Peter Leithart goes to Rome

Status
Not open for further replies.
I didnt know that he was pastoring in the CREC :think:

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

That's whatcha call ironic!

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

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

I think the logic of the document would also require them to accept RC and EO ordination. I understand that many will accept RC baptism as valid; but as you say, receiving them into membership and welcoming them to communion is a bit of a different proposition.
 
If one accepts their baptisms wouldn't one accept them into membership?

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

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

Who are the Presbyterians that embrace a Thornwellian principle?

Well they are in pockets, cells that go undetected :lol: Actually there are plenty of those who advocate Thornwell's view that Catholic Baptism is not valid right here on this board I'm sure, throughout the OPC and PCA and other Reformed Presbyterian denominations. However it is not the majority view within Reformed Presbyterianism. Although the 1987 PCA GA the Majority Report from the Study Committee on the topic argued in favor of Thornwell's view. It was not embraced as the Standard for the PCA and left to the discretion of the individual Presbyteries.
 
On this basis we cheerfully recognize the Trinitarian baptisms of Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Christians, receive them (and all others who confess this ancient faith) to our celebration of the Eucharist, and warmly welcome them into membership in our congregation.

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

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

I wouldn't see why not. If a Profession of Faith is not necessary and just an embrace of the Ancient Creeds and Trinitarian Baptism then by all means why wouldn't you accept their ordination vows as valid and receive them into the Life and Ministry of the Reformed Church. :rolleyes:
 
[Although the 1987 PCA GA the Majority Report from the Study Committee on the topic argued in favor of Thornwell's view. It was not embraced as the Standard for the PCA and left to the discretion of the individual Presbyteries.
/QUOTE]
To clarify here.

Are you saying that while a majority at General Assembly voted to receive the majority report (thus entitling it to "due and serious consideration" by church courts), no changes were made in the Book of Church Order or otherwise by church court precedent to require that Roman Church baptisms not be counted as "valid"?
 
[Although the 1987 PCA GA the Majority Report from the Study Committee on the topic argued in favor of Thornwell's view. It was not embraced as the Standard for the PCA and left to the discretion of the individual Presbyteries.
/QUOTE]
To clarify here.

Are you saying that while a majority at General Assembly voted to receive the majority report (thus entitling it to "due and serious consideration" by church courts), no changes were made in the Book of Church Order or otherwise by church court precedent to require that Roman Church baptisms not be counted as "valid"?

Let me clarify: Both the Majority and Minority reports were received for the use of local Presbyteries and Churches. So you would be correct no changes were made to the BCO. And to be frank no clear decision was made by the 1987 GA. Surprise, Surprise! :rolleyes:
 
Well, it still says he's a member of the Northwest Presbytery. I'd feel relieved if he did bolt.

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

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

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

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

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

Are you saying that while a majority at General Assembly voted to receive the majority report (thus entitling it to "due and serious consideration" by church courts), no changes were made in the Book of Church Order or otherwise by church court precedent to require that Roman Church baptisms not be counted as "valid"?

Let me clarify: Both the Majority and Minority reports were received for the use of local Presbyteries and Churches. So you would be correct no changes were made to the BCO. And to be frank no clear decision was made by the 1987 GA. Surprise, Surprise! :rolleyes:

For those reading this post, the PCA Majority and Minority reports on this are available at the link below.

Note the Study Committe vote was 4 to 1 (in favor of the Majority report not recognizing Roman baptisms) and that the majority included founders of the PCA, including Mr Frank Barker and Mr Paul Settle.

The General Assembly, in 1987, voted to receive both reports and commend them for study by each Presbytery and Session individually.

PCA Position Papers: Baptism (1987); Validity of Certain Baptisms; Minority Report
 
It seems that as Mr. Leithart stands on the bank of the Tiber gazing longingly at the Promised Land on the other side, he sees before him not a treacherous, raging river but a tiny brook that runs dry at times.

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

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

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

This is hard to follow. Suddenly, this takes a complete turn from its trajectory with the word "Nevertheless." Not sure what is meant at the end by
"...can not present children to be baptized in it without incurring pollution."
after first sounding like there can be no communion, then saying there can be, but (apparently) for baptism only.
 
Scott, I think it is actually saying that in spite of the fact of all Rome's corruptions, that needn't mean their baptism is invalid; but then again that doesn't mean that a Christian family should take their child for baptism to the Romish priest --merely that rebaptism is not required if baptism did take place there. In a similar vein we would probably never encourage someone to attend a liberal protestant church; but if their infants were baptised there we wouldn't rebaptise them.
 
Ruben,

However, according to the credobaptist position one should re-baptized those coming from popery, right?
 
According to some credo-baptists, you should rebaptise anyone who was baptised before a personal profession of faith.
 
Scott, I think it is actually saying that in spite of the fact of all Rome's corruptions, that needn't mean their baptism is invalid; but then again that doesn't mean that a Christian family should take their child for baptism to the Romish priest --merely that rebaptism is not required if baptism did take place there. In a similar vein we would probably never encourage someone to attend a liberal protestant church; but if their infants were baptised there we wouldn't rebaptise them.

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

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

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

It echos what we say when Reformed theology says a person is dead in sin versus a more Arminian influenced theology saying we are "affected" or "damaged" (but not dead) in sin.
 
Scott, I think the key is the language of corrupted, or falsified, or destroyed. Baptism is corrupted, BUT (on this view) the virtue and substance of baptism remain. I suppose it was partly thinking that this was an incoherent concept which has led many in the Reformed world to deny the validity of popish baptism.
 
If memory serves me, Schaff and Nevin and their Mercersburg theology depended on Schaff's heavy reliance on a Hegelian theory of history. If the Reformation is unfinished and depends upon a grand synthesis, I guess the argument for ecumania makes "some" sense."
Schaff had very little respect for the RC church....yes? Wasn't it his son David who wrote that huge book against Catholicism?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top