# Peter Leithart - Opinion?



## Anglicanorthodoxy (Sep 27, 2017)

Can somebody give me the inside scoop on this guy? As someone who's still fairlynew to Reformed theology, I'm still trying to get the lay of the land. I see there are several threads on Leithart here, and the opinion on him does not seem good. I know next to nothing about him, so I just want to get a good idea of what his big issues are.


----------



## greenbaggins (Sep 27, 2017)

Khater, as someone who has read almost all of his major works, I can tell you that he is not Reformed in any important sense of the term. He believes in the conflation of justification and definitive sanctification, a losable baptismal regeneration, and the rejoining of the Protestant world with Rome. Also, he holds to the Medieval quadriga method of interpretation, a method clearly rejected by WCF 1.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Scott Bushey (Sep 27, 2017)

Federal Visionist.
http://www.federal-vision.com/?cat=4


----------



## Dachaser (Sep 27, 2017)

greenbaggins said:


> Khater, as someone who has read almost all of his major works, I can tell you that he is not Reformed in any important sense of the term. He believes in the conflation of justification and definitive sanctification, a losable baptismal regeneration, and the rejoining of the Protestant world with Rome. Also, he holds to the Medieval quadriga method of interpretation, a method clearly rejected by WCF 1.


He sounds like one who holds to the ole FV view.


----------



## greenbaggins (Sep 27, 2017)

David, he is FV stout, as the saying goes. His theology is the worst of the lot, in my opinion, with the possible exception of James Jordan.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Sep 27, 2017)

greenbaggins said:


> David, he is FV stout, as the saying goes. His theology is the worst of the lot, in my opinion, with the possible exception of James Jordan.


his major influence correct? I recall long time ago (September 1983*) I had gone with a friend (Kevin Reed) to Atlanta for a conference at Joe Moorecraft's church (Roushdoony, Morton Smith were speakers; at least both were there sitting together) and one night we were put up at the Leithart's house who expressed some concern about Jordan's influence when Kevin brought it up. I was of course clueless at the time of much of the background (theonomy, Tyler, Texas, etc.).

*I can be specific because the same week just before we came a good friend of many of the folks, a congressman, was killed in that Russian shooting down of KOA 007).

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## greenbaggins (Sep 27, 2017)

Yes, Chris, Jordan and Leithart are the godfathers of the FV. Several streams flow into these two theologians. Jordan's work is prior to Leithart, and there is no one that Leithart quotes more than Jordan.


----------



## RamistThomist (Sep 27, 2017)

Leithart and Wilson represented a break, at least officially, in the FV movement. Wilson didn't like where Jordan and Co. were going and he tried to pretend he was cool all along with Reformed orthodoxy. Sadly, some in the Reformed camp bought that line. 

To his credit, though, Leithart did apologize for giving the benefit of the doubt to a sex offender against his victim. Wilson, by contrast, has refused to repent on that.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Edward (Sep 27, 2017)

After the students and faculty ran off most of the reformed folks, Redeemer Seminary in Dallas brought him in as a speaker. They closed their doors for good several weeks later. 

When PNW Presbytery was forced to try Leithart when he was brought up on charges there, they appointed a Roman Catholic to prosecute the matter. Needless to say, Leithart got off. Then when he went to work out of bounds without the permission of the Presbytery where he was working, PNW stonewalled as long as they could on the complaints. Leithart finally went CREC. 

As usual, I'm working from memory. If I've gotten something wrong, I'll be happy to address any documented errors. 

To address the original post - Stay away from him, his teaching, his writing, and anyone associated with him theologically. As for Leithart, he could have saved himself and everyone else a lot of pain if he had moved to CREC earlier - same as that crowd in Monroe.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## arapahoepark (Sep 27, 2017)

Edward said:


> After the students and faculty ran off most of the reformed folks, Redeemer Seminary in Dallas brought him in as a speaker. They closed their doors for good several weeks later.
> 
> When PNW Presbytery was forced to try Leithart when he was brought up on charges there, they appointed a Roman Catholic to prosecute the matter. Needless to say, Leithart got off. Then when he went to work out of bounds without the permission of the Presbytery where he was working, PNW stonewalled as long as they could on the complaints. Leithart finally went CREC.
> 
> ...


