# TE Peter Leithart Not Guilty of Federal Vision



## Romans922

Is anyone else getting frustrated with the PCA? This saddens me very much. Trust in God's plan, pray for peace and purity.

Stories:

Breaking News: PCAPacific Northwest: Peter Leithart is not guilty « Green Baggins




Creed Code Cult: The Votes Are In....


----------



## NaphtaliPress

This was sort of expected at the presbytery level, wasn't it?


----------



## Romans922

NaphtaliPress said:


> This was sort of expected at the presbytery level, wasn't it?



Yes, in a way, but the SJC having said he was guilty probably doesn't look so good for the future (if complaints are brought).


----------



## Phil D.

*Peter Leithart Declared "Not Guilty" by PCA Presbytery*

The PCA’s Pacific Northwest Presbytery, at its October 7, 2011 meeting, found Teaching Elder Peter Leithart not guilty of charges brought against him regarding holding and teaching views associated with Federal Vision. This comes on the heels of the acquittal of another TE, Greg Lawrence, in my own Presbytery of the Siouxlands. However, many in the PCA believe that very serious and troubling questions remain in both of these cases, and I know that an official complaint is likely in the Lawrence case.

You can read more about the Leithart case HERE, and the Lawrence case HERE


----------



## NaphtaliPress

Merged.


----------



## Phil D.

NaphtaliPress said:


> Merged.



Thanks, Chris, I didn't see Rev. Barnes' post.




Romans922 said:


> Is anyone else getting frustrated with the PCA?



YES


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

I honestly expected this. Is the Frustration Level going up or down in the PCA over this kind of stuff? What kind of precedent is this making for other denominations of NAPARC?


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Maybe I don't understand this but this troubles me, "The trial was held in closed session on June 3-4, 2011." Why did this proceed as a closed session? This isn't an issue of moral failure but one of doctrine. I could understand a closed session if it was about Moral failure. But this was a doctrinal issue. A closed session seems to indicate that something is amiss or there might be something to hide maybe. Doctrinal issues should not be ones that are set up as closed sessions in my estimation. Is this the correct procedure when one's doctrine is in question?


----------



## TimV

Randy a lot of them are related to each other.

The PCA SJC is very conservative, and they're not going to stand still. But, it's the pew potatoes that have to start initiating change unless they want hom$$xual pastors in a couple of years.

Yes, PCA members reading this. I'm talking to you.


----------



## Romans922

PuritanCovenanter said:


> Maybe I don't understand this but this troubles me, "The trial was held in closed session on June 3-4, 2011." Why did this proceed as a closed session? This isn't an issue of moral failure but one of doctrine. I could understand a closed session if it was about Moral failure. But this was a doctrinal issue. A closed session seems to indicate that something is amiss or there might be something to hide maybe. Doctrinal issues should not be ones that are set up as closed sessions in my estimation. Is this the correct procedure when one's doctrine is in question?



Randy, here are some relevant posts and comments:

http://www.weswhite.net/2011/06/Peter-leithart-trial-on-friday/
http://www.weswhite.net/2011/06/closed-heresy-trials-forbidden-in-the-opc/
[URL]http://www.weswhite.net/2011/06/secret-trials/[/URL]


----------



## uberkermit

While I can appreciate due process, and things being done in order, I also wonder what it takes to get this mess sorted out. Did not the PCA officially reject the Federal Vision? Doesn't Peter Leithart's name appear on the Joint Federal Vision Statement? So what is it going to be? If Peter Leithart does not adhere to false doctrine, let him come away from those who insist on it.


----------



## Edward

Romans922 said:


> Is anyone else getting frustrated with the PCA?


I believe at least part of the problem is too many small presbyteries. If they merged presbyteries so that there were a minimum of 75 or 100 teaching elders in each, it might help with the problem.


----------



## yoyoceramic

PCA Facebook Page.

https://www.facebook.com/pages/Presbyterian-Church-in-America-PCA/8636138931?sk=wall&filter=1


----------



## Romans922

Edward, 

MO presbytery is one of the largest presbyteries in the PCA. It houses Jeff Meyers (FVer) being brought up on charges which twice the presbytery has said he is orthodox.

PNW is also a large presbytery (29 churches or so in it), this is where the Leithart trial took place. This has nothing to do with size of presbyteries, but this has to do with who makes up the presbyteries.


----------



## Edward

TimV said:


> unless they want hom$$xual pastors in a couple of years



That's certainly the direction things are heading, and a bit more rapidly than I would have thought. One of our fellow members here in effect called me a liar (and has never apologized) when I pointed out that some PCA churches have women deacons. Another member has posted a link to a PCA church that boasts a woman 'pastor'. Regan Wilds

The whole FV issue, and how it is being addressed is a symptom, not the problem.

---------- Post added at 02:26 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:23 PM ----------




Romans922 said:


> MO presbytery is one of the largest presbyteries in the PCA. It houses Jeff Meyers (FVer) being brought up on charges which twice the presbytery has said he is orthodox.



Thanks. 




Romans922 said:


> PNW is also a large presbytery (29 churches or so in it),



I wouldn't consider that large.


----------



## Phil D.

I have to say as the whole FV scandal continues to drag on in the PCA, I'm seeing more and more comments like this, and this. 

I'm not quite yet there myself, but, regretfully, I can envision a day in the not so distant future when I may be. No denomination is sacrosanct.


----------



## NaphtaliPress

It is true that this kind of thing brings out the separatist mindset, which is not a good thing.


----------



## seajayrice

Phil D. said:


> I have to say as the whole FV scandal continues to drag on in the PCA, I'm seeing more and more comments like this, and this.
> 
> I'm not quite yet there myself, but, regretfully, I can envision a day in the not so distant future when I may be. No denomination is sacrosanct.


 
Disappointing to say the least. Really to bad for all the healthy churches in the PCA. Looking down the road one could be concerned about joining the PCA given viable alternatives. At the very least I'd be cautious about joining certain presbytery's as much as individual bodies.


----------



## Zenas

I'm convinced no church judiciary system can do anything right.


----------



## Scott1

It would be interesting to know what the Presbytery level vote was.

The earlier opinion was divided, the final result is repeated. It is now ripe for review.


----------



## Pilgrim

Edward said:


> TimV said:
> 
> 
> 
> unless they want hom$$xual pastors in a couple of years
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's certainly the direction things are heading, and a bit more rapidly than I would have thought. One of our fellow members here in effect called me a liar (and has never apologized) when I pointed out that some PCA churches have women deacons. Another member has posted a link to a PCA church that boasts a woman 'pastor'. Regan Wilds
> 
> The whole FV issue, and how it is being addressed is a symptom, not the problem.
> 
> ---------- Post added at 02:26 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:23 PM ----------
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Romans922 said:
> 
> 
> 
> MO presbytery is one of the largest presbyteries in the PCA. It houses Jeff Meyers (FVer) being brought up on charges which twice the presbytery has said he is orthodox.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Romans922 said:
> 
> 
> 
> PNW is also a large presbytery (29 churches or so in it),
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I wouldn't consider that large.
Click to expand...


Perhaps not, but there are other presbyteries that are doing good to have a dozen churches. In my area, I know that certain TE's pushed to divide a Presbytery 20 or so years ago because they didn't want to have to drive more than a couple of hours to go to presbytery meetings. When the prospect of simply trying to offer some kind of help to a neighboring presbytery (which had lost several churches to the CREC b/c of the FV) came up, one of the older ministers reacted sharply and appeared to view that mere gesture as constituting a move toward reunification. 

In the same presbytery a few years ago a man was ordained (a CTS grad and also associated with Myers, If I recall correctly) who took exception to the Standards teaching on not marrying "papists". (WCF 24.3) He stated that he didn't see what the problem with that was. He also said he didn't understand why they can't be admitted to the Lord's Supper either. After repeated questioning he still didn't appear to get it and pleaded ignorance regarding Catholicism, despite the fact that the church that had called him is in one of the most heavily Catholic regions of the USA.


----------



## py3ak

Edward said:


> Another member has posted a link to a PCA church that boasts a woman 'pastor'. Regan Wilds



How is it possible to tell that this is a PCA church? Not from their website, it would seem.


----------



## Romans922

Scott1 said:


> It would be interesting to know what the Presbytery level vote was.
> 
> The earlier opinion was divided, the final result is repeated. It is now ripe for review.



Scott, 

Jason Stellman communicated that the vote was overwhelmingly in favor of the commissions (unanimous) recommendations that he be found not guilty of the charges.

He says the following:


> The report was received overwhelmingly by the PNWP.
> 
> Concerning the voting, the commission's verdict on each of the five charges was voted on separately, with votes like 33-3-2 or 33-5 (in favor of the commission's not guilty verdict) being pretty representative.​


​


----------



## Pilgrim

py3ak said:


> Edward said:
> 
> 
> 
> Another member has posted a link to a PCA church that boasts a woman 'pastor'. Regan Wilds
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How is it possible to tell that this is a PCA church? Not from their website, it would seem.
Click to expand...


It is revealed here, which required several more clicks than usual compared with other websites of churches that tend to downplay their denominational identity.


----------



## Scott1

> Mr. Stellman's blog
> 
> Charge 1 Regarding Baptism Not Guilty 9-0
> 
> Charge 2 Regarding the Covenant of Works Not Guilty 9-0
> 
> Charge 3 Regarding Imputation Not Guilty 9-0
> 
> Charge 4 Regarding Justification/Sanctification Not Guilty 9-0
> 
> Charge 5 Regarding Union and Apostasy Not Guilty 9-0



Without being familiar with the composition of the committee, nor having read the reasoning, this breakdown clearly lays out the several, major, spiritual issues at stake.

It forms the record well for appellate review, that is judicial review.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

> Grace Church is made up of a wide diversity of church backgrounds, united by our central focus on the gospel. We have a relationship of mutual accountability and support and are connected to the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA). This is a fast-growing denomination that emphasizes biblical faithfulness and outreach. Becoming a member at Grace does not require becoming Presbyterian, only that you have a personal relationship with Christ.



