# Peter Leithart goes to Rome



## SolaGratia (Aug 21, 2008)

Having Two Legs: Trinity Reformed Church Statement on Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, and Reformed Catholicity


----------



## SolaGratia (Aug 21, 2008)

Taken from the above web-link:

The following will be up on the Trinity Reformed Church web site when our new site is up and running, but since there were a few folks interested in seeing it sooner, I post it here for your convenience. 

One holy, catholic and apostolic Church
Trinity Reformed Church recognizes itself as part of the ancient Christian Church established by the apostles, rejoicing in the “faith that was once for all delivered to the saints” (Jud. 1:3). We are thankful for the fellowship we share with all the faithful in the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church throughout the ages. We affirm with the apostle that there is one body and one Spirit, just as there is one hope, “one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all” (Eph. 4:5). Therefore with the holy fathers, we confess that one faith as it has been handed down in the Apostles’ Creed, Nicene Creed, the Definition of Chalcedon, and Athanasian Creed. On this basis we cheerfully recognize the Trinitarian baptisms of Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Christians, receive them (and all others who confess this ancient faith) to our celebration of the Eucharist, and warmly welcome them into membership in our congregation. Because there is one body and one Spirit, we insist that the unity of the body of Christ is fundamentally something to be preserved through humility, gentleness, and love in the Holy Spirit and is not dependent upon institutional forms, church polity, or bureaucratic decisions (Eph. 4:2-3).

Likewise, in submission to the apostle’s instructions, we seek ecclesiastical maturity which rejoices in all of the ways the saints are being built up and equipped for ministry, striving for the unity of faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, until we reach mature manhood, the fullness of Christ (Eph. 4:14). Standing firmly in the Reformed and Protestant branch of the Church, we are committed to enriching and deepening our understanding, practices, and doctrines, fully expecting continued reformation and renewal in the entire body of Christ.

Gratitude for the rich and fruitful heritage of the Reformed faith
At the same time, this tradition of “semper reformanda” (“always reforming”) has periodically been a subject of confusion and misrepresentation. The Reformed tradition at its best, far from willfully dividing and abandoning the one true Church, seeks to preserve that Church which the apostolic, patristic, and medieval fathers established and has continued in the lives of all the faithful throughout Christendom. Yet, some within the Reformed tradition itself today misinterpret ongoing reformation and preservation of this rich catholic heritage as an abandonment of historic Reformed principles. Some think they see a trajectory in our reformational progress which leads back to Roman Catholicism or leans toward Eastern Orthodoxy. Individuals who claim that we are moving this direction after having studied and worshipped and lived in our community have dramatically misread our aims and purposes. Furthermore, such interpretations fail to appreciate the deep catholicity found in the Reformed tradition and display ingratitude for the great sanctifying work our sovereign God has done in His Church by the faithful labors of protesting catholics over the centuries. While we affirm our fundamental unity with all the saints within the body of Christ, including those in the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches, as well as our great appreciation for the many gifts, insights, and contributions they bring to the broader Church, we equally affirm our great thankfulness for our own history and tradition. Our commitment to the Reformation and those central claims of the Protestant Reformers is unwavering and as robust as ever, and our thankfulness for this rich and fruitful heritage has only deepened as we have grown. In particular, we are grateful for and committed to those summaries of the faith found in the Westminster Confession of Faith, The Three Forms of Unity, and the Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion. At the same time, we do not understand this gratitude to be at odds with a genuine catholicity and love for the saints throughout the body of Christ. Rather, we are most thankful for the insights and concerns of the Reformed tradition because of how hopeful we are that God will be pleased to use us to bless and build up the broader Christian Church.

