De Regnis Duobus: Cult, Culture, and the Christian's Dual Citizenship: Peter Leithart and the Pacific Northwest Presbytery

The majority report says he's within bounds of the confession. They are voting on it and the minority report today within a hour or two.

If he is ruled in bounds of the Confession, what will that mean to those who disagree but are still in the PCA?

I dunno.

Could someone (i.e., Chris ), update this thread when news of the results are posted?

To quote one of the commentators at the blog linked above, "The majority report was upheld. Peter Leithart has been found to be within the bounds of the confession."

Originally Posted by NaphtaliPress

To quote one of the commentators at the blog linked above, "The majority report was upheld. Peter Leithart has been found to be within the bounds of the confession."

Rev. Stellman should make an overture to have this reviewed at G.A.

I would imagine he will.

Originally Posted by Christusregnat

Originally Posted by NaphtaliPress

To quote one of the commentators at the blog linked above, "The majority report was upheld. Peter Leithart has been found to be within the bounds of the confession."

Rev. Stellman should make an overture to have this reviewed at G.A.

Update, but not much info; a full update to follow later according to the blog.
De Regnis Duobus: Cult, Culture, and the Christian's Dual Citizenship: Pacific Northwest Presbytery Overwhelmingly Approves Peter Leithart

It seems the Louisiana Presbytery case, as I understand it, is related to the same topic as this.

There a complaint was filed to the Standing Judicial Commission that the Presbytery, acting as a majority, did not act to protect the church from doctrinal harm.

It seems it needs to be determined if the Presbytery followed the guidance laid out in the study committee on this topic at all.

I hope there's an appeal to the GA.

Originally Posted by Scott1

It seems the Louisiana Presbytery case, as I understand it, is related to the same topic as this.

There a complaint was filed to the Standing Judicial Commission that the Presbytery, acting as a majority, did not act to protect the church from doctrinal harm.

It seems it needs to be determined if the Presbytery followed the guidance laid out in the study committee on this topic at all.

Part of the issue with LaP was that they did not properly examine Wilkins and didn't record the examination. That at least was the reason why they had to examine him again. IIRC it was at that point at which they were charged with failing to deal with teachings that were out of accord with the standards. Judging from what I could glean of the process as it started, I get the idea that the PNW Presbytery was a lot more deliberative and also that Leithart was rather forthcoming in his answers. But I haven't followed this closely and I'm not sure there is that much on the internet about it anyway. Rev. Stellman promises to go into more detail tonight.

This clearly proves that the FV struggle isn't over by any means in the PCA. And it's not just limited to PNW and Missouri. "Calvinistic" Baptists who suspect that the PCA appears to offer greener pastures should take note. I find that many are completely unaware of the controversy, even those who live in areas in which the FV has considerable influence if not dominance in the Presbytery.

If anyone can find the actual majority report, I'd like a link. Thanks in advance.

Originally Posted by turmeric

If anyone can find the actual majority report, I'd like a link. Thanks in advance.

Majority report

Minority report

Originally Posted by Pilgrim

This clearly proves that the FV struggle isn't over by any means in the PCA. And it's not just limited to PNW and Missouri. "Calvinistic" Baptists who suspect that the PCA appears to offer greener pastures should take note.

Note to self: note taken.

The update.
De Regnis Duobus: Cult, Culture, and the Christian's Dual Citizenship: More on the PNW Presbytery's Leithart Debate

Originally Posted by NaphtaliPress

The update.
De Regnis Duobus: Cult, Culture, and the Christian's Dual Citizenship: More on the PNW Presbytery's Leithart Debate

The majority report's commendation of innovation, and the "Bible over dead confessionalism" bears a striking resemblance to the Fundamentalist / Modernist controversies of the early 20th Century, and of later PCUSA garbledeegook.

We'll see what GA has to say.

Cheers,

Originally Posted by DMcFadden

Originally Posted by Pilgrim

This clearly proves that the FV struggle isn't over by any means in the PCA. And it's not just limited to PNW and Missouri. "Calvinistic" Baptists who suspect that the PCA appears to offer greener pastures should take note.

Note to self: note taken.

Also, please note, that every church under heaven is imperfect; is this anything new? I guess for baptists it is.

The procedure that will likely follow in this case is that Jason and the rest of the minority report guys will issue a complaint within a certain amount of time. That complaint will be handled at their next stated meeting (and will probably fail, given the vote at this Presbytery). If and when THAT vote fails, the minority will then take that complaint to the Standing Judicial Commission, which will examine the complaint and either uphold it or strike it down.

Jason has noted that the PNW Presbytery is something of an anomaly in the PCA. In almost any other Presbytery, the minority report would have been the majority report and the vote would have gone the other way. I heard Rob Rayburn speak at GA this year on the topic of the sacraments, and he sounded completely FV himself, setting the confessions against Scripture, and arguing for a mystical view of the sacraments.