While not as intimately familar with the details that spunds abount right since I believe I came on board right at that time.


----------



## Clark-Tillian (Sep 28, 2017)

Edward said:


> After the students and faculty ran off most of the reformed folks, Redeemer Seminary in Dallas brought him in as a speaker. They closed their doors for good several weeks later.
> 
> When PNW Presbytery was forced to try Leithart when he was brought up on charges there, they appointed a Roman Catholic to prosecute the matter. Needless to say, Leithart got off. Then when he went to work out of bounds without the permission of the Presbytery where he was working, PNW stonewalled as long as they could on the complaints. Leithart finally went CREC.
> 
> ...



Wasn't Jason Stellman the prosecutor of that case? He certainly wasn't Roman Catholic at the time of the trial. He swam the Tiber some time later.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## bookslover (Sep 28, 2017)

greenbaggins said:


> . . .a method clearly rejected by WCF 1.



And by anyone with plain old common sense.


----------



## Edward (Sep 28, 2017)

Clark-Tillian said:


> He swam the Tiber some time later.



The Leithart trial was, I believe, in the summer of 2011. Stellman formally joined the Catholic church September 23, 2012.

Now, the Catholic church isn't like the Baptist church with an altar call. You don't come down the aisle, with every head bowed, every eye closed, and be ready to go. There are a series of formal classes that they run converts through to make sure they are fully on board. Stellman himself has said that he began to question Sola Scriptura in mid-2008, and Sola Fide "a little while later"

So if you don't consider him a Catholic until the priest or bishop says so, yes, it was some time later. But if one wants to measure from when he embraced Rome, I'll stick with my statement above. Does one swim the Tiber when they wade into the water, or when they climb out on the far bank?

Reactions: Like 2 | Funny 3


----------



## Username4000 (Sep 28, 2017)

Edward said:


> So if you don't consider him a Catholic until the priest or bishop says so, yes, it was some time later. But if one wants to measure from when he embraced Rome, I'll stick with my statement above. Does one swim the Tiber when they wade into the water, or when they climb out on the far bank?



Since we're discussing the propriety of the presbytery appointing him as prosecutor, we should measure from when _they_ could possibly have determined that something was problematic with his views, by one of the following methods:

His informing the presbytery that he no longer finds himself in accord with the system of doctrine taught by the WCF (as his elder vows require)
Any published or preached material of his, which became known to the presbytery
His resignation, if he was lying about his views up until that point
Did either of the first two happen before Leithart's trial?

Full disclosure: I'm a member of a PCA church in the relevant presbytery.


----------



## Dachaser (Sep 28, 2017)

Edward said:


> The Leithart trial was, I believe, in the summer of 2011. Stellman formally joined the Catholic church September 23, 2012.
> 
> Now, the Catholic church isn't like the Baptist church with an altar call. You don't come down the aisle, with every head bowed, every eye closed, and be ready to go. There are a series of formal classes that they run converts through to make sure they are fully on board. Stellman himself has said that he began to question Sola Scriptura in mid-2008, and Sola Fide "a little while later"
> 
> So if you don't consider him a Catholic until the priest or bishop says so, yes, it was some time later. But if one wants to measure from when he embraced Rome, I'll stick with my statement above. Does one swim the Tiber when they wade into the water, or when they climb out on the far bank?


A person becomes a catholic by accepting their false doctrines/theology, especially in regards to the Mass/Papacy/False gospel of theirs, correct?


----------



## RamistThomist (Sep 28, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> A person becomes a catholic by accepting their false doctrines/theology, especially in regards to the Mass/Papacy/False gospel of theirs, correct?



Officially, it is when he is received into the Roman communion.

