Peter Leithart - Opinion?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Anglicanorthodoxy

Puritan Board Freshman
Can somebody give me the inside scoop on this guy? As someone who's still fairlynew to Reformed theology, I'm still trying to get the lay of the land. I see there are several threads on Leithart here, and the opinion on him does not seem good. I know next to nothing about him, so I just want to get a good idea of what his big issues are.
 
Khater, as someone who has read almost all of his major works, I can tell you that he is not Reformed in any important sense of the term. He believes in the conflation of justification and definitive sanctification, a losable baptismal regeneration, and the rejoining of the Protestant world with Rome. Also, he holds to the Medieval quadriga method of interpretation, a method clearly rejected by WCF 1.
 
Federal Visionist.
http://www.federal-vision.com/?cat=4

a4879637ca54b1a16712db680a00f229.jpg
 
Khater, as someone who has read almost all of his major works, I can tell you that he is not Reformed in any important sense of the term. He believes in the conflation of justification and definitive sanctification, a losable baptismal regeneration, and the rejoining of the Protestant world with Rome. Also, he holds to the Medieval quadriga method of interpretation, a method clearly rejected by WCF 1.
He sounds like one who holds to the ole FV view.
 
David, he is FV stout, as the saying goes. His theology is the worst of the lot, in my opinion, with the possible exception of James Jordan.
 
David, he is FV stout, as the saying goes. His theology is the worst of the lot, in my opinion, with the possible exception of James Jordan.
his major influence correct? I recall long time ago (September 1983*) I had gone with a friend (Kevin Reed) to Atlanta for a conference at Joe Moorecraft's church (Roushdoony, Morton Smith were speakers; at least both were there sitting together) and one night we were put up at the Leithart's house who expressed some concern about Jordan's influence when Kevin brought it up. I was of course clueless at the time of much of the background (theonomy, Tyler, Texas, etc.).

*I can be specific because the same week just before we came a good friend of many of the folks, a congressman, was killed in that Russian shooting down of KOA 007).
 
Yes, Chris, Jordan and Leithart are the godfathers of the FV. Several streams flow into these two theologians. Jordan's work is prior to Leithart, and there is no one that Leithart quotes more than Jordan.
 
Leithart and Wilson represented a break, at least officially, in the FV movement. Wilson didn't like where Jordan and Co. were going and he tried to pretend he was cool all along with Reformed orthodoxy. Sadly, some in the Reformed camp bought that line.

To his credit, though, Leithart did apologize for giving the benefit of the doubt to a sex offender against his victim. Wilson, by contrast, has refused to repent on that.
 
After the students and faculty ran off most of the reformed folks, Redeemer Seminary in Dallas brought him in as a speaker. They closed their doors for good several weeks later.

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

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

To address the original post - Stay away from him, his teaching, his writing, and anyone associated with him theologically. As for Leithart, he could have saved himself and everyone else a lot of pain if he had moved to CREC earlier - same as that crowd in Monroe.
 
After the students and faculty ran off most of the reformed folks, Redeemer Seminary in Dallas brought him in as a speaker. They closed their doors for good several weeks later.

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

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

To address the original post - Stay away from him, his teaching, his writing, and anyone associated with him theologically. As for Leithart, he could have saved himself and everyone else a lot of pain if he had moved to CREC earlier - same as that crowd in Monroe.
While not as intimately familar with the details that spunds abount right since I believe I came on board right at that time.
 
After the students and faculty ran off most of the reformed folks, Redeemer Seminary in Dallas brought him in as a speaker. They closed their doors for good several weeks later.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Full disclosure: I'm a member of a PCA church in the relevant presbytery.
 
The Leithart trial was, I believe, in the summer of 2011. Stellman formally joined the Catholic church September 23, 2012.

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

So if you don't consider him a Catholic until the priest or bishop says so, yes, it was some time later. But if one wants to measure from when he embraced Rome, I'll stick with my statement above. Does one swim the Tiber when they wade into the water, or when they climb out on the far bank?
A person becomes a catholic by accepting their false doctrines/theology, especially in regards to the Mass/Papacy/False gospel of theirs, correct?
 
Stellman informed me that he would not have done anything different had he not been tempted by Catholicism. Furthermore, after he converted, he said that he still believed Leithart was out of accord with the WS. No one questioned his methods of prosecuting during the process. I firmly believe to this day that it was not Stellman's fault that Leithart was exonerated. I thought he did a fine job.
 