As to Calvinistic Baptists being warned, I think that is fair, but there is no perfect denomination. The PCA is actually working to get rid of the FV'ers, which, in my mind, is a sign of health. We are actually willing to get rid of them. We have gotten rid of Wilkins, and I think Mark Horne and Jeff Meyers will not be too far behind. Leithart will be dealt with in the SJC, which will almost certainly uphold the complaint of the minority. So, the PCA is healthier than some might think on this thread.

I hope this is brought to the GA - I just read the majority reoprt and it is equivocal at best. It looks like they don't agree with him, but they don't want to pull the trigger.

The majority report makes the very same mistake that the LAP made with regard to Wilkins: saying that an explicit denial of the confession is necessary in order to say that someone is out of accord. The PNW should have learned their lesson from the LAP. Now they are going to have to learn that it is not enough to say that someone doesn't explicitly deny something in the confession. It is also whether the entire theology is in fact consistent with the confession. This is where the majority is report is trying to hide.

I agree, there is no perfect denomination or church. Actually, that was my whole point. I'm certainly not rejoicing at problems in other communions. My comments were primarily aimed at those former Baptists (or those leaning that way) that have a tendency to minimize the problems in the PCA or similar churches (if not ignorant of them altogether) while seeing no good in Baptist churches and also making the assumption that the SBC or whatever Baptist group they are affiliated with is the only baptistic option. I've had contact with some Baptists in the past who are fed up with their current situation and think they are ready to jump ship to the PCA yet are totally unaware of the FV and similar controversies. Some of these people are "baptisterians" at best anyway, able to get on board with infant baptism because they view it as little more than a wet dedication. Although of course some who have made that move have had the pendulum swing all the way around to the opposite extreme and have ended up embracing something like the FV.

Edit: Part of the problem is that someone who isn't very familiar with Reformed Theology will listen to or read R.C. Sproul or see something on the PB and just assume that everyone in the PCA, for example, believes that way. I've also seen the reverse lately, where in the Aquila Report a PCA pastor broad brushed all Baptists as believing in decisional regeneration i.e. that faith precedes repentance and also with holding to what amounts to the Chafer/Ryrie view of eternal security. Of course the majority of Presbyterians are PCUSA and that's the only kind of Presbyterian many Baptists are familiar with. Surely that pastor wouldn't think it fair to impute the errors of the PCUSA to all Presbyterians the way he did with Baptists.

I think we can all, including Pastors from other denominations who might be migrating toward Reformed theology and the PCA, be thankful the denomination is dealing with the serious error of Federal Vision and the often defiant attitude of its proponents.

From what I can tell, the Louisiana Presbytery majority has very conscientiously repented or left and a real work of restoration of good doctrine is going on there. That is always the ultimate purpose of discipline.

Nobody expected the several year dissemination of this to be eliminated overnight but the process is ongoing. We have a very useful study report to help sessions and presbyteries dealing with these complex issues discern it. There is judicial precedent to remove it.

We want to try and keep our Ninth Commandment duties in view (cf Larger Catechism 143-145, Scripture proofs) and hold a charitable view toward toward others and not engage in undue cynicism, particularly to those of the household of faith. This includes a denomination showing good faith intention to deal with this.

The PCA is contending to protect God's people from the harm of these teachings, and we can be thankful for that.

Hey,

I was going to post a thread on this yesterday, but my son and I didn't get back from Everett, WA till around 1230am - I slept in (I couldn't handle the chocolate malts and salsa chip combo that he had us eat on the way home) I see that discussion has been going on for a bit already.



The presbytery meeting was a shame, and if I had somewhere else to go at this moment I would leave the PacNW presbytery without much of a second thought. I have never seen such theological ineptitude, and or intentional smokescreens being thrown up by the guilty parties (and accepted by the majority) as I did there yesterday. My session officially knows my displeasure.

Stellman did an excellent job presenting the minority report. Rayburn, speaking for the majority report, did nothing but dismiss the conclusions of the minority out of hand, and then went on to monologue for about 40min using red-herrings and threats to the effect of "if we prosecute Leithart on this issue, we'll end up destroying our denomination and becoming completely irrelevant, just like denomination "X". All the while receiving various "amens" from the puppets in the presbytery.

[BTW, if Andy Webb, aka "Seagoon" still posts around here, someone should let him know that Rayburn unilaterally made the decision neither to read nor to distribute copies of his communication to the presbytery regarding his concern over some of Leithart's recent postings on his blog. No surprise though, as Rayburn is one of the biggest FV defenders in the PacNW.]