Presbyterian in Name Only.

PINO


----------



## seajayrice

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> Grace Church is made up of a wide diversity of church backgrounds, united by our central focus on the gospel. We have a relationship of mutual accountability and support and are connected to the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA). This is a fast-growing denomination that emphasizes biblical faithfulness and outreach. Becoming a member at Grace does not require becoming Presbyterian, only that you have a personal relationship with Christ.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Presbyterian in Name Only.
> 
> PINO
Click to expand...



How can this be? I thought Presbyterian governance was a distinctive of the PCA? How does someone join a presbyterian church and not be Presbyterian?


----------



## Pilgrim

Scott1 said:


> Mr. Stellman's blog
> 
> Charge 1 Regarding Baptism Not Guilty 9-0
> 
> Charge 2 Regarding the Covenant of Works Not Guilty 9-0
> 
> Charge 3 Regarding Imputation Not Guilty 9-0
> 
> Charge 4 Regarding Justification/Sanctification Not Guilty 9-0
> 
> Charge 5 Regarding Union and Apostasy Not Guilty 9-0
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Without being familiar with the composition of the committee, nor having read the reasoning, this breakdown clearly lays out the several, major, spiritual issues at stake.
> 
> It forms the record well for appellate review, that is judicial review.
Click to expand...


This makes the Louisiana Presbytery in the Wilkins case look good by comparison. I think there were at least a handful of elders who consistently voted against Wilkins.


----------



## Edward

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> Presbyterian in Name Only



No, not even in name. It's Grace *Community* Church. Around here, that spells Dipsy. I don't know what it means there. Progressive? 




py3ak said:


> How is it possible to tell that this is a PCA church? Not from their website, it would seem.



I couldn't find it there either, in a quick look - others apparently had more perseverance than I did. I checked the web address against that for a church in the PCA directory.


----------



## yoyoceramic

It's interesting that Mike Horton was called as a witness by the prosecutor. I'd love to be able to read the minutes.


----------



## Romans922

Edward said:


> TimV said:
> 
> 
> 
> unless they want hom$$xual pastors in a couple of years
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's certainly the direction things are heading, and a bit more rapidly than I would have thought. One of our fellow members here in effect called me a liar (and has never apologized) when I pointed out that some PCA churches have women deacons. Another member has posted a link to a PCA church that boasts a woman 'pastor'. Regan Wilds
> 
> The whole FV issue, and how it is being addressed is a symptom, not the problem.
Click to expand...


I have just gotten word that this is already being handled at the Presbytery level (i.e. woman pastor). So if we could I would love to leave this to rest and focus on the OP concerning Peter Leithart. Thank you.


----------



## TimV

It takes three clicks!


----------



## jwithnell

> How can this be? I thought Presbyterian governance was a distinctive of the PCA? How does someone join a presbyterian church and not be Presbyterian?


 You must give a credible confession of faith. Since Christ is the head of the church, any believer is welcome.


----------



## Scott1

Pilgrim said:


> Scott1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. Stellman's blog
> 
> Charge 1 Regarding Baptism Not Guilty 9-0
> 
> Charge 2 Regarding the Covenant of Works Not Guilty 9-0
> 
> Charge 3 Regarding Imputation Not Guilty 9-0
> 
> Charge 4 Regarding Justification/Sanctification Not Guilty 9-0
> 
> Charge 5 Regarding Union and Apostasy Not Guilty 9-0
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Without being familiar with the composition of the committee, nor having read the reasoning, this breakdown clearly lays out the several, major, spiritual issues at stake.
> 
> It forms the record well for appellate review, that is judicial review.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This makes the Louisiana Presbytery in the Wilkins case look good by comparison. I think there were at least a handful of elders who consistently voted against Wilkins.
Click to expand...


Actually, the initial investigation in that Presbytery was done by a subcommittee that voted 2-1. The Presbytery votes were divided. Later, the complaint from within the Presbytery that was rejected by the Presbytery as a whole came to the SJC was by a faithful man who later became Clerk of the Presbytery and had to receive the rebuke later on behalf of the Presbytery at General Assembly. (God's amazing providence).

In this case, the initial votes were divided, the Presbytery Standing Judicial Commission was unanimous, those results were apparently overwhelmingly (but not unanimously) accepted by the Presbytery as a whole.

The issues were framed quite clearly in this case, with solid evidence taken in. It's all on the record now, which will be of great benefit in resolving this case and establishing precedent for the denomination handling this issue.

The next step likely is for someone in the Presbytery to initiate a complaint against the Presbytery's action.

Likely, that will, in line with the pattern, be denied.

Then, complaint made to the Standing Judicial Commission, a permanent committee of the highest court, General Assembly.


----------



## AThornquist

Edward said:


> Backwoods Presbyterian said:
> 
> 
> 
> Presbyterian in Name Only
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, not even in name. It's Grace *Community* Church. Around here, that spells Dipsy. I don't know what it means there. Progressive?
Click to expand...


There are probably a lot of *Community* churches out there, but at least Grace Community Church in San Antonio is Reformed Baptist. 


I'm not very familiar with how Presbyterian churches handle cases such as FV, so this is a fairly enlightening thread. It particularly interests me because the PCA church here in Owensboro has a fairly strong FV presence and paedocommunion is becoming more accepted, though it's not explicitly endorsed. Two of the guys from that church are part of my accountability/prayer group, one of whom is the son of and the other the son-in-law of one of the major FV proponents.


----------



## GulfCoast Presbyterian

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> Grace Church is made up of a wide diversity of church backgrounds, united by our central focus on the gospel. We have a relationship of mutual accountability and support and are connected to the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA). This is a fast-growing denomination that emphasizes biblical faithfulness and outreach. Becoming a member at Grace does not require becoming Presbyterian, only that you have a personal relationship with Christ.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Presbyterian in Name Only.
> 
> PINO
Click to expand...


My reformed baptist friend has long used the acronym "RINO" for those he does not think are towing the confessional line: Reformed-in-Name-Only


----------



## PointyHaired Calvinist

Grace Community Church is not far from where I work. This is sad but not surprising.

As to the Leithart matter, this sounds like the last years of the PCUS and UPUSA all over again. Just replace various liberal doctrines with FV, and this is what you get.


----------



## Edward

PointyHaired Calvinist said:


> As to the Leithart matter, this sounds like the last years of the PCUS and UPUSA all over again. Just replace various liberal doctrines with FV, and this is what you get.


Exactly.


----------



## seajayrice

jwithnell said:


> How can this be? I thought Presbyterian governance was a distinctive of the PCA? How does someone join a presbyterian church and not be Presbyterian?
> 
> 
> 
> *You must give a credible confession of faith. Since Christ is the head of the church, any believer is welcome.*
Click to expand...


Not sure about that, there being the matter of vows pertaining to Presbyterian form of church government and submission to such form of government - I think membership vows makes you Presbyterian.


----------



## sdesocio

You might want to read this nice summary. Why 'not many should aspire to be teachers' - Reformation21 Blog


----------



## Edward

seajayrice said:


> Not sure about that, there being the matter of vows pertaining to Presbyterian form of church government and submission to such form of government - I think membership vows makes you Presbyterian.



1. Do you acknowledge yourselves to be sinners in the sight of
God, justly deserving His displeasure, and without hope save
in His sovereign mercy?
2. Do you believe in the Lord Jesus Christ as the Son of God,
and Savior of sinners, and do you receive and rest upon Him
alone for salvation as He is offered in the Gospel?
3. Do you now resolve and promise, in humble reliance upon
the grace of the Holy Spirit, that you will endeavor to live as
becomes the followers of Christ?
4. Do you promise to support the Church in its worship and
work to the best of your ability?
5. Do you submit yourselves to the government and discipline
of the Church, and promise to study its purity and peace?


----------



## lynnie

A regneration that might not persevere? 

Wierdness. Definitely not Reformed at all.

You do have to check out PCA churches anymore. The outright support of Enns' position in some is mindboggling, then there is of course FV. The majority I know of are fine, but the internet has been an eye opener. 

Lane....sorry about the verdict. You did a good job.


----------



## Reformed Musings

Although not unexpected, it still intrigues me that an entire PCA presbytery cannot accurately evaluate Leithart's erroneous writings and teachings. Leithart is CREC for all intents and purposes, deriving all his income from the CREC or CREC-related activities. Although he was honest enough to publish his views relative to the 9 declarations after the 35th GA, the right thing to do was to move his credentials to the CREC where he works anyway. 

I agree that Jason, Lane, and Mike Horton did a great job, but it wasn't what the itching ears in a secret court wanted to hear.


----------



## earl40

seajayrice said:


> Phil D. said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have to say as the whole FV scandal continues to drag on in the PCA, I'm seeing more and more comments like this, and this.
> 
> I'm not quite yet there myself, but, regretfully, I can envision a day in the not so distant future when I may be. No denomination is sacrosanct.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Disappointing to say the least. Really to bad for all the healthy churches in the PCA. Looking down the road one could be concerned about joining the PCA given viable alternatives. At the very least I'd be cautious about joining certain presbytery's as much as individual bodies.
Click to expand...


Here is one who is very concerned.....the last thing I want to do is drag my family away from another PCUSA kind of church or if I die let them try to do this without me. If what I read is true about FV and the PCA not excom such teachers I have little doubt I will not join a church in the PCA now or in the near future which is horrible because we are noing going through this process.


----------



## yoyoceramic

lynnie said:


> The outright support of Enns' position in some is mindboggling



Elaborate, please?

Also, is Mike Horton's testimony public anywhere?


----------



## Kevin

After all of these decisions by various presbyteries, maybe it is time to consider this possibility, That the bloggers really don't have the inside track on who is heretical after all.

I for one feel a sense of relief when I learn that someone is "better" then I expected, or then I was told that they were. Why is everyone assuming that the PCA has been taken over by a vast FV conspiracy. Is it not much more likely that the Bloggers overstated their case? And that the initial reaction of some pro-"FV" people to the GA report is correct, That in fact no one in the PCA actually holds the views that were condemned.