Catholicity and the ultimate, infallible authority of Holy Scripture
In keeping with this hope, we reject views which place the ultimate, infallible authority of the Scriptures in competition with other sources of authority since Christ is Lord over all, and His Word cannot be broken (Jn. 10:35). The sixty-six books of the Bible in their entirety are this perfect, God-breathed Word and comprise the only ultimate, infallible source of tradition for the Christian Church (2 Tim. 3:16, 2 Thess. 2:15, 3:6, 14). 

With the Reformers, we insist that liturgical idolatry is a most dangerous temptation and sin for many within Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy. This includes the veneration of man-made images, statues, relics, Eucharistic elements, the invocation of the saints, as well as other practices and traditions which are not according to Scripture. Likewise, we warn all the faithful to flee those doctrines or practices which, whether in doctrine or in practice, undermine the fundamental and sovereign graciousness of God in salvation. 

Finally, while we consider divisions in the body of Christ most grievous to the calling of the Church, and we confess that the Reformed tradition has contributed its own failures to this state of affairs, we do not believe that abstract considerations of church polity, apostolic succession, or institutional unity rise to the level of weightier matters of the law. Therefore, however helpful the study of those issues may be, they must not jeopardize genuine Christian fellowship, justify the denunciation of the least in the kingdom of God, or result in disparaging the validity of the ordinations or sacraments of other churches that worship our Triune God in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ. Individuals who join communions that effectively excommunicate their Protestant brothers and sisters contradict their search for catholicity, and ironically, the goal of unity comes at the expense of further divisions in the body of Christ. We desire to be of one mind with all the saints, not by coercion, but by the same patient love of our brothers and sisters shown by Christ in His patient love for His Bride, the Church.

Toward greater unity and purity of the body of Christ
As we hope and pray and continue to work toward the greater unity and purity of the entire body of Christ, we do so committed to the most central callings of the Church: humble submission to Scripture and the proclamation of the gospel, the centrality of faithful worship and celebration of the sacraments, and loving God and neighbor with all that we are, which includes caring for the poor as well as widows and orphans in their distress. And this, we confess, is the way to grow up together with all of Christendom “into Him, who is the head, into Christ, from whom the whole body, joined and held together by every joint with which it is equipped, when each part is working properly, makes the body grow so that it builds itself up in love” (Eph. 4:15-16). 

Adopted by the Elders of Trinity Reformed Church on Thursday, August 14th, 2008


----------



## Josiah (Aug 21, 2008)

I wonder how his Presbytery will respond


----------



## Anton Bruckner (Aug 21, 2008)

Apostasy. "1 Corinthians 10:12 Wherefore let him that thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall. "


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Aug 21, 2008)

Sorry but Josh you made me spit juice on my comp screen....


----------



## Gryphonette (Aug 21, 2008)

*Does the CREC have presbyteries?*

In any case, seeing as how it IS a CREC establishment, I don't suppose they'll do anything at all.



Josiah said:


> I wonder how his Presbytery will respond


----------



## Christusregnat (Aug 21, 2008)

Gryphonette said:


> In any case, seeing as how it IS a CREC establishment, I don't suppose they'll do anything at all.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



CREC may not, but Leithart is ordained in the PCA.

Adam


----------



## Christusregnat (Aug 21, 2008)

SolaGratia said:


> Having Two Legs: Trinity Reformed Church Statement on Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, and Reformed Catholicity



I would not call this "going to Rome". It's more like "Going to Mercersburg, which is just as good".

Adam


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Aug 21, 2008)

Christusregnat said:


> CREC may not, but Leithart is ordained in the PCA.
> 
> Adam



I think he bolted. He's gone. Outa there.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Aug 21, 2008)

Christusregnat said:


> SolaGratia said:
> 
> 
> > Having Two Legs: Trinity Reformed Church Statement on Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, and Reformed Catholicity
> ...



The Nevinites rise again. Wonder if they will become Swedenborgian just like Nevin?


----------



## Christusregnat (Aug 21, 2008)

Contra_Mundum said:


> Christusregnat said:
> 
> 
> > CREC may not, but Leithart is ordained in the PCA.
> ...