Thoughts on the meeting in no particular order:


1. The PCA (in as much as she is represented in the Pacific NW) is much, much, much more concerned about image, influence, and the golden calf of "relevance" than she is about being a confessional church. That was the common note throughout the whole debate. God forbid that the PCA should ever be seen as narrow, irrelevant, intolerant, bigoted, rigid, mean, "not nice", or anything else that might slow our growth - no matter how serious a theological error others in confessional churches might deem it to be.


2. A majority of the presbyters in attendance seemed neither to care about, nor even engage, the basic theological and exegetical points that were being raised by the minority. Basic, basic exegetical fallacies were being made in defense of Leithart's theology, and were left almost completely unchallenged. I'm talking about all of the fallacies that WSC drilled out of us as first year students - that basic.


3. One of the few men who did challenge Rayburn/Leithart with any sort of clarity on the issue was an old RE, who although he admitted that he was unlearned, and that many of the details of the report were over his head, nevertheless picked up a copy of the Trinity Hymnal, read from the shorter catechism in the back regarding the issues of baptism and union, and said "Peter says baptism is "X", our confession and catechisms say that baptism is "Y", how is he not out of accord with our confessions?" Thank God for men like him! Those are the lines along which a debate over confessional compatibility should have been moving. However, he was ignored, and the debate went back to avoiding any discussion of the confessional standards.


4. In light of the fact that the committee was tasked to compare the views of Leithart with the nine points put out by last years GA, and to see whether or not he was out of accord with them, my presbytery failed miserably. In fact, it wasn't until about 2/3 of the way through the debate that someone actually noticed that the presbytery wasn't even quite sure what we were supposed to be debating. The continued conversation by most of the men did anything but evaluate the confessional fidelity of Leithart's views. It was all red-herrings and smoke screens.


5. John Frame's theology has had a very detrimental impact on the PCA, and his denigration of the confessions, false positing of ST against BT, and "multi-perspectival approach" were all specifically and repeatedly invoked (Frame's name even being brought up several times) against sane, confessional theological debate. It was astounding how many times the "bible vs. the confessions" was bandied about, and how many times the threat of becoming a "dead and rigid confessional church" was seen as the end of the argument. I did not see any difference whatsoever between a broad-evangelical disregard of confessions, and what went on in the PacNW presbytery yesterday.


6. Rayburn continued to argue (adopting Frame's perspectival approach to theology) that even if we use the confessions as a standard, we can never really get to the bottom of the issue, because there are so many "perspectives" and "paradigms" for interpreting the confessions - even "competing paradigms within paradigms". It was very post-modern of him. The confessions then become completely useless, because they cease to have any intelligible and authoritative voice, since, as Rayburn would emphasize, "We all read the confessions in different ways." He never proved it, just asserted it. It was really nothing less than a post-modern hermeneutic being applied to the undermining of confessional orthodoxy.


7. It was amazing to me that Rayburn and others were still trying to defend "final justification", and do so by using repeatedly discredited exegetical foundations (like invoking Romans 2:13 without finishing Paul's line of thought through the end of Romans chapter 3).


8. Others can call it what they'd like, but there is no doubt in my mind that Leithart's theology is nothing less than an RCC/Arminian approach to sacramental efficacy/election, respectively, (although RCC sacramentology also includes a semi-pelagian soteriology) being slipped under the door in a pretty, new envelope. "But remember, we in the PCA want to be innovative and vital in our theologizing!" If that is the case, why are we just repristinating old errors?


Our brothers out there in broader PCA-land need to take this presbytery to task, and get things cleaned up out here with Leithart in a decisive way (and, I would also argue that this will need to be the case eventually with Rayburn, if he continues on his trajectory) before things get anymore out of hand. This presbytery is a zoo right now.

Originally Posted by greenbaggins

The majority report makes the very same mistake that the LAP made with regard to Wilkins: saying that an explicit denial of the confession is necessary in order to say that someone is out of accord. The PNW should have learned their lesson from the LAP. Now they are going to have to learn that it is not enough to say that someone doesn't explicitly deny something in the confession. It is also whether the entire theology is in fact consistent with the confession. This is where the majority is report is trying to hide.

Exactly. And it is clear that Leithart's theology is a consistent and unified system in opposition to the confession. Stellman pointed out that to require wording that is an exact and explicit denial of an affirmation, or affirmation against what the confession denies, would make it virtually impossible to convict almost anyone on anything. There are many ways of stating theological error, without having to use the language of the confessions. However, this point of the majority report actually seemed to be persuading a majority of presbyters.

I think that they already had their minds made up, and were looking for a loophole in their defense.

Originally Posted by Scott1

I think we can all, including Pastors from other denominations who might be migrating toward Reformed theology and the PCA, be thankful the denomination is dealing with the serious error of Federal Vision and the often defiant attitude of its proponents.