Only 2 possibilities that I can think of. 1) the PCA is FV top to bottom & so it keep clearing these men. or 2) these men do not hold to the views condemned in the GA report. Actually there is a third option, 3)they hold to the views condemned and every presbytery is is too stupid to recognize error when it hits them in the head.

So what is it?


----------



## Reformed Musings

Kevin,

So, have you read the materials that are available? Have you read the material from Lawrence, Leithart and Meyers? If not, then I respectfully suggest that you do before judging whatever bloggers that you have in mind. If you have, I have a lot of other questions for you.


----------



## Kevin

Bob, I read the reports from the presbyteries involved when they released them. I found no evidence of stupidity or a conspiracy on the part of the presbyteries. So a reasonable person would begin to think that the bloggers got it wrong.

Maybe. Possibly.

Why is that option not even considered? Why no blog post that says "Hey everybody, no heretics here! PTL. We thought that brother. So & So might have been one, but our Fathers & Brothers have examined him closely according to our BCO & he is orthodox!" 

Instead it seems like every headline is along these lines "Another Stupid Decision, by another outpost of the Vast FV Conspiracy".


----------



## Reformed Musings

Kevin,

Speaking for myself, I don't see how anyone can dismiss statements like these from Lane's brief for Leithart's prosecution:



> Further explanation is on page 170, where he says ““Applied to baptism, then, our typology leads to a doctrine of 'baptismal regeneration.'” What he means by this is explained on p. 169, where he writes “Baptism irreversibly plants my story in the story of the church, for even if I renounce her, my renunciation is part of her history.” Comment: Clearly, Leithart desires to diminish the distinction between outer and inner in the Christian life. The objective and the subjective become less relevant distinctions in Leithart's theology. This is how he can argue for a form of baptismal regeneration. Further explanation is on page 170, where he says “Operative ceremonies, thus, by placing us in new roles, vesting us with new clothes, and imposing new sets of obligations and rules, effect an 'ontological' transformation, a change in who we are, who we think we are, and who others think we are. Baptism clothes us as priests, and these clothes remake the man. (par. break, LK) Having cleared some ground, we can return more explicitly to our typology to show that it implies a theological, not a reductively sociological, view of baptismal regeneration.” Later, he will say “The baptized is no longer regarded as 'stranger' but born again as a 'son of the house.'” And again, on p. 171, “Baptism into the ecclesial priesthood that is the house therefore also confers the arrabon of the Spirit.” Finally, he says that “as baptism authorizes and deputizes to such ministry, it grants a share in the life of salvation.”



Lane filled his brief with excerpts like these, carefully placed into context. You said that you read Lane's brief. Do you seriously have no problems with an overt support for baptismal regeneration by a PCA officer? I'm genuinely having a hard time figuring out from whence you're coming on this.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Kevin said:


> Only 2 possibilities that I can think of. 1) the PCA is FV top to bottom & so it keep clearing these men. or 2) these men do not hold to the views condemned in the GA report. Actually there is a third option, 3)they hold to the views condemned and every presbytery is is too stupid to recognize error when it hits them in the head.


You don't have a very good understanding of some Presbyteries if you think these are the only options. I don't try things in blogs and will let the Church handle this but the answer is NONE OF THE ABOVE for the fundamental reasons. That you can't think of another reason does not mean that other reasons do not exist.


----------



## Kevin

Bob, If I were a member of PNEP (I'm not), and if I served on the commission (I didn't), and if I was called upon to evaluate the charges (I wasn't) then I would carefully evaluate all of the charges & evidence. I would prayerfully evaluate all of the testimony. I would contemplate the same with the other fathers & brothers that made up the commission. And I would cautiously, consider the verdict with the full weight that such a calling requires.

Since 9 godly brothers did just that and since I really do believe in this Presbyterian "stuff", I decline your invitation to parse the evidence out of context & after the fact.

So Bob answer my question. Was it a conspiracy? Stupidity? Or is TE Leithhart actually (possibly) orthodox?


----------



## lynnie

yoyo... there is a lot more if you google, here are two that get to me....

Papists in PCA Clothing « God's Hammer


Go here: Women in the Word: A Workshop | Facebook

go down to Aug 18, 8:04, to the link there (The World Reformed Fellowship - Bible Teaching 
www.wrfnet.org) and click on the article #1, scroll down to Enns book I&I.

This is all sorts of women and people associated with WTS (WTS dumped Enns).


This quote is representative "Further, I would suggest that Enns' intended audience of non- academics is really made up of two subgroups, each characterized by a fairly predictable sort of reaction to the book. On the one hand, there are those who will become intellectually engaged in the conversation Enns has started, and on the other, there are those who will react by becoming emotionally wrought and intellectually paralyzed."

Intellectually engaged with his tripe, or emotionally wrought and intellectually paralyzed? No third option like calm and thinking but barfing at his heresy?

Its all over the PCA, very sorry to say. Minority for sure, but it is there.


----------



## Philip

lynnie said:


> yoyo... there is a lot more if you google, here are two that get to me....
> 
> Papists in PCA Clothing « God's Hammer



Yeah . . . Gerety and the Trinity Foundation blame everything that's wrong with the OPC and PCA on Cornelius Van Til (including FV). Appealing to the polemical rantings of Trinity is counter-productive.


----------



## Gryphonette

Kevin said:


> Bob, If I were a member of PNEP (I'm not), and if I served on the commission (I didn't), and if I was called upon to evaluate the charges (I wasn't) then I would carefully evaluate all of the charges & evidence. I would prayerfully evaluate all of the testimony. I would contemplate the same with the other fathers & brothers that made up the commission. And I would cautiously, consider the verdict with the full weight that such a calling requires.
> 
> Since 9 godly brothers did just that and since I really do believe in this Presbyterian "stuff", I decline your invitation to parse the evidence out of context & after the fact.
> 
> So Bob answer my question. Was it a conspiracy? Stupidity? Or is TE Leithhart actually (possibly) orthodox?


Off the top of my head, I can think of a fourth option, which is timidity. Well, maybe that's a trifle harsh, but what I mean is that presumably all the elders and such in the PNW presbytery know each other personally. It's one thing to condemn the doctrine(s) of someone you wouldn't recognize if they kicked you in the ankle, but a whole different pair of shoes to condemn the doctrine(s) of someone you actually_ know_. 

It seems to be instinctive in us to excuse the shortcomings of people we like. 

You know....my preschool granddaughter's high-spirited, while someone else's is just a brat. >;^>

Actually I can think of at least one other possibility, but it's not charitable (toward anyone involved), so won't explain it. Still, there are more options than you have suggested, Kevin.


----------



## Reformed Musings

Kevin,

It's interesting, though, that you won't address a simple question on baptismal efficacy. Hiding behind context doesn't fly in cases like this. In what context could those public statements be taken to be in conformity with the Standards on baptism? Maybe you can take this opportunity to teach us something.

I'll toss something on the table in response to your question, though. I come from a line of work where, like in PCA polity, the goal of the disciplinary process is to restore and help those who run into issues. But failing that and apparently unlike the PCA, if individuals don't recover/repent, then we send them on their way without delay because lives depend on what they do. The safe execution of the mission must be preserved. I once had to terminate a personal friend for conduct, and though I did so with a heavy heart, I also didn't hesitate. Are physical lives more important that the spiritual lives of flock entrusted to us? I notice that Jesus didn't hesitate, either, when assessing the erroneous teachers of His day. Perhaps I expect too much from people who apparently don't have the same level of whatever it takes to put the mission ahead of personal feelings.

---------- Post added at 05:17 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:16 PM ----------

Anne,

Good to hear from you on this issue. It looks like we're pretty much on the same page.


----------



## Scott1

Kevin said:


> Only 2 possibilities that I can think of. 1) the PCA is FV top to bottom & so it keep clearing these men. or 2) these men do not hold to the views condemned in the GA report. Actually there is a third option, 3)they hold to the views condemned and every presbytery is is too stupid to recognize error when it hits them in the head.
> 
> So what is it?



The denomination Study Report on the serious doctrinal error called by this name (which is an offshoot of the "New Perspectives on Paul" theology of one recent British theologian) lays out a very clear basis for condemning this error, and protecting the church from it.

Don't forget, the same kind of responses came (e.g. must not be any error) when the Louisiana Presbytery ruled. It is a bit more troubling here because only a small minority voted contrary. In Louisiana, it was a close divide all the way through.

In this case, the Presbytery as a whole was not unanimous, but it was a small minority that voted contrary.

I don't think the options you present are complete, or even likely.

The whole denomination is not corrupted.


Remember, initially in Louisiana they did not deal with the underlying charges, only exonerated based on notions that were not really the issue. That was done in a summary fashion without reasoning directly related to the charges.

While more information needs to be released, it appears to have been a similar circumstance here.

The individual's well known affiliation with individuals who promote serious error, his church membership in that group that denominates itself as a "confederacy," and has served as a safe haven for PCA leaders escaping church discipline, and his public statements, saying things like justification is not really justification but is a "full and final verdict," creates a very obvious problem. It does not take a great deal of theological sophistication to see a problem here.

So it is not likely your second option.

The third option is not based on what you term "stupid[ity]."

An option might be the pride of man. As sinners, we are respecters of persons, in the sense that it prevents us from seeing the right clearly because we get lost on the individual. It's hard to condemn and rebuke those we like and are close to.

We have a tendency wanting to avoid dealing with things that are difficult, painful- imagining somehow they will get better if we avoid dealing with them.

This is well within the realm of dear brothers, and all of us.

It's hard to do right. One side of us wants to be charitable toward the person and it can lose perspective on protecting the Honor and Glory of our Lord, of His Church, and of His people.

I think some in the Louisiana Presbytery would admit this is what happened to them, and are thankful that the outside accountability of the denomination faced them, and brought them back.

For the peace and purity of the church.

For His Honor and His Glory.


----------



## seajayrice

Bob,

Perhaps some expounding on your engagement with the FV within the PCA might be profitable.


----------



## Gryphonette

We're totally on the same page, Bob. Absolutely. 