Makes sense. CREC is becoming a sort of collecting point for people who see the hand writing on the wall. Would NAPARC be able to issue some kind of statement to the CREC, rather than each GA / Synod making condemnations of such stuff? Perhaps it doesn't make statements? No clue.

Cheers,


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Aug 21, 2008)

I think it would be nice if NAPARC grew a little muscle.


----------



## Christusregnat (Aug 21, 2008)

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> The Nevinites rise again. Wonder if they will become Swedenborgian just like Nevin?



Time will tell; there was a "Colebrigian" (spelling?) movement after the Mburg theology ripened; denial of regeneration or personal conversion; we'll see....


----------



## turmeric (Aug 21, 2008)

Well, it still says he's a member of the Northwest Presbytery. I'd feel relieved if he did bolt.


----------



## Ron (Aug 21, 2008)

It would be interesting to know whether he would warmly welcome one from Rome into membership who was loyal to Trent with respect to the Marian dogmas and meritorious works as they pertain to justification? Any chance of finding out?

Ron


----------



## py3ak (Aug 21, 2008)

I would imagine that most Catholics and EO would have too much self-respect to join a CREC church. So in spite of this bold move I don't think we'll see Bob's best buddy Joey appearing as a guest speaker any time soon.


----------



## Josiah (Aug 21, 2008)

Gryphonette said:


> In any case, seeing as how it IS a CREC establishment, I don't suppose they'll do anything at all.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I didnt know that he was pastoring in the CREC


----------



## DMcFadden (Aug 21, 2008)

Christusregnat said:


> SolaGratia said:
> 
> 
> > Having Two Legs: Trinity Reformed Church Statement on Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, and Reformed Catholicity
> ...



If memory serves me, Schaff and Nevin and their Mercersburg theology depended on Schaff's heavy reliance on a Hegelian theory of history. If the Reformation is unfinished and depends upon a grand synthesis, I guess the argument for ecumania makes "some" sense." 

But, why not apply this "historical" template to Leithart. The FV folks are the thesis, the Greenbaginses are the antithesis, and the grand synthesis is ???


----------



## DMcFadden (Aug 21, 2008)

Josiah said:


> Gryphonette said:
> 
> 
> > In any case, seeing as how it IS a CREC establishment, I don't suppose they'll do anything at all.
> ...



He has taught Theology and Literature at New Saint Andrews College since 1998, and since 2003 has served as pastor of Trinity Reformed Church in Moscow. His church is listed as part of the Anselm Presbytery of CREC (http://www.crechurches.org/index.php?module=pagemaster&PAGE_user_op=view_page&PAGE_id=6) where Pastor Douglas Wilson is moderator.


----------



## toddpedlar (Aug 21, 2008)

turmeric said:


> Well, it still says he's a member of the Northwest Presbytery. I'd feel relieved if he did bolt.



he may be, but does he actually have anything to do with the Northwest Presbytery? (other than submit his 'resolutions' or whatever they were regarding the FV to them for comment) It seems to me that the fact that the Northwest Presbytery hasn't taken any disciplinary action towards Leithart for his views is just as troubling as his membership in the Presbytery.


----------



## py3ak (Aug 21, 2008)

Wasn't there a study committee under way? I understood that Jason Stellman was a part of it.


----------



## toddpedlar (Aug 21, 2008)

py3ak said:


> Wasn't there a study committee under way? I understood that Jason Stellman was a part of it.



ah yes, that's true.


----------



## py3ak (Aug 21, 2008)

I guess they've got some new material to study now. Still, I guess this should make it an open and shut case. By the logic of the document, they must accept the man of sin as a legitimately ordained presbyter. Anyone want to get the witch of Endor to call up John Knox and see what he has to say?


----------



## turmeric (Aug 21, 2008)

I'd rather have the witch of Outdoor. Anyway, I want him out of the Northwest Presbytery! Another prayer request...