From what I can tell, the Louisiana Presbytery majority has very conscientiously repented or left and a real work of restoration of good doctrine is going on there. That is always the ultimate purpose of discipline.

That's true from what I can tell as well. Would that other presbyteries do the same and that it could happen without SJC action.

Originally Posted by Scott1

Nobody expected the several year dissemination of this to be eliminated overnight but the process is ongoing. We have a very useful study report to help sessions and presbyteries dealing with these complex issues discern it. There is judicial precedent to remove it.

We want to try and keep our Ninth Commandment duties in view (cf Larger Catechism 143-145, Scripture proofs) and hold a charitable view toward toward others and not engage in undue cynicism, particularly to those of the household of faith. This includes a denomination showing good faith intention to deal with this.

The PCA is contending to protect God's people from the harm of these teachings, and we can be thankful for that.

Do you find that I have violated the Ninth Commandment and engaged in "undue cynicism?" I completely disagree, but the admins and mods will have to be the judge. No one can deny that the FV is a significant factor in some presbyteries, and men with these views are still being brought under care and ordained in some presbyteries. I agree with the statements of Lane and others that efforts at rooting out the FV continue and will likely be successful in the end. My point was that some seem to have thought the FV controversy was basically over with after the adoption of the FV report and with Wilkins leaving. (Now those events may well be the "handwriting on the wall" but to borrow a phrase from Churchill, it may also only be the end of the beginning of dealing with the issue.) Those of us familiar with Presbyterian church government in general and the PCA in particular knew that it wasn't that easy, but that fact may not be so clear to someone from the outside looking in who is generally unfamiliar with PCA polity. You may recall that even some within Presbyterian circles didn't understand why the GA in the OPC and PCA couldn't just lay down the law, call FV/NS/NPP heresy and immediately eject those who hold those views. But I'll shut up about it now since it isn't my fight anymore and I've got plenty of other things on my plate at the moment.

Originally Posted by greenbaggins

As to Calvinistic Baptists being warned, I think that is fair, but there is no perfect denomination. The PCA is actually working to get rid of the FV'ers, which, in my mind, is a sign of health. We are actually willing to get rid of them. We have gotten rid of Wilkins, and I think Mark Horne and Jeff Meyers will not be too far behind. Leithart will be dealt with in the SJC, which will almost certainly uphold the complaint of the minority. So, the PCA is healthier than some might think on this thread.

Lane, my post was mostly tongue in cheek. As you know, I am wrestling with the whole "Baptist" thing and have mentioned to friends that my next church membership may very likely be a PCA one (depending on where I end up on the whole baptism issue).

After having battled and borne the scars of a first class ecclesiastical/theological fight over scriptural authority and human sexuality(including departure with 150 congregations to start a separate ecclesiastical organization), I am well aware of the "diversity" within American congregations AND their ecclesiastical parent denominations. Actually, even before you offered your reassuring words, I figured that the FV folks are outliers in the PCA (now anyway). But, vigilant confessionalism is one hedge against the corrosive effects of American hyperindividualism, the toxic residue of modernist epistemology, and the hubris of thinking that everyone has a right to rewrite the book to their own liking.

The need to recoceptualize and contextualize theology for our own age must never become an excuse for translating the Bible into the faddish idiom of the contemporary moment. A vigorous confessionalism is one way of trying to prevent that.

Originally Posted by DMcFadden

Originally Posted by greenbaggins

As to Calvinistic Baptists being warned, I think that is fair, but there is no perfect denomination. The PCA is actually working to get rid of the FV'ers, which, in my mind, is a sign of health. We are actually willing to get rid of them. We have gotten rid of Wilkins, and I think Mark Horne and Jeff Meyers will not be too far behind. Leithart will be dealt with in the SJC, which will almost certainly uphold the complaint of the minority. So, the PCA is healthier than some might think on this thread.

Lane, my post was mostly tongue in cheek. As you know, I am wrestling with the whole "Baptist" thing and have mentioned to friends that my next church membership may very likely be a PCA one (depending on where I end up on the whole baptism issue).

After having battled and borne the scars of a first class ecclesiastical/theological fight over scriptural authority and human sexuality(including departure with 150 congregations to start a separate ecclesiastical organization), I am well aware of the "diversity" within American congregations AND their ecclesiastical parent denominations. Actually, even before you offered your reassuring words, I figured that the FV folks are outliers in the PCA (now anyway). But, vigilant confessionalism is one hedge against the corrosive effects of American hyperindividualism, the toxic residue of modernist epistemology, and the hubris of thinking that everyone has a right to rewrite the book to their own liking.

The need to recoceptualize and contextualize theology for our own age must never become an excuse for translating the Bible into the faddish idiom of the contemporary moment. A vigorous confessionalism is one way of trying to prevent that.