The one thing I have tended to wonder about, however, considering both Siouxlands and PNW presbyteries exonerated people whose stated writings clearly (sorry, Kevin, but facts are facts) align with the views stomped on by the GA a few years ago, is the possibility of those presbyteries essentially punting.

Didn't y'all say there is likely to be an appeal? That it isn't only the defendant who can file an appeal, but the prosecution, too? So the case would move higher up the food chain in the PCA?

Not being Presbyterian I might easily be all wet, but if the people conducting those respective hearings figured that _whichever_ way they decided an appeal would be filed, it wouldn't stun me out of ten years' growth if they chose to shove the whole thing onto the next level. This way they haven't burnt their bridges with the defendants and the defendants' friends and family by declaring him/them guilty, while perhaps privately hoping others will do the deed.

It's odd to think of a trial that renders a decision of "guilty" vs. "not guilty" allowing the _prosecution_ to file an appeal (in criminal court, that cannot happen, so far's I'm aware), but apparently ecclesiastical courts are different. 

You are of course correct that one _should_ decide a case strictly on the merits of the evidence and not permit personal feelings to play a decisive role, but human nature being what it is...it happens. It'd particularly be likely to happen, It seems to me, if an appeal is almost a certainty no matter which way the verdict goes.

Sixty and cynical, that's me.


----------



## Scott1

Anne,

My understanding of the procedure (and someone in the inner workings of these please feel free to correct) is that an individual elder in the Presbytery can file a complaint, first with his Presbytery concerning its decision.

So, one of the elders who felt that the Presbytery did not make the correct decision appeals to his presbytery, with reasoning, for reconsideration.

If the Presbytery declines to reconsider, then an Elder of the Presbytery can ask the higher Court (General Assembly) through its permanent Commission (Standing Judicial Commission) to review it.

There's another way I'm not sure is settled, whether two other Presbyteries can request the higher court to review it, on a basis the host presbytery has "failed to act." The unsettledness being around the meaning of "failure to act," whether that applies to not having done anything or having done something that appears likely to be unconstitutional (contrary to the Book of Church Order, Westminster Standards).

---------- Post added at 07:10 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:01 PM ----------

Don't forget that in the case of the Pacific Northwest, the higher court (SJC) had already sustained a complaint that the earlier Presbytery decision did not appear to comport with denomination's constitution-

hence, the trial with specific guidelines to determine constitutional questions was ordered by the SJC.

So, its not really a case of a prosecutor appealing to get their verdict- it's a review of law (constitution) that forces a sufficient inquiry of constitutional questions at the presbytery level.

That, before a higher court reviews whether that was done.


----------



## Poimen

I don't think we need to come up with a reason as to why we think the Presbytery erred nor do we need to rely upon the opinions of bloggers re: this controversy. For it is longer than and greater than a few years and a few irate or bitter keyboard warriors: many other denominations have joined the call to uphold our biblical, confessional standards. 

Furthermore to spell out why one thinks the Presbytery failed is to invite criticism as to motive searching and may involve a violation of the ninth commandment. In reality one may simply disagree with their assessment based upon their reading of the man and his friends. They reserve that 'right' as a Christian who is charged to use their discernment. To be sure, we should take care when publicly stating that but the courts of the church are not above reproach or disagreement. If they were then the PCA's assessment of FV at GA would have solved this problem long ago.


----------



## MW

In this inclusive age in which we live it appears that many have turned their backs on one of the fundamental actions of the Reformation -- protesting. I wonder how many "reformed" people today identify themselves with this reformation principle and call themselves "Protestant."


----------



## Reformed Musings

Scott,

In the earlier NWP case, the SJC found that NWP erred in not finding a strong probability of guilt with Leithart given the evidence at that time. That was similar to the situation with Louisiana Pres (LAP) w/Wilkins, but not identical. But whereas LAP voted to punt the case directly to the SJC, causing Wilkins to bolt to the CREC as the prosecutor was drawing up the charges, NWP elected to conduct the required trial themselves. We've now seen the result of their secret tribunal.

The next step would be for someone in NWP to complain with grounds against the result. That shouldn't be difficult given the plethora of Leithart's writings and other output. I fully expect NWP to deny the complaint. The complainant then can file with the SJC. 

So, this isn't over by any stretch. The fat lady may be warming up, but she's not close to singing yet and it remains to be seen what the score will be at the end. Psalm 46:10.


----------



## seajayrice

What is deeply saddening is the antiseptic and overly academic dissection of the very real problem of false doctrine. Those charged with pasturing the elect sometimes appear to reduce the pastoral office to academic arguments on orthodoxy while failing to address the issues of how such false doctrine affects God’s sheep. Here is one suggestion to the PCA on this matter - quit fiddling about with Roberts Rules and parliamentary procedure while the elect are being mislead! How would the Apostle Paul deal with matters of false doctrine? How will our Savoir deal with those that would lead the sheep astray? Our PCA church courts look more like the US Congress than the apostolic church of the bible. Thankfully, our fate does not rest in the hands of church officers, truly one prays, God be merciful yet may judgment begin in the House of the Lord! May God grant our Elders wisdom.


----------



## Scott1

seajayrice said:


> What is deeply saddening is the antiseptic and overly academic dissection of the very real problem of false doctrine. Those charged with pasturing the elect sometimes appear to reduce the pastoral office to academic arguments on orthodoxy while failing to address the issues of how such false doctrine affects God’s sheep. Here is one suggestion to the PCA on this matter - quit fiddling about with Roberts Rules and parliamentary procedure while the elect are being mislead! How would the Apostle Paul deal with matters of false doctrine? How will our Savoir deal with those that would lead the sheep astray? Our PCA church courts look more like the US Congress than the apostolic church of the bible. Thankfully, our fate does not rest in the hands of church officers, truly one prays, God be merciful yet may judgment begin in the House of the Lord! May God grant our Elders wisdom.



But procedure also reflects the concern for truth.

For example, giving a chance for appeal to the body that made a decision (Presbytery) before appealing to a higher body (General Assembly).

That's a biblical principle, gives time for reconsideration and repentance.

The stated goals of the procedure is to not prejudice truth, and to protect the church from (doctrinal) harm.

A key principle of reformed theology is that the unity of the church must be grounded in doctrinal agreement. Doctrine matters because God's revealed truth matters to Him (God), and His creatures must respect their Creator's will.

And that truth, the "confession" of a communion is what it represents before the world.

As difficult as it is, that is more important than the egos, seeming friendships or temporary accommodations made by His creatures.

The procedures (and Mr. Roberts rules, and the Presbyterian Book of Church Order seem to implicitly reflect this) are designed to check and balance and give chance for repentance, reconciliation built in-
all aspects of what Scripture tells us is part of human nature and God's ordained means of interacting with it.


----------



## Reformed Musings

seajayrice said:


> Bob,
> 
> Perhaps some expounding on your engagement with the FV within the PCA might be profitable.



I was late to the game. I was asked to be on the Ad Interim Study Committee for FV, NPP, and AAT. At that point, I started reading both sides of the issue, starting with the book on the Knox Colloquium. I read Wilkins, Wilson, Leithart, Meyers, some Jordan (he's a basket case), Horne, Lusk, N.T. Wright, Sanders, Dunn, and others I probably don't remember. Frankly, I was appalled at what I read.

Before the report was released and especially after, the FV bloggers flooded the Internet with spin. Meyers published his 30 reasons not to accept the report, Wilson and Jordan trashed the entire PCA with tirades for even bringing the subject up for discussion. Their blogarhia tried to cover the wealth of material that that PCA FVers had published and said favoring FV, but it had little effect. (BTW, don't go looking for most of the FV stuff written by the PCA FV crowd. They purged the Internet of everything that they could after the SJC accepted Wilkins' case.)

The Ad Interim committee's study report was accepted by about 98% of the 35th GA, joining 6 other orthodox Reformed denominations in rejecting the FV errors. However, that only increased the temperature on the FV blogs. I saw few blogging to hold FVers accountable, so I joined the fray. I continued to read FV material, both on blogs and in their books. Before they virtually withdrew from the Internet, I engaged them regularly on various blogs. The patterns that we discerned in FV during my time on the committee have coalesced significantly since then, including their own FV Statement. Since we published that report in May 2007, I haven't seen anything that even hints at the committee significantly missing the mark.

You are welcome to read my blog on these subjects. The Federal Vision tag will call up the entire corpus. Most of my FV analytical material dates from 2007 and 2008 with a few in 2010 and this year, as nothing has changed theologically since the earlier days. My posts have been directed at a number of underlying theological errors using Scripture and our Reformed fathers to refute FV errors. In doing so, I joined a few others who preceded me by several years on the topic. As I said, I was a late arrival.

I feel that my life experiences also uniquely positions me to observe and act on FV these days. My command experiences taught me a great deal about discipline - both its proper object and uses, and what's necessary to follow through. It also makes me somewhat impatient with what I perceive as an inability of church officers to hold fellow officers accountable. It's almost like a structural weakness in many TEs in regards to making tough decisions concerning their buddies. There are no real and personal consequences for such inability in the PCA like there is in the military. I find that frustrating. Without consequences for failure to lead, there really is little accountability.

There are many more knowledgeable on FV than I. I just try to live up to my vows - to work to preserve the peace and purity of the PCA. Lots of folks are happy to talk about peace. Purity is a more challenging goal, but without it there is no peace. 

I hope that answers your question.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion

Greenbaggins' testimony in the trial was a very edifying read.

AMR


----------



## Reformed Musings

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> Greenbaggins' testimony in the trial was a very edifying read.
> 
> AMR



Lane read virtually everything Leithart wrote, which gave him a outstandingly broad perspective. Lane's diligence and efforts on this case were heroic.


----------



## jwithnell

This whole FV situation reminds me of a wise observation my pastor made: that when the mainline church were fighting so many battles around 1900s, the moderates, by their lack of conviction, handed the denomination over to the liberals. Own their own, the liberal wing would not have had the strength or numbers. If the PCA does not firmly refute FV, it shall loses its ability to stand on the scriptures and will lose the sound interpretation of the scriptures in the Westminster standards.

