) and I'm sure that the CRE would receive him with open arms.

rsc


----------



## LadyFlynt (Jul 1, 2006)

We must be talking about two different J. Myers...I was thinking of Joyce Meyers. OOOPS!


----------



## turmeric (Jul 1, 2006)

> _Originally posted by LadyFlynt_
> We must be talking about two different J. Myers...I was thinking of Joyce Meyers. OOOPS!




That's a whole other


----------



## polemic_turtle (Jul 4, 2006)

Ya gotta love it!


----------