Dennis, I was aware that you were being tongue in cheek. I was mostly responding to the other post that was a warning.

NOW where do I go to church?

DMcFadden

may very likely be a PCA one (depending on where I end up on the whole baptism issue).

After having battled and borne the scars of a first class ecclesiastical/theological fight over scriptural authority and human sexuality(including departure with 150 congregations to start a separate ecclesiastical organization), I am well aware of the "diversity" within American congregations AND their ecclesiastical parent denominations. Actually, even before you offered your reassuring words, I figured that the FV folks are outliers in the PCA (now anyway).

I'm pretty sure you are aware of the general characteristics of the PCA and also painfully aware how denominations can fall away from truth and standards.

Any fair characterization of the denomination would not say the serious error of "federal vision" is dominant or that it is gaining. In my presbytery almost nobody had heard of it until recently and as far as I am aware, as my Pastor said, "it's not even on the radar screen."

I have come to understand that our Presbyterian processes are designed to be slow and deliberative but they are working.

Now what I have learned from Puritan Board is that there are a couple pockets of theological problems in a denomination with 340,000 members. This will almost always be the case in a fallen world, and I know you know that as well as anyone.

Let me chartitable and truthful. The PCA is not perfect- no visible church is. Reverend Keister and others have done faithful, heroic work contending for Scripture and the confession which we hold is a faithful summary of the doctrine of Scripture. Frankly, there are many, many such people in the denomination. While we may discuss amongst ourselves the finer points of "federal vision" here, it is not dominating or advancing in the PCA. It is a real threat, but it is being dealt with.

Something else that is a cardinal characteristic of reformed theology- the unity of the church must be grounded in doctrinal unity. This is not true in many Christian denominations, some may view variety of doctrinal ideas and opinions a good thing, but not for reformed theology. We have a time tested 350 year Confession developed by some of the greatest godly divines ever assembled who staked their lives on summarizing the doctrine of Scripture to have a "true church." By God's grace, it's not going away until the Lord returns.

From a non-theologian's perspective, it is so clear from Scripture that Christ's righteousness is imputed to sinners to justify them before God and that that is so central to the Westminster Standards.

The minority report brings this out. I did not see this in the majority report, but I have only perused both reports. The bolded section below jumps out to me. I find it hard to believe that a minister of the gospel, let alone someone who subscribes to the Westminster Standards does not understand this.

On the Imputation of Christ’s Obedience

The third declaration of the Federal Vision Report states:

“The view that Christ does not stand as a representative head whose perfect obedience and satisfaction is imputed to individuals who believe in him is contrary to the Westminster Standards.”

In response, TE Leithart writes:

This is an issue I am still thinking about, and on which I don’t have a settled position.

Our Reformed musings has his take here. Classic line (remind me never to get in the way of your pen Bob; or keyboard!):

One Federal Visionist has declared this a witch hunt. As TE Stellman points out in great detail, TE Leithart set this process in motion himself and even jointly asked for the study committee. So, is it still a witch hunt if the individual involved requests the hunt? If a Federal Visionist whines in the woods, does anyone still care?

Hi Chris,

I don't think that will ever be an issue. :-)

I tried to tie the whole issue together in that post with links to all the pertinent parts that had links on the net. The two book essays do not as far as I know. I hope that some find it helpful. Sometimes it's frustrating searching the net for background on issues. I happened to have a bunch handy, and of course the great folks on this board provide great insights as well.

Originally Posted by Archlute

Hey,


The presbytery meeting was a shame, and if I had somewhere else to go at this moment I would leave the PacNW presbytery without much of a second thought. I have never seen such theological ineptitude, and or intentional smokescreens being thrown up by the guilty parties (and accepted by the majority) as I did there yesterday. My session officially knows my displeasure.

Stellman did an excellent job presenting the minority report. Rayburn, speaking for the majority report, did nothing but dismiss the conclusions of the minority out of hand, and then went on to monologue for about 40min using red-herrings and threats to the effect of "if we prosecute Leithart on this issue, we'll end up destroying our denomination and becoming completely irrelevant, just like denomination "X". All the while receiving various "amens" from the puppets in the presbytery.

...

Thoughts on the meeting in no particular order:


1. The PCA (in as much as she is represented in the Pacific NW) is much, much, much more concerned about image, influence, and the golden calf of "relevance" than she is about being a confessional church. That was the common note throughout the whole debate. God forbid that the PCA should ever be seen as narrow, irrelevant, intolerant, bigoted, rigid, mean, "not nice", or anything else that might slow our growth - no matter how serious a theological error others in confessional churches might deem it to be.