Re: membership. Someone who does not hold to a reformed position will likely be questioned closely about why he wants to join a Presbyterian Church. Most churches also require classes that explain the doctrinal distinctives of a denomination along with its history and practice. But a credible profession is what is required. Someone standing outside the reformed doctrines would not be permitted to hold office. And discipline would certainly become an issue if someone tries to hijack every discussion or otherwise disturb the teaching and peace of the church. I think this is one of the reasons why a presbyterian form of church government is so essential: those who hold to the confessional standards (the officers) make the major decisions for the church in a representative fashion. But if you are one of Jesus' sheep, you are welcome in the fold.


----------



## sastark

armourbearer said:


> In this inclusive age in which we live it appears that many have turned their backs on one of the fundamental actions of the Reformation -- protesting. I wonder how many "reformed" people today identify themselves with this reformation principle and call themselves "Protestant."



Interesting you should write this, Rev. Winzer, as I have described myself as a "Protestant" more often, lately.


----------



## sdesocio

Someone should close this post.


----------



## sastark

sdesocio said:


> Someone should close this post.



Why?


----------



## NaphtaliPress

If you mean close the thread, I think I can say that none of the moderators have seen any reason to do so. Please let the moderators moderate. If you feel strongly that some post or thread has crossed some line, use the Report post feature (the triangle with the exclamation point amongst the three symbols next to "Blog this Post" at the bottom of every post in a thread). A moderator will then look into it and make a decision.


sdesocio said:


> Someone should close this post.


----------



## Reformed Musings

NaphtaliPress said:


> If you mean close the thread, I think I can say that none of the moderators have seen any reason to do so. Please let the moderators moderate. If you feel strongly that some post or thread has crossed some line, use the Report post feature (the triangle with the exclamation point amongst the three symbols next to "Blog this Post" at the bottom of every post in a thread). A moderator will then look into it and make a decision.
> 
> 
> sdesocio said:
> 
> 
> 
> Someone should close this post.
Click to expand...


Thanks, Chris, and to your fellow mods. This continues to be an interesting, open discussion.


----------



## MW

sastark said:


> Interesting you should write this, Rev. Winzer, as I have described myself as a "Protestant" more often, lately.



The Free Church and the Associate churches have much in common in this respect. We can be thankful we have protests forming a part of our constitutional documents.


----------



## Wayne

Matthew: 

I'll gladly take this to a new thread if it requires or gathers more than your reply:

I've heard the contention that "Protestant" historically meant not "Protesting" but rather "Pro-testamentum" = "for the Gospel".

Anything to that, historically? Or just merely an artful ploy?


----------



## MW

Wayne said:


> I've heard the contention that "Protestant" historically meant not "Protesting" but rather "Pro-testamentum" = "for the Gospel".
> 
> Anything to that, historically? Or just merely an artful ploy?



Wayne, it sounds like an artful ploy. It comes from protestari, to declare, protest. It is historically tied to the protestation against the decision of the Diet of Spires. The functionality of the protest in Presbyterian polity is a procedural bar to churches making their synods or councils the rule of faith and practice. Any measure taken to smother this important function is in effect a return to Popery and a denial of the Protestant nature of the church.


----------



## Wayne

Thanks. Should have known. That's what I get for such focus on the 19th Century.


----------



## Reformed Musings

Hi Wayne!

Google doesn't turn up anything on that, and I have not come across it before in anything that I've read. Sounds a bit like the popular myth that Apple computer's logo was based on Turin's suicide method, but I'm certainly open to being educated on the origins of the term "Protestant".


----------



## Wayne

I'm satisfied with Matthew's answer, Bob.


----------



## Phil D.

You can read about it here.


----------



## Reformed Musings

Wayne,

OK, but I am particularly fond of my Apple logo reference. After all, that logo is actually the mark of the beast (see Gen 3).

Besides, Matthew can't even spell "armor" correctly.


----------



## MW

Reformed Musings said:


> Besides, Matthew can't even spell "armor" correctly.



It might have something to do with the fact that I don't sleep in the right time zone.


----------



## DMcFadden

Not guilty of being FV?

and the Westminster Confession is not Calvinist . . . 
and the PC is not guilty of being a computer . . . 
and oranges are not citrus fruit . . . 
and the Superbowl winner does not play football . . .

Very curious. Very curious.

Thanks, Lane. It sounds like you were heroic (or at least legendary).


----------



## jwright82

As others have pointed out this is a lot like what Machen dealt with in his day, Godly men and women siding with compromise rather than truth. I do think that the question is worth raising though what danger is this view really for the average PCA member? I know and agree that this an error and is therefore wrong but it seems to me that the average church member wouldn't even know what is being talked about. This does raise concerns that a FV minister could teach his errors and people wouldn't even know the difference. But it seems to me that it is a smaller concern compared to our other problems. 

I am sad by the result of these two cases but it seems to be a local problem in certian presbyteries and not the church in general. I mean why is there not a bigger stink about Enns, who is much more dangerous to a PCA dominated by more or less Evangelicals rather than strictly Reformed people. Evangelicalism is much accomodating to evolution and liberalism than FV ever will be. So why not focus our energy on the worse danger and than deal with the lesser problem?


----------



## py3ak

jwright82 said:


> I am sad by the result of these two cases but it seems to be a local problem in certian presbyteries and not the church in general. I mean why is there not a bigger stink about Enns, who is much more dangerous to a PCA dominated by more or less Evangelicals rather than strictly Reformed people. Evangelicalism is much accomodating to evolution and liberalism than FV ever will be. So why not focus our energy on the worse danger and than deal with the lesser problem?



It's not hard to imagine someone in, say, John Owen's time raising the same point about Arminians vs. Socinians, or Brownists vs. Antinomians, or any combination. What is particularly dangerous will vary from person to person. And the analysis of what is worse will probably also depend on what the analyst has a particular background in or is alert to. But when something is striking at the vitals of Reformed doctrine, it is hard to quantify the danger. How do you choose between being hanged, shot in the heart, or having your head cut off?


----------



## Reformed Musings

armourbearer said:


> Reformed Musings said:
> 
> 
> 
> Besides, Matthew can't even spell "armor" correctly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It might have something to do with the fact that I don't sleep in the right time zone.
Click to expand...


ROFL!!!


----------



## jwright82

py3ak said:


> It's not hard to imagine someone in, say, John Owen's time raising the same point about Arminians vs. Socinians, or Brownists vs. Antinomians, or any combination. What is particularly dangerous will vary from person to person. And the analysis of what is worse will probably also depend on what the analyst has a particular background in or is alert to. But when something is striking at the vitals of Reformed doctrine, it is hard to quantify the danger. How do you choose between being hanged, shot in the heart, or having your head cut off?



Good point. It just seems odd to me that you see much more cries about this issue than the Enn's issue, not to get off topic. I would say that it is much more a danger in the OPC because it is smaller and seems less evagelical than the PCA. You are right that it is a perceptual thing. I am more concerned with the Enn's issue because of my backround in apologetics and dealing with accomodation to evolution by evangelicals. So I am glad that this issue is being dealt with but why plug what seems to me to be a hole in the ship when you have a gash on the other side, your still going to sink.


----------



## py3ak

jwright82 said:


> Good point. It just seems odd to me that you see much more cries about this issue than the Enn's issue, not to get off topic. I would say that it is much more a danger in the OPC because it is smaller and seems less evagelical than the PCA. You are right that it is a perceptual thing. I am more concerned with the Enn's issue because of my backround in apologetics and dealing with accomodation to evolution by evangelicals. So I am glad that this issue is being dealt with but why plug what seems to me to be a hole in the ship when you have a gash on the other side, your still going to sink.



Yes, we need to plug *all* the fatal leaks and pump periodically for the non-fatal. Enns, Carolyn Custis James, Leithart - we need repair jobs on all of what they represent, perhaps even drydock.


----------



## Scott1

jwright82 said:


> I do think that the question is worth raising though what danger is this view really for the average PCA member? I know and agree that this an error and is therefore wrong but it seems to me that the average church member wouldn't even know what is being talked about. This does raise concerns that a FV minister could teach his errors and people wouldn't even know the difference. But it seems to me that it is a smaller concern compared to our other problems.



When one is talking about key doctrines like these:



> 1. That TE Leithart in his views and teachings contradicts both the Westminster Standards and Scripture by attributing to the sacrament of baptism saving benefits such as regeneration, union with Christ, and adoption.
> 
> 2. That TE Leithart in his views and teachings rejects the covenant of works/covenant of grace structure set forth in the Westminster Standards.
> 
> 3. That TE Leithart in his views and teachings rejects the teaching of the Westminster Standards that the obedience and satisfaction of Christ are imputed to the believer.
> 
> 4. That TE Leithart in his views and teachings fails, contrary to the Westminster Standards, to properly distinguish justification from sanctification.
> 
> 5. That TE Leithart in his views and teachings contradicts the Westminster Standards by teaching that people may be truly united with Christ and receive saving benefits from him, and yet fall away from Christ and lose those saving benefits .



It is difficult to pick a most serious place to start, because they are all so serious... and have such major implications for church doctrine and practice.

Undermining assurance of salvation, for example- it's hard to imagine something more damaging than that. 

But that's not all-
confusing, or denying the biblical gospel so that it is earned by sacraments and works?
That's going to effect every person sitting in the congregation and how they view God, and their place in His church.

And that someone can contradict or confuse or undermine confidence in the the Westminster Standards (by implying they are substantially wrong or inadequate) with modern inventions emanating from a lone British Theologian and openly teach such, undermines the sanctity of vows....

It's hard to imagine something having more impact on the average member, nor being of a more serious nature to a confessional church.


----------



## timmopussycat

armourbearer said:


> Reformed Musings said:
> 
> 
> 
> Besides, Matthew can't even spell "armor" correctly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It might have something to do with the fact that I don't sleep in the right time zone.
Click to expand...


