So one of the few things I have been successful at doing is persuading a number of people that I am a sly fellow, and one who bears close watching. Heretics are slippery with words, and since I have spent a lot of time trying to grease this particular piglet, I must be a heretic.
No. Leithart envisions a day when there will be no differences between Prots and Romanists. He even says most of the apologizing needs to be done by Prots. With that said, however, he is still either CREC or PCA. I think he is CREC.Wilson wrote that Leithart has not gone over to the RC. Is that true? I was under the impression that he has already swum the Tiber.
I do not think he has updated his position on that point. I have not seen him make the distinctions you listed, though I only read his blog maybe once a month now.Thankyou, Tyler, for that background information. Does Doug Wilson properly distinguish the active and passive obedience of Christ? I recall a video where he equates active obedience with Christ's life and passive obedience with His death and resurrection. There was nothing about the preceptive and punitive relation to the law. Are there any publications or media where he makes a proper distinction.
Unless something has changed very recently, he's CREC. When he moved to Alabama, the PCA there wouldn't let him labor out of bounds in their Presbytery. As I recall, his old Presbytery wouldn't give a satisfactory response to the folks in Alabama, but Leithart finally left the PCA and officially moved to CREC - which he should have done years ago, and which would have avoided causing a lot of pain.Leithart envisions a day when there will be no differences between Prots and Romanists. He even says most of the apologizing needs to be done by Prots. With that said, however, he is still either CREC or PCA. I think he is CREC.
I have too though I agree with Rich the man just needs to be clear on this. It's like a politician who gets caught with his pants down. He's sorry that getting caught has broken his family's heart and embarrassed them but he is not really sorry for the adultery itself. With Wilson, it seems the more important the doctrinal issue the cuter he has to be. He's not ambiguous about where he stands on gay marriage, so why must the work of Christ and Justification be 'explained' as to leave such important teaching languishing for clarity. Faux-nuance on the Gospel is a sign of a teacher with a heart for vain philosophies and not souls.I always found his writing style to be his most endearing characteristic. He was always entertaining to read.