2. A majority of the presbyters in attendance seemed neither to care about, nor even engage, the basic theological and exegetical points that were being raised by the minority. Basic, basic exegetical fallacies were being made in defense of Leithart's theology, and were left almost completely unchallenged. I'm talking about all of the fallacies that WSC drilled out of us as first year students - that basic.

...

4. In light of the fact that the committee was tasked to compare the views of Leithart with the nine points put out by last years GA, and to see whether or not he was out of accord with them, my presbytery failed miserably. In fact, it wasn't until about 2/3 of the way through the debate that someone actually noticed that the presbytery wasn't even quite sure what we were supposed to be debating. The continued conversation by most of the men did anything but evaluate the confessional fidelity of Leithart's views. It was all red-herrings and smoke screens.


5. John Frame's theology has had a very detrimental impact on the PCA, and his denigration of the confessions, false positing of ST against BT, and "multi-perspectival approach" were all specifically and repeatedly invoked (Frame's name even being brought up several times) against sane, confessional theological debate. It was astounding how many times the "bible vs. the confessions" was bandied about, and how many times the threat of becoming a "dead and rigid confessional church" was seen as the end of the argument. I did not see any difference whatsoever between a broad-evangelical disregard of confessions, and what went on in the PacNW presbytery yesterday.


6. Rayburn continued to argue (adopting Frame's perspectival approach to theology) that even if we use the confessions as a standard, we can never really get to the bottom of the issue, because there are so many "perspectives" and "paradigms" for interpreting the confessions - even "competing paradigms within paradigms". It was very post-modern of him. The confessions then become completely useless, because they cease to have any intelligible and authoritative voice, since, as Rayburn would emphasize, "We all read the confessions in different ways." He never proved it, just asserted it. It was really nothing less than a post-modern hermeneutic being applied to the undermining of confessional orthodoxy.


7. It was amazing to me that Rayburn and others were still trying to defend "final justification", and do so by using repeatedly discredited exegetical foundations (like invoking Romans 2:13 without finishing Paul's line of thought through the end of Romans chapter 3).


8. Others can call it what they'd like, but there is no doubt in my mind that Leithart's theology is nothing less than an RCC/Arminian approach to sacramental efficacy/election, respectively, (although RCC sacramentology also includes a semi-pelagian soteriology) being slipped under the door in a pretty, new envelope. "But remember, we in the PCA want to be innovative and vital in our theologizing!" If that is the case, why are we just repristinating old errors?


Our brothers out there in broader PCA-land need to take this presbytery to task, and get things cleaned up out here with Leithart in a decisive way (and, I would also argue that this will need to be the case eventually with Rayburn, if he continues on his trajectory) before things get anymore out of hand. This presbytery is a zoo right now.

Brother, you need to repent. According to your profile, you are a church intern that is training to be a minister; so act like one. What gives you the right to post, over a public forum, comments like this about your brothers in Christ. You are to uphold the peace and unity of the Church, not insight people to scoff at the government of the Christ's Church. You may completely disagree with the decision of presbytery, but you have no right to act like they are a bunch of "puppet" morons, who have no idea what they are doing, and spread the slander to the world over the web. If you want to be upset, fine, but you ought to use better judgment about where you vent your anger. It is one thing to offer a critique, it is quite another to call them "puppets," saying they are theologically inept, accusing them of intentional deception, and worshiping the "golden calf of relevance." If Peter Leithart posted something this inflammatory, tomorrow there would be a 100 blogs commenting on what a horrible Christian he was. You need to think about the wisdom of posting things like this, and stop.

Originally Posted by G.Wetmore

Brother, you need to repent. According to your profile, you are a church intern that is training to be a minister; so act like one. What gives you the right to post, over a public forum, comments like this about your brothers in Christ. You are to uphold the peace and unity of the Church, not insight people to scoff at the government of the Christ's Church. You may completely disagree with the decision of presbytery, but you have no right to act like they are a bunch of "puppet" morons, who have no idea what they are doing, and spread the slander to the world over the web. If you want to be upset, fine, but you ought to use better judgment about where you vent your anger. It is one thing to offer a critique, it is quite another to call them "puppets," saying they are theologically inept, accusing them of intentional deception, and worshiping the "golden calf of relevance." If Peter Leithart posted something this inflammatory, tomorrow there would be a 100 blogs commenting on what a horrible Christian he was. You need to think about the wisdom of posting things like this, and stop.

Gabriel,

From previous posts, you appear to have an affinity or actually believe in some of the FV or NPP (?) (or it sounded as such in the Galatians thread; and, no, Schlissel hasn't gotten a "bum rap"). That is sad, but I will not touch in that in detail.

Slander requires speaking specifically against a person. The fact that Adam identified "puppets", a "majority" is not slander. That would be if he said, "Rev. Dr. Soandso is a rascal", or "the session of GraceandPeace church is a bunch of cowards." Adam didn't identify names, and it behooves you to take care to not allow your affinity for NPPers to blur your vision (pun intended).