Reactions: Praying 1


----------



## greenbaggins (Sep 28, 2017)

Stellman informed me that he would not have done anything different had he not been tempted by Catholicism. Furthermore, after he converted, he said that he still believed Leithart was out of accord with the WS. No one questioned his methods of prosecuting during the process. I firmly believe to this day that it was not Stellman's fault that Leithart was exonerated. I thought he did a fine job.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Dachaser (Sep 28, 2017)

BayouHuguenot said:


> Officially, it is when he is received into the Roman communion.


So would be like First Communion?


----------



## Gforce9 (Sep 28, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> So would be like First Communion?



Not First Communion, but official reception into the R.C. "church".


----------



## RamistThomist (Sep 28, 2017)

RC and EO guys are very clear: no matter how friendly one may be to RC/EO, unless you have been received into their communion, you are outside the church and thus outside salvation.


----------



## Dachaser (Sep 28, 2017)

BayouHuguenot said:


> RC and EO guys are very clear: no matter how friendly one may be to RC/EO, unless you have been received into their communion, you are outside the church and thus outside salvation.


That must be why a good friend of mine who went from catholic to baptist was told by his former priest that once he took the new baptism in the new church, is when he went apostate as per Rome.


----------



## greenbaggins (Sep 28, 2017)

BayouHuguenot said:


> RC and EO guys are very clear: no matter how friendly one may be to RC/EO, unless you have been received into their communion, you are outside the church and thus outside salvation.



I think, for RC, that used to be true before Vatican II. After Karl Rahner's highly influential "anonymous Christian" theology became widespread, and the phrase "separated brethren" became common parlance, I think the situation has a lot more inconsistency in it now. Officially, one has to be part of the RCC. Unofficially, they have become far more relativistic.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Sep 28, 2017)

greenbaggins said:


> Stellman informed me that he would not have done anything different had he not been tempted by Catholicism. Furthermore, after he converted, he said that he still believed Leithart was out of accord with the WS. No one questioned his methods of prosecuting during the process. I firmly believe to this day that it was not Stellman's fault that Leithart was exonerated. I thought he did a fine job.



I would not trust a word that came out of Jason Stellman's mouth. I am with Edward on this one; the likelihood that Mr. Stellman adopted his views shortly before he officially joined Rome is very slim. The circumstantial evidence against that assertion seems too strong to ignore.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Dachaser (Sep 28, 2017)

greenbaggins said:


> I think, for RC, that used to be true before Vatican II. After Karl Rahner's highly influential "anonymous Christian" theology became widespread, and the phrase "separated brethren" became common parlance, I think the situation has a lot more inconsistency in it now. Officially, one has to be part of the RCC. Unofficially, they have become far more relativistic.


there does seem to be a more liberal bent going on in the Church of Rome at this time, as the current Pope seems to be moving church towards same sex/transgender/Muslims and other non christian groups.


----------



## RamistThomist (Sep 28, 2017)

Reformed Covenanter said:


> I would not trust a word that came out of Jason Stellman's mouth. I am with Edward on this one; the likelihood that Mr. Stellman adopted his views shortly before he officially joined Rome is very slim. The circumstantial evidence against that assertion seems too strong to ignore.



You can check his comments on some of the old blogs and see a shift happening.


----------



## greenbaggins (Sep 28, 2017)

Daniel, I would agree that he didn't instantaneously convert. I just deny that this had a huge effect on his prosecution. Everyone seems to want to blame Stellman for "going easy" on Leithart. The truth is that it wouldn't have mattered whether Stellman went RCC or not, PNW was not going to convict Leithart. Period. The SJC then had its own problems with putting too much emphasis on the prosecutor's case, versus the record of the case. Stellman still believes today that Leithart's views are out of accord with the WS. He happens to agree with Leithart's views, but in doing so, he acknowledged that his views are out of accord with the WS.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Clark-Tillian (Sep 28, 2017)

Edward said:


> The Leithart trial was, I believe, in the summer of 2011. Stellman formally joined the Catholic church September 23, 2012.
> 
> Now, the Catholic church isn't like the Baptist church with an altar call. You don't come down the aisle, with every head bowed, every eye closed, and be ready to go. There are a series of formal classes that they run converts through to make sure they are fully on board. Stellman himself has said that he began to question Sola Scriptura in mid-2008, and Sola Fide "a little while later"
> 
> So if you don't consider him a Catholic until the priest or bishop says so, yes, it was some time later. But if one wants to measure from when he embraced Rome, I'll stick with my statement above. Does one swim the Tiber when they wade into the water, or when they climb out on the far bank?