----------



## Josiah (Aug 21, 2008)

py3ak said:


> Wasn't there a study committee under way? I understood that Jason Stellman was a part of it.



That is what I understood as well. I thought he was looking into Leitharts teachings.


----------



## Gryphonette (Aug 22, 2008)

*I'd completely forgotten about that.*

Whatever happened to that study committee, anyway? Is it still going on? How long's it been now?



py3ak said:


> Wasn't there a study committee under way? I understood that Jason Stellman was a part of it.


----------



## ww (Aug 22, 2008)

> On this basis we cheerfully recognize the Trinitarian baptisms of Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Christians, receive them (and all others who confess this ancient faith) to our celebration of the Eucharist, and warmly welcome them into membership in our congregation.



Not that active on this board and not quite sure of the different perspectives regarding the acceptance of Roman Catholic and Orthodox Christian Trinitarian Baptisms as valid however to welcome them to Communiion and Membership in the Congregation is where my jaw dropped.


----------



## Ivan (Aug 22, 2008)

whitway said:


> > On this basis we cheerfully recognize the Trinitarian baptisms of Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Christians, receive them (and all others who confess this ancient faith) to our celebration of the Eucharist, and warmly welcome them into membership in our congregation.
> 
> 
> 
> Not that active on this board and not quite sure of the different perspectives regarding the acceptance of Roman Catholic and Orthodox Christian Trinitarian Baptisms as valid however to welcome them to Communiion and Membership in the Congregation is where my jaw dropped.



If one accepts their baptisms wouldn't one accept them into membership?


----------



## ww (Aug 22, 2008)

Ivan said:


> whitway said:
> 
> 
> > > On this basis we cheerfully recognize the Trinitarian baptisms of Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Christians, receive them (and all others who confess this ancient faith) to our celebration of the Eucharist, and warmly welcome them into membership in our congregation.
> ...



Not necessarily Ivan to accept Trinitarian Baptism as Valid and not rebaptize those who have been Baptized properly doesn't automatically give one a right to membership. The individual must also demonstrate a valid profession of Faith in Christ Alone by Faith Alone for their Salvation. Presbyterians who embrace the Thornwellian principle that Roman Catholic Baptism is invalid would also require the individual to be Baptized again or "properly" as they see it. However for the sake of transparency I can assure you that I am one who does in fact accept Trinitarian Baptism (Roman Catholic, EO, Lutheran, etc) as properly administered and would not encourage the individual to be rebaptized. Hope that helps to clarify my thought process.


----------



## Ivan (Aug 22, 2008)

whitway said:


> Ivan said:
> 
> 
> > whitway said:
> ...



Well, it clarifies it as much as I can wrap it around my Baptist brain. 

Who are the Presbyterians that embrace a Thornwellian principle?


----------



## Christusregnat (Aug 22, 2008)

Josiah said:


> I didnt know that he was pastoring in the CREC



It is interesting that the vast majority of "FV" and "NPP" proponents are slowly seeping into the CREC. Each man had some form of confrontation from their presbyteries, GAs, Synods, etc., and then put their tails between their legs and went CREC. What's ironic (hypocritical?) is that the original "Auburn Avenue" lectures carried on with this pedantic lecturing on "the evils of separatism" and "keeper of the true flame presbyterianism". And now, where have all the reformers gone?

That's whatcha call ironic!

Adam


----------



## py3ak (Aug 22, 2008)

whitway said:


> > On this basis we cheerfully recognize the Trinitarian baptisms of Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Christians, receive them (and all others who confess this ancient faith) to our celebration of the Eucharist, and warmly welcome them into membership in our congregation.
> 
> 
> 
> Not that active on this board and not quite sure of the different perspectives regarding the acceptance of Roman Catholic and Orthodox Christian Trinitarian Baptisms as valid however to welcome them to Communiion and Membership in the Congregation is where my jaw dropped.