Was it a sin for Jesus to say "woe to you scribes and pharisees, hypocrites!"? Weren't there any good scribes? Any godly pharisees? The gospel records make it clear that there were good scribes and godly pharisees. If you want to follow your misreading of what Adam said, many innocent men would be found guilty of "slander". Perhaps it might be a good idea to consider that you have specifically identified a man as committing slander who has done nothing more than speak in generalities.

If you want to take him to task for his comments about Rayburn, go ahead; but you didn't do that. Perhaps you may want to reconsider your earlier comments, and reframe them with a little less zeal.

Cheers,

Originally Posted by G.Wetmore

Brother, you need to repent. According to your profile, you are a church intern that is training to be a minister; so act like one. What gives you the right to post, over a public forum, comments like this about your brothers in Christ. You are to uphold the peace and unity of the Church, not insight people to scoff at the government of the Christ's Church. You may completely disagree with the decision of presbytery, but you have no right to act like they are a bunch of "puppet" morons, who have no idea what they are doing, and spread the slander to the world over the web. If you want to be upset, fine, but you ought to use better judgment about where you vent your anger. It is one thing to offer a critique, it is quite another to call them "puppets," saying they are theologically inept, accusing them of intentional deception, and worshiping the "golden calf of relevance." If Peter Leithart posted something this inflammatory, tomorrow there would be a 100 blogs commenting on what a horrible Christian he was. You need to think about the wisdom of posting things like this, and stop.

Hey friend, if you have a problem with it, that's fine, but I see no reason to "repent". For one, I'm not an intern, I became an ordinand in the PCA after ministering in an independent congregation, but since there is no option in the profile box for a man in between calls (and who ministered outside of the PCA before seeking a call within) I entered "pastoral intern". Not that it should matter one way or the other, if interns/pastors cannot speak their mind in a way that is anything other than the bland, PC manner that most FV folk would like to see being ineffectually tossed their way, then the church is the sorrier for it.

Btw, I guess I should ask, are you angry because your sense of piety has been sincerely violated, or are you angry because you are an FV supporter who hates seeing anyone point out the obvious?

If the former is the case, then I apologize to you that, being my weaker brother, you have been offended by my strong opinion. If the latter, well then, you should go back to seminary (assuming that you have begun your studies), and have a little more righteous indignation issuing forth from your own heart when you see a nearby region in your denomination biting the lure of "popular approval", and allowing some in their circle of influence to continue inculcating a false Gospel into the hearts of those in some of their congregations. I have had personal experience in debating and counseling some of the folk who have had their understanding of the Gospel destroyed because of these teachings (one of them from Rayburn's own congregation), and I can tell you that I would rather have some one steamed at my lack of "Southern manners" in addressing these issues, than I would have them be pleased at my falsely held opinions of piety.

I guess that's all that I have to say about it.

We all fall short of God’s commandments and constantly need his grace.

Somehow, we are called to contend for the truth, reprove error, abhor sin and at the same time, love our enemies and especially those of the household of faith. I sense and can understand the frustration in seeing what one sees as serious error being accepted and even promoted. I understand the passion for truth and respect those who contend for it, particularly those who have the integrity to do it alone, if necessary.

In fact, I am grateful for the comprehensive information in Mr Archlute’s post. Let me say I also believe “federal vision” is serious error, spreads confusion, and because it harms the peace and purity of the church, must be removed.

Having said all that, we must find a way to do it with the right words. Our contention for the truth must not overwhelm what God requires of us.

Stellman did an excellent job presenting the minority report. Rayburn, speaking for the majority report, did nothing but dismiss the conclusions of the minority out of hand, and then went on to monologue for about 40min using red-herrings and threats to the effect of "if we prosecute Leithart on this issue, we'll end up destroying our denomination and becoming completely irrelevant, just like denomination "X". All the while receiving various "amens" from the puppets in the presbytery.
This presbytery is a zoo right now.

If I was a member of this presbytery, I would be offended being described like this, or hearing my bretheren described in these terms, whichever side I was on.

Question 144: What are the duties required in the ninth commandment?
Answer: The duties required in the ninth commandment are, the preserving and promoting of truth between man and man, and the good name of our neighbor, as well as our own; appearing and standing for the truth; and from the heart, sincerely, freely, clearly, and fully, speaking the truth, and only the truth, in matters of judgment and justice, and in all other things: Whatsoever; a charitable esteem of our neighbors; loving, desiring, and rejoicing in their good name; sorrowing for, and covering of their infirmities; freely acknowledging of their gifts and graces, defending their innocency; a ready receiving of a good report, and unwillingness to admit of an evil report, concerning them; discouraging talebearers, flatterers, and slanderers; love and care of our own good name, and defending it when need requires; keeping of lawful promises; studying and practicing of: Whatsoever things are true, honest, lovely, and of good report.