But I spell armour correctly and I sleep in the right time zone. Three cheers for English English!
(If Samuel Rutherford had seen the Lions' Gate and the North Shore he wouldn't have called Anworth heaven.)


----------



## Jason J. Stellman

All trial docs are finally uploaded and available to the public:

Creed Code Cult: All Trial Documents Now Publicized


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

> Finally, the Bible makes it clear that there is a perfect obedience that is not meritorious, when Jesus said:
> 39 “So you also, when you have done all that you were commanded, say, ‘We are unworthy servants; we
> 40 have only done what was our duty’ ” (Luke 17:10).



I find this most shocking. When Christ fulfilled all he fulfilled as a man, would you say that He was an unworthy servant? I am almost willing to conclude this is poor exegesis. There is a lot in this document that I need to read and reread. But it does seem to be precise. I am still stuck on the above though. The context of this passage seems to be a bit out of kilter to me when I think of the context of Adam the first and the Second Adam. We are unworthy servants because of sin. Now maybe God was graciously condescending to Adam in the Covenant of Life but Adam still had a context that isn't quite like ours. He was to obtain that worthiness of life. He forfeited it. We are in a fallen estate now. We should always consider ourselves unworthy. Adam was charged to tend the garden and not eat of the tree. All of his posterity depended upon it. What did Christ do? As the second Adam he stayed a worthy servant and earned the right by duty. And in the Covenant of Grace I am going to be at peace with God based upon the Covenant of Life. I just didn't fulfill it in a worthy manner as Adam was supposed to and as Christ Jesus did. Christ did it for me. Christ's perfect obedience was meritorious. And He is a worthy servant. The Covenant of Life has been fulfilled. 

I just don't get the reference in the context of the Covenant of Works.

Oops, and btw, this very little contextual thing was on page 18 of the 'Judgment and Reasoning of the Standing Judicial Commission To the Presbytery of the Pacific Northwest October 7, 2011.'


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

> *Post-Trial Motions Adopted by Presbytery after Decision on its SJC Report*
> 
> Motion C – Public Comments, Timing, DPO’s
> Presbytery adopted the following 5 statements:
> 
> 
> C1) DPOs - In addition to the option of filing a formal Complaint or Appeal, Presbyter reminds
> teaching elders and ruling elder commissioners of their right to file a BCO 45 Dissent, Protest or
> Objection (“DPO”). [BCO 45 shown in Rationale.] A DPO would be a written critique of
> Presbytery’s action and would be publicly recorded with the minutes. However, anyone expecting
> to file a Complaint or Appeal should withhold any DPO until after his Complaint or Appeal has
> been adjudicated finally by the Presbytery or GA, or withdrawn. It would likely be premature to
> file a DPO while the Church is still considering the matter via Complaint or Appeal.
> 
> 
> C2) Non-debatable motions - Since there are 30 days during which a Complaint could be filed with
> Presbytery, all presbyters are reminded to be careful about publishing, posting, or distributing
> anything that might reasonably be considered as “debating the decision” - especially if done by
> someone who is eventually a complainant. Any Complaint filed against the original non-debatable
> recommendations would also be non-debatable and therefore, publishing, posting or distributing
> arguments during the 30-day window could be considered the equivalent of debate, which is not
> allowed. This situation results from our BCO requiring Complaints to first be filed with the
> original court - even if the action complained against resulted from a non-debatable motion.
> 
> 
> C3) Internet - Presbytery does not consider blogging or posting a disagreement on the internet to be the
> most appropriate method for a presbyter or church member to express disagreement with any
> Presbytery decision. Such public disagreement would most appropriately be expressed by (1)
> seeking reconsideration and/or higher court review via Complaint or Appeal, or (2) by expressing
> disagreement in a DPO. Unlike a blog or email, a formal DPO allows the court the opportunity to
> answer it prior to publicly recording it. To that end, Motion A1 tasks the AC to web-post any DPO,
> along with any answer from Presbytery. The BCO recognizes and protects the Church’s right and
> privilege to have the final word on such matters. After a DPO has been filed, reviewed, answered
> & recorded, BCO 45-5 stipulates: “Here the matter shall end.”
> 
> 
> C4) Vows - Presbytery believes respect for these BCO-provided avenues of expressing disagreement
> with the Church is related to the “subjection” and “submission” promised in ordination and
> membership vows (TEs BCO 21-5 vow 4; elders BCO 24-6 vow 5; members BCO 57-5 vow 5).
> 
> 
> C5) Outside PNW - Presbytery requests PCA members from other Presbyteries to likewise be careful
> to appropriately respect the decision of this court of the Church, as they also are constrained by
> their vows. We believe this even includes how someone might blog about this decision. The BCO
> provides adequate avenues for seeking scrutiny from the broader Church, if someone felt it was
> necessary (e.g., BCO 40 on General Review and Control)



A lot of thought has gone into this. May the next part of the process be effective.


----------



## jwright82

py3ak said:


> Yes, we need to plug all the fatal leaks and pump periodically for the non-fatal. Enns, Carolyn Custis James, Leithart - we need repair jobs on all of what they represent, perhaps even drydock.



Of course I agree but what is being done comparativly speaking about those other issues considering what is being done about the FV? 




Scott1 said:


> When one is talking about key doctrines like these:
> 
> 
> 1. That TE Leithart in his views and teachings contradicts both the Westminster Standards and Scripture by attributing to the sacrament of baptism saving benefits such as regeneration, union with Christ, and adoption.
> 
> 2. That TE Leithart in his views and teachings rejects the covenant of works/covenant of grace structure set forth in the Westminster Standards.
> 
> 3. That TE Leithart in his views and teachings rejects the teaching of the Westminster Standards that the obedience and satisfaction of Christ are imputed to the believer.
> 
> 4. That TE Leithart in his views and teachings fails, contrary to the Westminster Standards, to properly distinguish justification from sanctification.
> 
> 5. That TE Leithart in his views and teachings contradicts the Westminster Standards by teaching that people may be truly united with Christ and receive saving benefits from him, and yet fall away from Christ and lose those saving benefits .
> It is difficult to pick a most serious place to start, because they are all so serious... and have such major implications for church doctrine and practice.
> 
> Undermining assurance of salvation, for example- it's hard to imagine something more damaging than that.
> 
> But that's not all-
> confusing, or denying the biblical gospel so that it is earned by sacraments and works?
> That's going to effect every person sitting in the congregation and how they view God, and their place in His church.
> 
> And that someone can contradict or confuse or undermine confidence in the the Westminster Standards (by implying they are substantially wrong or inadequate) with modern inventions emanating from a lone British Theologian and openly teach such, undermines the sanctity of vows....
> 
> It's hard to imagine something having more impact on the average member, nor being of a more serious nature to a confessional church.



Of course I agree, these are serious errors. But if we win the battle against the FV and lose the war against a liberalizing evangelicalism than what have we gained? Like I have read about Machen and his reluctance to fight a battle over evolution along with the Fundamentalists, he saw that that was one battle in a larger war with Modernism. I for one don't see the FV and liberal evangelicalism as two totally seperate issues per se. They are two examples of the eroding commitment to Reformed Orthodoxy. If we were more faithful as a denomonation than neither problem would have crept in, In my humble opinion.


----------



## py3ak

jwright82 said:


> Of course I agree but what is being done comparativly speaking about those other issues considering what is being done about the FV?



On that, I don't know. It takes very committed people to be willing to press charges and pursue a resolution through the courts of the church: and not everyone with the fortitude has standing (and not everyone with standing has the fortitude or sees the need).


----------



## jwright82

py3ak said:


> jwright82 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course I agree but what is being done comparativly speaking about those other issues considering what is being done about the FV?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On that, I don't know. It takes very committed people to be willing to press charges and pursue a resolution through the courts of the church: and not everyone with the fortitude has standing (and not everyone with standing has the fortitude or sees the need).
Click to expand...


Very true.


----------



## J. Dean

A comment I'd like to make upon reading the blog of greenbaggins: Mr. Leithart's view of baptism looks more like the Lutheran understanding of it than the Calvinist understanding.


----------



## Zenas

Reading Mr. Stellman's blog, these trials seem to function remarkably akin to secular trials. A motion for directed verdict is something defendants routinely make in civil trials. It always comes after the plaintiff has closed their case. It's a routine motion. If I recall correctly, you *must* make it to preserve your case for appeal.


----------



## Romans922

I want to praise God for Lane Keister for Lane had to go through such horrible attacks in the name of Christ. Praise God for the faithfulness towards truth and the Word He has given to Lane. You can read them starting on Page 117 of the trial transcripts: http://pnwp.org/images/resources/final-leithart-trial-transcript.pdf


----------



## Zenas

Frankly, that's tame cross-examination.

p. 129:15-17. Rev. Kiester made a joke. Compare with p. 128:10-12.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

I have a small question. Is some of this over the law / gospel dichotomy stuff that I have been having some problems with concerning WSCAL, Horton, and WHI? I am speaking about the justification / sanctification stuff. I am no fan of Klinean Theology. I am having a lot of problems holding on to the dichotomous views of law and gospel that some have been pointing to. Of course I do understand the distinctions as it appears Leithart might also. I have even been charged being FV by a close friend because I hold to the Reformed view of sanctification. He hates my blog posts on the PB. I am not confused about justification and sanctification and according to the ruling neither is Leithart. Just wondering. Is the Klinean creeping weed part of this problem. I am confused by some of the other issues. But I was wondering about this one. I was also concerned about the rulings saying that no evidence was given. I have a lot of reading to do. I have to wait a bit longer though because my head is full of a cold virus.