I think the logic of the document would also require them to accept RC and EO ordination. I understand that many will accept RC baptism as valid; but as you say, receiving them into membership and welcoming them to communion is a bit of a different proposition.


----------



## ww (Aug 22, 2008)

Ivan said:


> whitway said:
> 
> 
> > Ivan said:
> ...



Well they are in pockets, cells that go undetected  Actually there are plenty of those who advocate Thornwell's view that Catholic Baptism is not valid right here on this board I'm sure, throughout the OPC and PCA and other Reformed Presbyterian denominations. However it is not the majority view within Reformed Presbyterianism. Although the 1987 PCA GA the Majority Report from the Study Committee on the topic argued in favor of Thornwell's view. It was not embraced as the Standard for the PCA and left to the discretion of the individual Presbyteries.


----------



## ww (Aug 22, 2008)

py3ak said:


> whitway said:
> 
> 
> > > On this basis we cheerfully recognize the Trinitarian baptisms of Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Christians, receive them (and all others who confess this ancient faith) to our celebration of the Eucharist, and warmly welcome them into membership in our congregation.
> ...



I wouldn't see why not. If a Profession of Faith is not necessary and just an embrace of the Ancient Creeds and Trinitarian Baptism then by all means why wouldn't you accept their ordination vows as valid and receive them into the Life and Ministry of the Reformed Church.


----------



## Scott1 (Aug 22, 2008)

> > [Although the 1987 PCA GA the Majority Report from the Study Committee on the topic argued in favor of Thornwell's view. It was not embraced as the Standard for the PCA and left to the discretion of the individual Presbyteries.
> > /QUOTE]
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## ww (Aug 22, 2008)

Scott1 said:


> > > [Although the 1987 PCA GA the Majority Report from the Study Committee on the topic argued in favor of Thornwell's view. It was not embraced as the Standard for the PCA and left to the discretion of the individual Presbyteries.
> > > /QUOTE]
> >
> >
> ...


----------



## wsw201 (Aug 22, 2008)

toddpedlar said:


> turmeric said:
> 
> 
> > Well, it still says he's a member of the Northwest Presbytery. I'd feel relieved if he did bolt.
> ...



It appears that the NW Presbytery is allowing him to labor out of bounds. This is not unusual. Consider our own Lane Keister whose Presbytery has allowed him to labor out of bounds. If that Presbytery doesn't want to get into it with Leithart, depending upon the rules of that Presbytery, can say that he can no longer be a CREC pastor and force him to either find a PCA church or leave the Presbytery.


----------



## fredtgreco (Aug 22, 2008)

wsw201 said:


> toddpedlar said:
> 
> 
> > turmeric said:
> ...



What is highly unusual is that he is being permitted to _plant_ a non-PCA church. The Presbytery was almost cited by the Presbytery Records Review Committee at GA a few years ago, but it failed in a close vote.


----------



## Scott1 (Aug 22, 2008)

whitway said:


> Scott1 said:
> 
> 
> > > To clarify here.
> ...


----------



## Fly Caster (Aug 22, 2008)

It seems that as Mr. Leithart stands on the bank of the Tiber gazing longingly at the Promised Land on the other side, he sees before him not a treacherous, raging river but a tiny brook that runs dry at times.


----------



## py3ak (Aug 23, 2008)

The French Confession of 1559, Article 28, shows how the Reformed who accept the validity of Roman baptism approach the matter:



> n this belief we declare that, properly speaking, there can be no Church where the Word of God is not received, nor profession made of subjection to it, nor use of the sacraments. Therefore we condemn the papal assemblies, as the pure Word of God is banished from them, their sacraments are corrupted, or falsified, or destroyed, and all superstitions and idolatries are in them. We hold, then, that all who take part in those acts, and commune in that Church, separate and cut themselves off from the body of Christ. Nevertheless, as some trace of the Church is left in the papacy, and the virtue and substance of baptism remain, and as the efficacy of baptism does not depend upon the person who administers it, we confess that those baptized in it do not need a second baptism. But, on account of its corruptions, we can not present children to be baptized in it without incurring pollution.