I grew up Catholic. His theology might've been leaning one way or another, but technically, he wasn't in communion with the Rome until he was baptized.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Edward (Sep 29, 2017)

koenig said:


> Since we're discussing the propriety of the presbytery appointing him as prosecutor, we should measure from when _they_ could possibly have determined that something was problematic with his views, by one of the following methods:
> 
> His informing the presbytery that he no longer finds himself in accord with the system of doctrine taught by the WCF (as his elder vows require)
> Any published or preached material of his, which became known to the presbytery
> His resignation, if he was lying about his views up until that point



I don't accept your proposition that formal notice is required; actual knowledge would clearly be enough. And I'd personally use a "reasonable person should have known" standard with no defense of willful ignorance. Stellman made no secret of his journey. 



greenbaggins said:


> Stellman informed me that he would not have done anything different had he not been tempted by Catholicism. Furthermore, after he converted, he said that he still believed Leithart was out of accord with the WS.



This is fully consistent with his writings that I have seen. And I would accept it as his sincere belief. 

I do believe, however, that there was enough there that the entire trial was tainted and should have been nullified.


----------



## Username4000 (Sep 29, 2017)

Edward said:


> I don't accept your proposition that formal notice is required; actual knowledge would clearly be enough. And I'd personally use a "reasonable person should have known" standard with no defense of willful ignorance. Stellman made no secret of his journey.



My second bullet point was actual knowledge.


----------



## TheOldCourse (Oct 1, 2017)

Edward said:


> I don't accept your proposition that formal notice is required; actual knowledge would clearly be enough. And I'd personally use a "reasonable person should have known" standard with no defense of willful ignorance. Stellman made no secret of his journey.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I followed the trial very closely and was pretty familiar with Stellman at the time. I was in the PNW and we had quite a few mutual acquaintances. I had corresponded with him a number of times and I read his blog fairly regularly. I'm not sure that I would agree that he "made no secret of his journey." He recounted it publicly after the fact, but at the time there was no public hint that he was wrestling with Rome. I certainly didn't know and it came as quite a shock to his congregation and many of his friends. Now, according to him he had informed a few close friends privately who were trying to counsel him and combat the papist heresies he was toying with but, as I recall, even this was after he had already been appointed prosecutor and was making his case.

I think that there were significant flaws in the prosecution, but I'm not sure that they were related to his flirting with Rome. He never had much sympathy for Leithart in part because he was contemplating doing what he felt Leithart should have done if he really believed what he taught. Stellman knew that these doctrines were firmly out of accord with the Standards and, when he became convinced in his apostasy, was honest about it. Leithart was a snake about it, on the other hand, and Stellman had no problem prosecuting him for it. I will always give Stellman credit, even as an apostate, that when so many FV'ers around who flirted with papistry tried to remain ostensibly "Reformed" and poison our communions, he was honest and left.

Stellman, I think, adequately outlined Leithart's errors, but he could have done a better job of forcing Leithart and his defenders (Letham especially, whose testimony on Leithart's behalf was particularly problematic) to deal with Leithart's public writings and statements. The PNW paid much more heed to Leithart's dissembling and Letham's account of private conversations than to the writings and sermons he had placed before the public that clearly conflicted with the Standards. Stellman could have forced them to wrestle with that a little more, but I still doubt that it would have changed the outcome since the PNW seemed intent on extending the judgment of charity to Leithart beyond all reasonable and proper bounds.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## yeutter (Oct 1, 2017)

Clark-Tillian said:


> I grew up Catholic. His theology might've been leaning one way or another, but technically, he wasn't in communion with the Rome until he was baptized.


