TE Peter Leithart Not Guilty of Federal Vision

[Romans922]

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.

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]

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.

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.

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]

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?

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]

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

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.