----------



## Scott1 (Aug 23, 2008)

py3ak said:


> The French Confession of 1559, Article 28, shows how the Reformed who accept the validity of Roman baptism approach the matter:
> 
> 
> 
> > n this belief we declare that, properly speaking, there can be no Church where the Word of God is not received, nor profession made of subjection to it, nor use of the sacraments. Therefore we condemn the papal assemblies, as the pure Word of God is banished from them, their sacraments are corrupted, or falsified, or destroyed, and all superstitions and idolatries are in them. We hold, then, that all who take part in those acts, and commune in that Church, separate and cut themselves off from the body of Christ. *Nevertheless*, as some trace of the Church is left in the papacy, and the virtue and substance of baptism remain, and as the efficacy of baptism does not depend upon the person who administers it, we confess that those baptized in it do not need a second baptism. But, on account of its corruptions, we can not present children to be baptized in it without incurring pollution.



This is hard to follow. Suddenly, this takes a complete turn from its trajectory with the word "Nevertheless." Not sure what is meant at the end by


> "...can not present children to be baptized in it without incurring pollution."


 after first sounding like there can be no communion, then saying there can be, but (apparently) for baptism only.


----------



## py3ak (Aug 23, 2008)

Scott, I think it is actually saying that in spite of the fact of all Rome's corruptions, that needn't mean their baptism is invalid; but then again that doesn't mean that a Christian family should take their child for baptism to the Romish priest --merely that rebaptism is not required if baptism did take place there. In a similar vein we would probably never encourage someone to attend a liberal protestant church; but if their infants were baptised there we wouldn't rebaptise them.


----------



## SolaGratia (Aug 23, 2008)

Ruben, 

However, according to the credobaptist position one should re-baptized those coming from popery, right?


----------



## py3ak (Aug 23, 2008)

According to some credo-baptists, you should rebaptise anyone who was baptised before a personal profession of faith.


----------



## Scott1 (Aug 23, 2008)

py3ak said:


> Scott, I think it is actually saying that in spite of the fact of all Rome's corruptions, that needn't mean their baptism is invalid; but then again that doesn't mean that a Christian family should take their child for baptism to the Romish priest --merely that rebaptism is not required if baptism did take place there. In a similar vein we would probably never encourage someone to attend a liberal protestant church; but if their infants were baptised there we wouldn't rebaptise them.





> their sacraments are corrupted, or falsified, or destroyed, and all superstitions and idolatries are in them. We hold, then, that all who take part in those acts, and commune in that Church, separate and cut themselves off from the body of Christ.



I understand what you are saying in summarizing this, and thank you.

The difficulty is that their language says the _sacrament_ is corrupt, false and "destroyed" and that those who participate in them "cut themselves off from the Body."

It echos what we say when Reformed theology says a person is dead in sin versus a more Arminian influenced theology saying we are "affected" or "damaged" (but not dead) in sin.


----------



## py3ak (Aug 23, 2008)

Scott, I think the key is the language of corrupted, or falsified, or destroyed. Baptism is corrupted, BUT (on this view) the virtue and substance of baptism remain. I suppose it was partly thinking that this was an incoherent concept which has led many in the Reformed world to deny the validity of popish baptism.


----------



## cornopean (Aug 23, 2008)

DMcFadden said:


> If memory serves me, Schaff and Nevin and their Mercersburg theology depended on Schaff's heavy reliance on a Hegelian theory of history. If the Reformation is unfinished and depends upon a grand synthesis, I guess the argument for ecumania makes "some" sense."


Schaff had very little respect for the RC church....yes? Wasn't it his son David who wrote that huge book against Catholicism?


----------