----------



## Scott1

jwright82 said:


> Of course I agree, these are serious errors.
> More than serious errors,
> they test the basis of a confessional church. They affect the basic Christian practice of the church.
> 
> But if we win the battle against the FV and lose the war against a liberalizing evangelicalism than what have we gained?
> The former is at issue and in process now. It stands on its own terms. It is not relative, nor conditioned upon a vague notion of stopping "liberalizing evangelicalism." And by the way, knowing what Scripture tells us about this world, how would we know when we had stopped it? When will that happen?
> 
> If we looked at sin in that context, we would have a defeatist attitude that was neither true nor helpful to our sanctification.
> 
> Like I have read about Machen and his reluctance to fight a battle over evolution along with the Fundamentalists, he saw that that was one battle in a larger war with Modernism. I for one don't see the FV and liberal evangelicalism as two totally seperate issues per se. They are two examples of the eroding commitment to Reformed Orthodoxy. If we were more faithful as a denomonation than neither problem would have crept in, In my humble opinion.
> 
> Many are trying, right now, let's not be dismissive of their efforts.


.


----------



## Jason J. Stellman

Couple quick things. The issue with the move for a directed verdict was that the man making the motion had not read the testimony by his own admission.

And concerning WSC/Horton/Law-Gospel stuff, I don't think that has anything to do with it. All I was trying to get Collins to say was that Adam's obedience functioned for him covenantally as a condition to gain the reward, whereas for us it does not. We're not second Adams, Jesus is.


----------



## MW

PuritanCovenanter said:


> When Christ fulfilled all he fulfilled as a man, would you say that He was an unworthy servant? I am almost willing to conclude this is poor exegesis.



The Canons of Dordt: "*This death derives its infinite value and dignity* from these considerations, *because the person who submitted to it was not only really man*, and perfectly holy, *but also the only begotten Son of God*, of the same eternal and infinite essence with the Father and the Holy Spirit, *which qualifications were necessary to constitute him a Saviour for us*; and because it was attended with a sense of the wrath and curse of God due to us for sin."

The Westminster Larger Catechism: "*It was requisite that the Mediator should be God*, *that he might* sustain and keep the human nature from sinking under the infinite wrath of God, and the power of death; *give worth and efficacy to his sufferings*, *obedience*, *and intercession*; and to satisfy God's justice, procure his favour, purchase a peculiar people, give his Spirit to them, conquer all their enemies, and bring them to everlasting salvation."


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

armourbearer said:


> PuritanCovenanter said:
> 
> 
> 
> When Christ fulfilled all he fulfilled as a man, would you say that He was an unworthy servant? I am almost willing to conclude this is poor exegesis.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Canons of Dordt: "*This death derives its infinite value and dignity* from these considerations, *because the person who submitted to it was not only really man*, and perfectly holy, *but also the only begotten Son of God*, of the same eternal and infinite essence with the Father and the Holy Spirit, *which qualifications were necessary to constitute him a Saviour for us*; and because it was attended with a sense of the wrath and curse of God due to us for sin."
> 
> The Westminster Larger Catechism: "*It was requisite that the Mediator should be God*, *that he might* sustain and keep the human nature from sinking under the infinite wrath of God, and the power of death; *give worth and efficacy to his sufferings*, *obedience*, *and intercession*; and to satisfy God's justice, procure his favour, purchase a peculiar people, give his Spirit to them, conquer all their enemies, and bring them to everlasting salvation."
Click to expand...


Reverend Winzer, I might be mistaken but it appears that Dr. Leithart does deny some of this. Especially the part about *procuring his favour*. I am reading on Imputation right now the following section. Maybe I am not understanding Dr. Leithart but I have had many alarms arise from his defense concerning active obedience and imputation also. 



> 3 Q: Do you believe that Christ is a representative head whose obedience and 4 satisfaction is imputed to believers?
> 5 A: I do believe that. If that’s intended as a statement of the imputation of active
> 6 obedience, I don’t agree with it and I don’t believe the standards require that I believe that.
> 7 Q: Do you believe that merit should be stricken from theological vocabulary?
> 8 A: I explained this some in the defense brief. Merit is an extra-biblical term but
> 9 so are a lot of our bibl- - are a lot of our theological terms. There’s nothing wrong with
> 10 using extra-biblical terms. As far as I’ve been able to tell, the Westminster Confession
> 11 never speaks of the merit of Jesus. And or of the imputation of Jesus’ merit. And, or the, I
> 12 should say, it speaks of the merit of Jesus but doesn’t speak of the imputed - - imputed
> 13 merit of Jesus. That’s not language that it uses. I should say too this was brought up by Dr.
> 14 Horton’s testimony. I - - I question the use of merit even when it’s, I do this in the defense
> 15 brief. I question the use of merit when it’s used in relation to the work of Jesus. Classically
> 16 there are two different kinds of merit. There is merit strictly speaking or condign merit,
> 17 which means that you have - - you do something and you earn by virtue of that action, earn
> 18 a reward. Or con- - or congruent merit, which is merit that is fitting to the action and not
> 19 necessarily earning it. I don’t think that either of those apply to the work of Jesus. Jesus is
> 20 the incarnate son. *Jesus doesn’t come here in order to earn the father’s favor. * He’s in the
> 21 father’s favor from beginning to end. He does come in order to obey perfectly. In order to
> 22 purchase our, in order to purchase our salvation. I think the idea of merit confuses,
> 
> PCA v. Leithart - Trial Transcript - Page 177
> 
> 
> 1 confuses that. And it seems to me it’s forgetful of the fact that this is the incarnate son that
> 2 we’re talking about



I am not PCA and I am trying to understand this. So.... I understand that Christ was in favor with God as Adam was. We aren't. Christ wasn't under Adam as we are. But... He had to do something. Had he not done the things he did he would have sinned. Are his works attributed to us or not? How does union with Christ eliminate what He actively did on our behalf and is it credited to us as though we did it. Maybe I am off base in my understanding.


----------



## Philip

PuritanCovenanter said:


> I am reading on Imputation right now on in this section. Maybe I am not understanding Dr. Leithart but I have had many alarms arise from his defense concerning active obedience and imputation also.



I think the move he's making is to subsume imputation (or something close to it) under union with Christ, at least in this section. He clearly doesn't like the language of imputation, but I think He does (at least in this section) have something similar in mind. Does he end up talking about union with Christ (I'm currently knee-deep in German and Trinitarian Theology, so I don't have time to read the material)?


----------



## Reformed Musings

From the PCA's study report accepted by about 98% of the 35th GA:

"3 In light of the controversy surrounding the NPP and FV, and after many months of careful
4 study, the committee unanimously makes the following declarations:"

"19 4. The view that strikes the language of “merit” from our theological vocabulary so that the
20 claim is made that Christ’s merits are not imputed to his people is contrary to the
21 Westminster Standards.
22
23 5. The view that “union with Christ” renders imputation redundant because it subsumes all
24 of Christ’s benefits (including justification) under this doctrinal heading is contrary to
25 the Westminster Standards."

I don't think that it gets any clearer. Leithart's statement seems like a direct contradiction of these declarations.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Leithart:


> 7 Q: Do you believe that merit should be stricken from theological vocabulary?
> 8 A: I explained this some in the defense brief. Merit is an extra-biblical term but
> 9 so are a lot of our bibl- - are a lot of our theological terms. There’s nothing wrong with
> 10 using extra-biblical terms. As far as I’ve been able to tell, the Westminster Confession
> 11 never speaks of the merit of Jesus. And or of the imputation of Jesus’ merit. And, or the, I
> 12 should say, it speaks of the merit of Jesus but doesn’t speak of the imputed - - imputed
> 13 merit of Jesus. That’s not language that it uses. I should say too this was brought up by Dr.
> 14 Horton’s testimony. I - - I question the use of merit even when it’s, I do this in the defense
> 15 brief. I question the use of merit when it’s used in relation to the work of Jesus. Classically
> 16 there are two different kinds of merit. There is merit strictly speaking or condign merit,
> 17 which means that you have - - you do something and you earn by virtue of that action, earn
> 18 a reward. Or con- - or congruent merit, which is merit that is fitting to the action and not
> 19 necessarily earning it. I don’t think that either of those apply to the work of Jesus. Jesus is
> 20 the incarnate son. Jesus doesn’t come here in order to earn the father’s favor. He’s in the
> 21 father’s favor from beginning to end. He does come in order to obey perfectly. In order to
> 22 purchase our, in order to purchase our salvation. I think the idea of merit confuses,



WLC:

Q. 55. How doeth Christ make intercession?
A. Christ maketh intercession, by his appearing in our nature continually before the Father in heaven,234 in *the merit of his obedience* and sacrifice on earth,235 declaring his will to *have it applied to all believers*;236 answering all accusations against them,237 and procuring for them quiet of conscience, notwithstanding daily failings,238 access with boldness to the throne of grace,239 and acceptance of their persons240 and services.241

Q. 70. What is justification?
A. Justification is an act of God’s free grace unto sinners,286 in which he pardoneth all their sins, accepteth and accounteth their persons righteous in his sight;287 not for any thing wrought in them, or done by them,288 but only for the *perfect obedience* and full satisfaction of Christ, by God *imputed* to them,289 and received by faith alone.290

The Westminster *Standards* speak of both the merit of Christ's obedience and the imputation of that obedience to all believers.


----------



## mvdm

Jason J. Stellman said:


> And concerning WSC/Horton/Law-Gospel stuff, I don't think that has anything to do with it. All I was trying to get Collins to say was that Adam's obedience functioned for him covenantally as a condition to gain the reward, whereas for us it does not. We're not second Adams, Jesus is.



Randy is on to something. Odd that the trial prosecutor is unaware that Horton's idiosyncratic dichtomous covenant theology in fact was a key factor in the Court not being convinced by Horton's testimony. The Court stated:

_"In the testimony of this case, we have experienced just such an example of reading one’s own theology into the Confession. One of the prosecution’s witnesses, Dr. Michael Horton, repeatedly insisted on the law/gospel dichotomy that he claimed pervades the Standards. And it was Dr. Leithart’s failure to endorse this dichotomy that appeared to be his great crime in this witness’s opinion. Dr. Horton seemed, indeed, to think that the law/gospel dichotomy IS the system of doctrine of the Westminster Standards. Yet we also heard testimony from the defense that the Standards, while certainly aware of the differences between law and gospel, are not structured or built around such an antithetical relationship. Rather, the Confession says that law and gospel “sweetly comply” with one another (WCF 19.7). It would be a most egregious redefinition of Constitutional terms to say that “sweetly comply” means “are absolutely contradictory.” {SJC Judgment, p. 9,10}._


----------



## TimV

Hey, Pastor Jason. Just an aside, but I've been thankful to the Lord for you for quite a long time. I'm sure there are many, many, others, and I hope you know that, even when it seems like you're getting piled on in your own "house".


