# PCA SJC Ruling on Peter Leithart



## Romans922 (Dec 10, 2009)

PCA SJC Ruling: Peter Leithart (Federal Vision)


----------



## NRB (Dec 10, 2009)

I'm a newbie to the PCA...I love how the Law and Order terminology is used in this process!

Guilt, hearing, judgment.


Remember that this guy is not a heretic, nor out of sorts with general reformed theology.

Anywho, this is all new to me and a fascinating read.
I disagree with the FV and also wonder what happened up in the PNW that it got this far to begin with here!!!!


----------



## Scott1 (Dec 10, 2009)

NRB said:


> I'm a newbie to the PCA...I love how the Law and Order terminology is used in this process!
> 
> Guilt, hearing, judgment.
> 
> ...



I don't know a great deal about the particulars of this matter.

But, you're right- presbyterians have a time-tested process for resolving dispute and for orderly governance. It is the model from which American governance is taken.

We owe a great debt of gratitude to our forefathers in the faith for our procedure, discerned from biblical principles.

Here, there is more reason to be glad, because, while it is often deliberative, and grinds slowly, which it is intended to do, it is working.



> http://www.leithart.com/archives/003074.php
> 
> 
> Peter Leithart
> ...



But "federal vision" theology has an appeal to some even though, at best, it confuses the gospel and at worst, denies it. Neither is acceptable, particularly for one who would teach God's people.

Remember, officers (deacons and elders) are qualified for office in presbyterian polity in the sense of being confirmed as appointed by God to govern in the particular church.

Their, calling and equipping is tested and they vow to receive and follow the denomination's doctrine and polity. They are qualified based on an exemplary (not perfect) life pattern, and for a teaching elder especially, their ability to carefully handle God's Word.

Teaching elders have a responsibility to protect the people God has placed under them from doctrinal harm. They have a responsibility by their vows to uphold the doctrine and polity they vow they receive.

This includes things like protecting their people from the serious error, confusion and division of the 'federal vision' theology, and all its offshoots.


----------



## fredtgreco (Dec 10, 2009)

This was not a Decision of the SJC. It is a Proposed Decision of the SJC Panel to whom the case was assigned (composed of 3TEs, 2REs and two alternates). The SJC will not rule on this until March.


----------



## Scott1 (Dec 10, 2009)

As it is a "Proposed Decision" by the panel does that mean it could become a final one when the board meets in March?

Also, is this a standard part of the new rules (SJC Manual) to allow proposed decisions, to give presbyteries further time before final decisions are taken?

Any idea this was standard procedure before the new rules?


----------



## fredtgreco (Dec 10, 2009)

Scott1 said:


> As it is a "Proposed Decision" by the panel does that mean it could become a final one when the board meets in March?
> 
> Also, is this a standard part of the new rules (SJC Manual) to allow proposed decisions, to give presbyteries further time before final decisions are taken?
> 
> Any idea this was standard procedure before the new rules?



Here is the relevant section, which I believe is not new:



> 11.11 (a) When a Judicial Panel has reached a decision in a case, the Chairman or Secretary of the Judicial Panel shall prepare a full report of the case and mail or send by electronic means the same to the Stated Clerk, who shall forward, immediately, a copy of the full report to each member of the Commission. This report shall include the following:
> (1) The Record of the Case.
> (2) The proposed and recommended decision in the following format:
> I. A Summary of the Facts. (A presentation in chronological order of the relevant history and facts that bear on the case.)
> ...



and also



> 19.5 Proposed and recommended judgments of a Judicial Panel are not binding on the parties, but the Stated Clerk shall mail the parties a copy of the panel’s proposed decision and inform the parties of their right to request a rehearing before the full Standing Judicial Commission. If any party desires a rehearing by the full Commission, such request must be filed with the Stated Clerk within 14 days after receipt of said Panel’s proposed and recommended decision. Said party filing such a request for rehearing may attach a supplemental brief giving such party’s reasons and arguments for this request. Such supplemental brief must comply with the requirement of Sections 9 of this Manual as it relates to supplemental briefs.


----------



## Romans922 (Dec 10, 2009)

fredtgreco said:


> This was not a Decision of the SJC. It is a Proposed Decision of the SJC Panel to whom the case was assigned (composed of 3TEs, 2REs and two alternates). The SJC will not rule on this until March.



Ah, sorry for my incorrectness.


----------