Actually the Church of Rome recognizes Trinitarian baptism administered non Roman Catholic clerics. He officially came into communion with the Church of Rome when he was confirmed.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## py3ak (Oct 1, 2017)

Back to the OP question -- years ago I noticed in Leithart's book on Shakespeare that his "creative" or "insightful" interpretations weren't exactly faithful to the actual text under discussion. Seeing him fiddle with the meaning of Shakespeare in order to make his point, it made me lose all confidence that he would be rigorous in handling Scripture.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Anglicanorthodoxy (Oct 16, 2017)

I just read Leitharts article "Does Baptism Justify"
https://theopolisinstitute.com/does-baptism-justify/

He's not a Romanist, but he is most certainly NOT Reformed either. How anyone could see him as Reformed after reading this article just blows my mind.

I myself actually have a fairly "high" view of Baptism. One could say that I hold to a form of Baptismal Regeneration. My view is the same as the view held by Cornelius Burges. I believe that for the Elect, Baptism begins the process of regeneration. Justification is by faith alone. Note the difference between my view and Leitharts view. I say Baptism begins the process of regeneration, but ONLY for the ELECT, and that Justification is by faith alone. Leithart says that Baptism justifies. He does not limit its efficacy to the Elect, and says nothing about Sola Fide. He seems to be saying that Baptism justifies all who are baptized, and also says that one can fall away after this "justification" they get from Baptism. Seeing as he doesn't even mention how Sola Fide plays into his scheme, it would seem to me that his views would destroy the Reformed doctrines of Total Depravity and Perseverance of the Saints. 

I'll admit that compared to most on here, I'd rightly be called a "High-Church Calvinist." I'm an Anglican, not realy a "Puritan" or a "TR" That being said, my views are nowhere near Leitharts. How can anyone see this guy as Reformed?

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 1


----------



## Clark-Tillian (Oct 17, 2017)

_I say Baptism begins the process of regeneration..._

Can you flesh that out a little bit, please?


----------



## Clark-Tillian (Oct 17, 2017)

From the RE website--the standard Article on Baptism 
*XXVII. Of Baptism.*
_Baptism is not only a sign of profession, and mark of difference, whereby Christian men are discerned from others that be not christened, but it is also a sign of Regeneration or New-Birth, whereby, as by an instrument, they that receive Baptism rightly are grafted into the Church; the promises of the forgiveness of sin, and of our adoption to be the sons of God by the Holy Ghost, are visibly signed and sealed; Faith is confirmed, and Grace increased by virtue of prayer unto God.

The Baptism of young Children is in any wise to be retained in the Church, as most agreeable with the institution of Christ._

I really don't see anything here about the _process of regeneration. _I think I know what your driving at, but maybe stating imprecisely? Are you asserting what WCF 28 VI states? 

_VI. The efficacy of baptism is not tied to that moment of time wherein it is administered; yet, notwithstanding, by the right use of this ordinance the grace promised is not only offered, but really exhibited and conferred by the Holy Ghost, to such (whether of age or infants) as that grace belongeth unto, according to the counsel of God's own will, in his appointed time._


----------



## arapahoepark (Oct 17, 2017)

Anglicanorthodoxy said:


> I just read Leitharts article "Does Baptism Justify"
> https://theopolisinstitute.com/does-baptism-justify/
> 
> He's not a Romanist, but he is most certainly NOT Reformed either. How anyone could see him as Reformed after reading this article just blows my mind.
> ...


Perhaps you refer to seed faith?


----------



## Dachaser (Oct 18, 2017)

Anglicanorthodoxy said:


> I just read Leitharts article "Does Baptism Justify"
> https://theopolisinstitute.com/does-baptism-justify/
> 
> He's not a Romanist, but he is most certainly NOT Reformed either. How anyone could see him as Reformed after reading this article just blows my mind.
> ...


