TE Peter Leithart Not Guilty of Federal Vision

[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]

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?

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]

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]

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).

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]

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]

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]

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."

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]

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]

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]

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]

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}.

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]

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..

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]

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.

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.

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".

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]

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]

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]

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.