RC and EO guys are very clear: no matter how friendly one may be to RC/EO, unless you have been received into their communion, you are outside the church and thus outside salvation.
 
RC and EO guys are very clear: no matter how friendly one may be to RC/EO, unless you have been received into their communion, you are outside the church and thus outside salvation.
That must be why a good friend of mine who went from catholic to baptist was told by his former priest that once he took the new baptism in the new church, is when he went apostate as per Rome.
 
RC and EO guys are very clear: no matter how friendly one may be to RC/EO, unless you have been received into their communion, you are outside the church and thus outside salvation.

I think, for RC, that used to be true before Vatican II. After Karl Rahner's highly influential "anonymous Christian" theology became widespread, and the phrase "separated brethren" became common parlance, I think the situation has a lot more inconsistency in it now. Officially, one has to be part of the RCC. Unofficially, they have become far more relativistic.
 
Stellman informed me that he would not have done anything different had he not been tempted by Catholicism. Furthermore, after he converted, he said that he still believed Leithart was out of accord with the WS. No one questioned his methods of prosecuting during the process. I firmly believe to this day that it was not Stellman's fault that Leithart was exonerated. I thought he did a fine job.

I would not trust a word that came out of Jason Stellman's mouth. I am with Edward on this one; the likelihood that Mr. Stellman adopted his views shortly before he officially joined Rome is very slim. The circumstantial evidence against that assertion seems too strong to ignore.
 
I think, for RC, that used to be true before Vatican II. After Karl Rahner's highly influential "anonymous Christian" theology became widespread, and the phrase "separated brethren" became common parlance, I think the situation has a lot more inconsistency in it now. Officially, one has to be part of the RCC. Unofficially, they have become far more relativistic.
there does seem to be a more liberal bent going on in the Church of Rome at this time, as the current Pope seems to be moving church towards same sex/transgender/Muslims and other non christian groups.
 
I would not trust a word that came out of Jason Stellman's mouth. I am with Edward on this one; the likelihood that Mr. Stellman adopted his views shortly before he officially joined Rome is very slim. The circumstantial evidence against that assertion seems too strong to ignore.

You can check his comments on some of the old blogs and see a shift happening.
 
Daniel, I would agree that he didn't instantaneously convert. I just deny that this had a huge effect on his prosecution. Everyone seems to want to blame Stellman for "going easy" on Leithart. The truth is that it wouldn't have mattered whether Stellman went RCC or not, PNW was not going to convict Leithart. Period. The SJC then had its own problems with putting too much emphasis on the prosecutor's case, versus the record of the case. Stellman still believes today that Leithart's views are out of accord with the WS. He happens to agree with Leithart's views, but in doing so, he acknowledged that his views are out of accord with the WS.
 
The Leithart trial was, I believe, in the summer of 2011. Stellman formally joined the Catholic church September 23, 2012.

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

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

I grew up Catholic. His theology might've been leaning one way or another, but technically, he wasn't in communion with the Rome until he was baptized.
 
Since we're discussing the propriety of the presbytery appointing him as prosecutor, we should measure from when they could possibly have determined that something was problematic with his views, by one of the following methods:
  • His informing the presbytery that he no longer finds himself in accord with the system of doctrine taught by the WCF (as his elder vows require)
  • Any published or preached material of his, which became known to the presbytery
  • His resignation, if he was lying about his views up until that point

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

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

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

I do believe, however, that there was enough there that the entire trial was tainted and should have been nullified.
 
I don't accept your proposition that formal notice is required; actual knowledge would clearly be enough. And I'd personally use a "reasonable person should have known" standard with no defense of willful ignorance. Stellman made no secret of his journey.

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



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

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

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

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

Stellman, I think, adequately outlined Leithart's errors, but he could have done a better job of forcing Leithart and his defenders (Letham especially, whose testimony on Leithart's behalf was particularly problematic) to deal with Leithart's public writings and statements. The PNW paid much more heed to Leithart's dissembling and Letham's account of private conversations than to the writings and sermons he had placed before the public that clearly conflicted with the Standards. Stellman could have forced them to wrestle with that a little more, but I still doubt that it would have changed the outcome since the PNW seemed intent on extending the judgment of charity to Leithart beyond all reasonable and proper bounds.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top