Regeneration though is the work of the Holy Spirit towards those whoa re the elect in Christ, and is not dependent upon any rite or ordinance to have that work accomplished.


----------



## Dachaser (Oct 18, 2017)

Clark-Tillian said:


> From the RE website--the standard Article on Baptism
> *XXVII. Of Baptism.*
> _Baptism is not only a sign of profession, and mark of difference, whereby Christian men are discerned from others that be not christened, but it is also a sign of Regeneration or New-Birth, whereby, as by an instrument, they that receive Baptism rightly are grafted into the Church; the promises of the forgiveness of sin, and of our adoption to be the sons of God by the Holy Ghost, are visibly signed and sealed; Faith is confirmed, and Grace increased by virtue of prayer unto God.
> 
> ...


Does the rite place them into the visible or the invisible body of Christ then?


----------



## Anglicanorthodoxy (Oct 18, 2017)

For a clear Anglican view on Baptism, I'd recommend Bishop Ray Sutton's work
"Signed, Sealed, and Delivered: A Study of Holy Baptism"
M. F Sadlers work "The Second Adam & the New Birth" is also a good one.

Here's something shorter from Cranmer House
http://www.cranmerhouse.org/articles/TITUS_3_5.pdf

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## TylerRay (Oct 18, 2017)

Anglicanorthodoxy said:


> For a clear Anglican view on Baptism, I'd recommend Bishop Ray Sutton's work
> "Signed, Sealed, and Delivered: A Study of Holy Baptism"
> M. F Sadlers work "The Second Adam & the New Birth" is also a good one.
> 
> ...


I'd caution you against Ray Sutton. He helped develop the views that are now known as Federal Vision when he was at Westminster Presbyterian Church in Tyler, TX in the 80s.


----------



## Anglicanorthodoxy (Oct 18, 2017)

TylerRay said:


> I'd caution you against Ray Sutton. He helped develop the views that are now known as Federal Vision when he was at Westminster Presbyterian Church in Tyler, TX in the 80s.


Well the FV is a Presbyterian issue, not necessarily an Anglican issue. I listened to a critique of the FV given by Dr. Guy Waters. His critique was a strong critique from a Westminster Standards/Presbyterian standpoint. The 39 Articles are a bit more broad than the Westminster Standards. To be clear, I'm as against the more extreme proponents of FV( Doug Wilson, Peter Leithart, and James Jordan), as all of you are. As an Anglican, there are some aspects of the FV I would not necessarily call heretical( I don't agree with everything he says by any means, but some of Rich Lusk's work does interest me)


----------



## TylerRay (Oct 19, 2017)

Anglicanorthodoxy said:


> Well the FV is a Presbyterian issue, not necessarily an Anglican issue. I listened to a critique of the FV given by Dr. Guy Waters. His critique was a strong critique from a Westminster Standards/Presbyterian standpoint. The 39 Articles are a bit more broad than the Westminster Standards. To be clear, I'm as against the more extreme proponents of FV( Doug Wilson, Peter Leithart, and James Jordan), as all of you are. As an Anglican, there are some aspects of the FV I would not necessarily call heretical( I don't agree with everything he says by any means, but some of Rich Lusk's work does interest me)


Lusk is Jordan's and Leithart's greatest student. He has appropriated their theology wholesale. I was involved with these guys for two years, and, trust me, Lusk is just a popularizer of their doctrine.


----------



## RamistThomist (Oct 19, 2017)

TylerRay said:


> Lusk is Jordan's and Leithart's greatest student. He has appropriated their theology wholesale. I was involved with these guys for two years, and, trust me, Lusk is just a popularizer of their doctrine.



And if there is a spectrum of who is most influenced by NT Wright, Lusk would be he. Believe it or not, Jordan and Leithart don't care that much about Wright one way or another. Leithart actually takes Wright to task in one book. Lusk, though, is an NT devotee.

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 1


----------

