The PCA Exonerates Dangerous Federal Visionist Peter Leithart

[Editor's note: for an analysis of Leithart's dangerous theology, see Sean Gerety's piece, Peter Leithart and the PCA's Failure to Deal with the Federal Vision]

The PCA has exonerated the wolf-in-sheep's-clothing, Peter Leithart, an advocate of the dangerous Federal Vision heresy. The Federal Vision denies justification by faith alone and teaches salvation by works.

From Heidelblog : 

There has been an eccleisastical-judicial proceeding wending its way through the courts of the PCA for what seems like years. It began in the Northwest Presbytery of the PCA and finally made its way, on appeal, to what is the final court of appeals in the PCA, the Standing Judicial Commission. According to Lane Keister at Green Baggins, the full panel of the SJC of the PCA heard the case and voted “to reject the complaint that Pacific Northwest Presbytery erred in exonerating Leithart.” This means that the decision of the Pacific Northwest Presbytery, which declared that his teaching is not outside the bounds of the confession, stands. According to Lane, because the case was heard by the full panel, there is no avenue for appeal. 

Before today the outcome seemed fairly straightforward:

1. The PCA rejects the FV doctrines
2. Leithart teaches the FV doctrines
3. Ergo, his teaching is outside the bounds of the confession and rejected by the PCA

Somewhere in the process the syllogism became muddled. It is hard to imagine that the first (major) premise is in doubt, given the vote at the 2007 PCA General Assembly and previous SJC decisions. The truth of the second premise seems clear but one wonders whether something went awry in proving it to the satisfaction of the SJC? 

This should be a matter for concern and prayer for everyone who loves the gospel and who has an interest in the future of the largest and arguably most influential body in the North American Presbyterian and Reformed Council.

read entire post

From Green Baggins:

To say that I am disappointed in the decision would be a gross understatement. Aghast is more appropriate here. We are not talking about narrow Reformed versus broad Reformed. We are talking about evangelicalism versus what amounts to Roman Catholic teaching. At this point, it will not matter if the SJC decides to try to distance itself from Leithart’s theology. They will have allowed his theology to exist. This decision is completely and utterly wrong. The record of the case should have been enough all by itself to convince anyone truly confessional that Leithart’s theology does not fall within its boundaries. It does not fall within evangelicalism, let alone Reformed theology. 

read entire post

_____________________________

photo credit:

Stop sign as warning to stay outside of a fence around a construction site

© Jaybear / Wikimedia Commons (CC BY -SA 3.0)