We cannot have “a charitable esteem of our neighbors,” or believe the best in them when we say they are “puppets,” or that an entire presbytery is a “zoo.” Even those who are wrong in this presbytery should not be linked to animals, let alone implying that even those who are right are the same.

Please understand I am not trying to take sides in the matter being discussed or to leverage a spiritual argument to discount another side of an argument.

Ask ourselves, how would someone in the presbytery view being written about in this manner? How does this sound to an unbeliever hearing believers describe one another in this way? How does this sound to someone who is trying to understand the underlying issue?

I only ask, in fear and trembling, knowing my own sin, that we, by God’s grace, try to honor one another, presbyteries, as befits the household of faith for God’s Honor and God’s Glory. Not that we stop contending passionately for truth, only that we season our conversation with grace, as God requires of us.

Originally Posted by Archlute

Originally Posted by G.Wetmore

Brother, you need to repent. According to your profile, you are a church intern that is training to be a minister; so act like one. What gives you the right to post, over a public forum, comments like this about your brothers in Christ. You are to uphold the peace and unity of the Church, not insight people to scoff at the government of the Christ's Church. You may completely disagree with the decision of presbytery, but you have no right to act like they are a bunch of "puppet" morons, who have no idea what they are doing, and spread the slander to the world over the web. If you want to be upset, fine, but you ought to use better judgment about where you vent your anger. It is one thing to offer a critique, it is quite another to call them "puppets," saying they are theologically inept, accusing them of intentional deception, and worshiping the "golden calf of relevance." If Peter Leithart posted something this inflammatory, tomorrow there would be a 100 blogs commenting on what a horrible Christian he was. You need to think about the wisdom of posting things like this, and stop.

Hey friend, if you have a problem with it, that's fine, but I see no reason to "repent". For one, I'm not an intern, I became an ordinand in the PCA after ministering in an independent congregation, but since there is no option in the profile box for a man in between calls (and who ministered outside of the PCA before seeking a call within) I entered "pastoral intern". Not that it should matter one way or the other, if interns/pastors cannot speak their mind in a way that is anything other than the bland, PC manner that most FV folk would like to see being ineffectually tossed their way, then the church is the sorrier for it.

Btw, I guess I should ask, are you angry because your sense of piety has been sincerely violated, or are you angry because you are an FV supporter who hates seeing anyone point out the obvious?

If the former is the case, then I apologize to you that, being my weaker brother, you have been offended by my strong opinion. If the latter, well then, you should go back to seminary (assuming that you have begun your studies), and have a little more righteous indignation issuing forth from your own heart when you see a nearby region in your denomination biting the lure of "popular approval", and allowing some in their circle of influence to continue inculcating a false Gospel into the hearts of those in some of their congregations. I have had personal experience in debating and counseling some of the folk who have had their understanding of the Gospel destroyed because of these teachings (one of them from Rayburn's own congregation), and I can tell you that I would rather have some one steamed at my lack of "Southern manners" in addressing these issues, than I would have them be pleased at my falsely held opinions of piety.

I guess that's all that I have to say about it.

No, I did not think that what you did was wrong because of any other reason than I think it is wrong for you to do it in this forum. It would be one thing if you were speaking in your session or in a private forum, but this is a public forum. There are many PCA members in this forum. I think that posting comments in the manner you did will cause those members to begin to grumble and possibly refuse to submit to the government of the Church. Why would you want to spread that kind of dissension? In my mind that is like a pastor who is annoyed at the rest of the session, so he goes home and tells his wife, kids, and close friends from the congregation how stupid the rest of the session is. All that I am saying is that this is not the forum for comments like this.

There's a difference between saying that people did something wrong, and saying that they were puppets and zoo animals. The latter imputes all kinds of motivation which may or may not exist, not to mention general ignorance and foolishness. Reformed folk often err in thinking that anyone who disagrees is either stupid or consciously deceitful, and it's just not the case.

What is the case, however, is that certain people on this board are allowed to speak however they wish with impunity, whereas others, past and present, are immediately jumped on by the moderators for the same kinds of infractions.

There are many PCA members in this forum. I think that posting comments in the manner you did will cause those members to begin to grumble and possibly refuse to submit to the government of the Church. Why would you want to spread that kind of dissension?

Or it could help wake up pew potatoes who are just sitting there grinning as very dangerous elements in the church take over whole Presbyteries without opposition.

OK Gentlemen. Let's get back to the subject at hand. Opinions have been expressed about the propriety/impropriety of the comments.

Let's give it a rest.