----------



## Kevin

Romans922 said:


> I want to praise God for Lane Keister for Lane had to go through such horrible attacks in the name of Christ. Praise God for the faithfulness towards truth and the Word He has given to Lane. You can read them starting on Page 117 of the trial transcripts: http://pnwp.org/images/resources/final-leithart-trial-transcript.pdf


I just read the cross examination of Lane. And he did NOT go through anything nearly as dramatic as an "Attack", horrible or otherwise. He was cross examined very gently, given what was at stake, in my opinion.

And it was not in the name of Christ. It was in the name of defrocking a minister for his theological views. That is something very different. We would do well to remember the distinction.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

From the bottom of page 194 to 199 I am finding Dr. Leithart very unconfessional concerning the Covenants. It is quite an interesting weave he tries to make. Jason did a good job trying to get him to clarify the way Life was appropriated and distinguished between the Prelapsarian Covenant and the Postlapsarian Covenant. N. T. Wright pops up also. Leithart should have been found guilty in my estimation.

Rich, Thank You. I have set my goal to read and reread the Standards at least once a year. I need to bump it up a notch it appears. It also seems Dr. Leithart is confused about Hebrews 6 and Christ in you the Hope of Glory in relation to baptism. Just my humble opinion. But I am just a layman. I do think I understand his position a bit more clearer but it is very muddy also. I am grateful for the work the NWP did but I believe the rulers dropped the ball significantly. And I do believe some of this confusion does appear to be about the dichotomous view of law and Gospel. It is confused on both sides of the isle maybe. Again, just my opnion.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

mvdm said:


> Jason J. Stellman said:
> 
> 
> 
> And concerning WSC/Horton/Law-Gospel stuff, I don't think that has anything to do with it. All I was trying to get Collins to say was that Adam's obedience functioned for him covenantally as a condition to gain the reward, whereas for us it does not. We're not second Adams, Jesus is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Randy is on to something. Odd that the trial prosecutor is unaware that Horton's idiosyncratic dichtomous covenant theology in fact was a key factor in the Court not being convinced by Horton's testimony. The Court stated:
> 
> _"In the testimony of this case, we have experienced just such an example of reading one’s own theology into the Confession. One of the prosecution’s witnesses, Dr. Michael Horton, repeatedly insisted on the law/gospel dichotomy that he claimed pervades the Standards. And it was Dr. Leithart’s failure to endorse this dichotomy that appeared to be his great crime in this witness’s opinion. Dr. Horton seemed, indeed, to think that the law/gospel dichotomy IS the system of doctrine of the Westminster Standards. Yet we also heard testimony from the defense that the Standards, while certainly aware of the differences between law and gospel, are not structured or built around such an antithetical relationship. Rather, the Confession says that law and gospel “sweetly comply” with one another (WCF 19.7). It would be a most egregious redefinition of Constitutional terms to say that “sweetly comply” means “are absolutely contradictory.” {SJC Judgment, p. 9,10}._
Click to expand...


I agree with Jason here. If you read what Mike is pointing out it is summarized on page 53:


> In treating evangelical obedience, of course, reformed theologians have historically 3 talked about covenantal obedience as the way of life, not the way to life. It’s a common 4 phrase. And I think that that has been collapsed here in these citations. In any case, Dr. 5 Leithart seems to reject the teaching of the standards on the covenant of works and the 6 covenant of grace. So, to the question as to whether his position is mono-covenantal or bi-7 covenantal, Dr. Leithart replies: I refuse to choose. All covenants are legal and gracious. 8
> So it’s really one covenant it seems. Therefore, he is in fact, mono-covenantal and 9 although this term is extra-confessional, the concept is obviously rejected by the 10 affirmation of the covenant of works distinct from the covenant of grace. With such a 11 contrast, that the standards make of it. It should be noted again, that legal and gracious 12 refer to the basis of a covenant not just to its presence there.


Regardless of other ways one might disagree with Mike on other issues, he is spot on in his points about how the Confession clearly differentiates between a Covenant of Works and the Covenant of Grace.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Kevin said:


> Romans922 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I want to praise God for Lane Keister for Lane had to go through such horrible attacks in the name of Christ. Praise God for the faithfulness towards truth and the Word He has given to Lane. You can read them starting on Page 117 of the trial transcripts: http://pnwp.org/images/resources/final-leithart-trial-transcript.pdf
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I just read the cross examination of Lane. And he did NOT go through anything nearly as dramatic as an "Attack", horrible or otherwise. He was cross examined very gently, given what was at stake, in my opinion.
> 
> And it was not in the name of Christ. It was in the name of defrocking a minister for his theological views. That is something very different. We would do well to remember the distinction..
Click to expand...


They tried to discredit him and his learning. They tried to bring up his understanding of the sacrament of baptism. That to me indicates that his duty as a minister was also being questioned. After all he has served outside of his boundaries. You must have read something else Kevin.


----------



## jwright82

Scott1 said:


> More than serious errors,
> they test the basis of a confessional church. They affect the basic Christian practice of the church.



Of course, which kind of disease is more the dangerous the more contagious or the less? Enns, to me, is much more contagious than FV. Not that FV is not serious but being a bit realistic is In my humble opinion a little more serious and it seems that nothing is being done about him.




Scott1 said:


> The former is at issue and in process now. It stands on its own terms. It is not relative, nor conditioned upon a vague notion of stopping "liberalizing evangelicalism." And by the way, knowing what Scripture tells us about this world, how would we know when we had stopped it? When will that happen?



When we have a "revival" of Reformed Orthodoxy in our churches. The question is over looked in your response, if we win this battle over FV but lose the greater war, than what do we gain? We don't have to win per se but only fight for the truth against our greatest danger. 




Scott1 said:


> If we looked at sin in that context, we would have a defeatist attitude that was neither true nor helpful to our sanctification.



I'm talking about challanging these trends towards a liberal evangelicalism, that is hardly "defeatist". 




Scott1 said:


> Many are trying, right now, let's not be dismissive of their efforts.



I'm not, I don't know (beyond Gaffin's response to Enns) of anyone who is challanging Enns and his theology. I am proud that there are people challanging FV, but is it the greatest danger we have as a denomination?


----------



## Semper Fidelis

jwright82 said:


> When we have a "revival" of Reformed Orthodoxy in our churches. The question is over looked in your response, if we win this battle over FV but lose the greater war, than what do we gain? We don't have to win per se but only fight for the truth against our greatest danger.


I think you're vastly underestimating what's at stake by placing the FV as some sort of peripheral issue. Either you don't understand the FV very well or you don't understand Reformed orthodoxy well if you think this is peripheral.


----------



## jwright82

Semper Fidelis said:


> I think you're vastly underestimating what's at stake by placing the FV as some sort of peripheral issue. Either you don't understand the FV very well or you don't understand Reformed orthodoxy well if you think this is peripheral.



Well I apologize if I have implied that this issue is "peripheral". I never used that word myself but I think I can see where someone might get that impression. My point is this you are faced with with two sets of heresies one is more likley to be accepted by the average pew sitting christian in the PCA. Which one is then more important to deal with? In my experience PCA members are far more likley to be drawn into a more liberal P.O.V. than a theology that most of them wouldn't understand to begin with. I will hands down agree that FV is far more serious for the OPC because of its theological demographics, but the PCA is different (not that I don't love my denomination). 

I am glad that we are dealing with this issue (despite the Presbyteries rulings) but I don't see the same passion in dealing with Enns. So that rules out me thinking this FV heresy is "peripheral".And if my point holds that Enns is far more a danger to the PCA than FV, than it makes sense to have the same passion for that heresy as well.


----------



## TimV

> I think you're vastly underestimating what's at stake by placing the FV as some sort of peripheral issue. Either you don't understand the FV very well or you don't understand Reformed orthodoxy well if you think this is peripheral.



I agree and appreciate your mature response, James. I "think" I know you well enough that if you see people in your Presbytery "pushing" Enns you'll be all over them like a bee on honey.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

jwright82 said:


> Well I apologize if I have implied that this issue is "peripheral". I never used that word myself but I think I can see where someone might get that impression. My point is this you are faced with with two sets of heresies one is more likley to be accepted by the average pew sitting christian in the PCA. Which one is then more important to deal with? In my experience PCA members are far more likley to be drawn into a more liberal P.O.V. than a theology that most of them wouldn't understand to begin with. I will hands down agree that FV is far more serious for the OPC because of its theological demographics, but the PCA is different (not that I don't love my denomination).
> 
> I am glad that we are dealing with this issue (despite the Presbyteries rulings) but I don't see the same passion in dealing with Enns. So that rules out me thinking this FV heresy is "peripheral".And if my point holds that Enns is far more a danger to the PCA than FV, than it makes sense to have the same passion for that heresy as well.


Fair enough in terms of what you're trying to say but I find most people to be completely unaware of both Enns as well as the FV. There is no general rule of thumb as far as where folks will fall. A general abandonment of solid teaching will lead either into liberalism for some a "conservatism". The FV is just one side of an extreme. I run into people all the time that are reacting to the liberalism around them and falling into the arms of theological weirdness that claims that theirs is a return to the days before modernity engulfed orthodoxy. Why do you suppose that Moscow is so attractive to many?


----------



## Semper Fidelis

After discussing this issue with some of the Admins and Moderators I'm in agreement with one who described this thread as a "confused mess" where four or five issues are being discussed. I'm closing the thread.

On the way home today I was reminded of Habakkuk's plea to the Lord for some clarity when it seemed like the world was not as it should be. The just shall live by his faith. I will trust the Lord and desire that those who wish to see the Church's purity preserved spend some time in prayer for Christ's Bride.


----------

