No Surprise Here

It’s another sad day for the PCA.  They seem to be having a lot of those lately.  The nearly completely apostate and bankrupt Pacific Northwest Presbytery of the PCA has just officially cleared Federal Visionist and self-styled martyr Peter Leithart of all theological error. You can read about the charges and the unorthodox way the PNWP proceeded in this case here.  Leithart said he looked forward to his trial because he wanted to set a precedent making the PCA more friendly to Christ denying closet Romanists like him.  So far he’s succeeded.  Not that the outcome is any surprise, despite the efforts of prosecutor Jason Stellman and the witnesses who testified against Leithart; Lane Keister and Michael Horton.   Former Covenant Theological Seminary prof Will Barker and NPP proponent, theistic evolutionist, and current Covenant Seminary professor, Jack Collins  both testified in defense of Leithart, just as they did recently for the Federal Visionist tried in the Siouxlands Presbytery who was similarly exonerated, Greg Lawrence.  It’s so nice that Covenant Seminary is turning out such great defenders of the FV faith as Barker and Collins.  Too bad they’re not turning out any defenders of the Christian faith, but we examined the FV/Covenant Seminary connection last year (see Covenant Seminary and the Federal Vision: Aiding and Abetting).

Jason Stellman reported the PNW SJC’s vote count on his blog:

The Standing Judicial Commission reached the following verdicts, with the Commission vote on each charge noted.

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

Stellman adds: “The report was received overwhelmingly by the PNWP.” Again, no surprises here.  The only surprise is why would any Christian pastor or church member remain in the PNWP or in the PCA at all for that matter?  Can it really be called a Christian presbytery or even a Christian denomination if it allows the unmistakable and easily demonstrable heresies of Peter Leithart to stand?  I don’t see how?  I suppose even if the SJC of the PCA were to overturn this verdict, as it should, it would do absolutely nothing to address the 9 commissioners and the overwhelming majority of the PNWP who were too spiritually stupid and blind to recognize a damnable false gospel right under their noses.  The only thing that makes sense is along with overturning the Leithart conviction and defrocking this Christian fraud once and for all, is to sever the entire PNWP from the PCA entirely.  I mean, they use mastectomies to try and stop the spread of breast cancer in women.  The Federal Vision is certainly worse than cancer.  So I hardly think sending the entire apostate Pacific Northwest Presbytery packing is radical at all.

Explore posts in the same categories: Heresies, Peter Leithart

7 Comments on “No Surprise Here”

  1. Hugh McCann Says:

    Does the following imply that the PNWP might be disciplined? The Aquila Report gives this: PNW erred by declaring that TE Leithart’s views were not out of accord with our standards. (SJC, March 2010)

    As someone else asked: ‘Will the PCA have the fortitutde to back up with definitive action what it declared overwhelmingly in the 2007 Study Report?’

    Or will the GA’s SJC consider today’s “take-over” as valid?

  2. Sean Gerety Says:

    It doesn’t follow that the PCA has the fortitude to do much of anything to stop the spread of the FV and NPP anywhere. I certainly can’t see the entire Presbytery being removed. It’s a nice thought, but I think in the end, and supposing Leithart gets defrocked, they’ll get their hands lightly slapped similar to what happened to the ladies in the LAP that twice exonerated Wilkins (who was never even tried).

  3. Hugh McCann Says:

    Seems a bit of a railroad job too:

    Interestingly, there was a motion to delay the vote until January that was roundly defeated. The purpose of this motion was to give the presbyters sufficient time to consider all the evidence (we only received the report and trial transcripts a few days ago, and to my knowledge none of the defense’s or prosecution’s exhibits or briefs have been made available to anyone). So basically, the only data that those who did not attend the trial (which is most presbyters) had to work with was the commission’s report, which made little to no attempt to explain the prosecution’s case, but instead just gave the rationale for its rejection.

    ~ Jason Stellman ~

  4. Hugh McCann Says:

    I agree Sean. It seems the FV snowball just picked up more mass & speed.

    With a seminary behind it,
    presbyteries more than blind
    or sympathetic to
    or in agreement with it,
    and with growing numbers of proponents,
    the Federal Vision appears poised to take over in our lifetimes.

    And the sad silence of the PCA’s shepherds in the coming days will be deafening.

  5. Hugh McCann Says:

    It’s been a bad week for the PCA: first Lawrence, now Leithart.

    The OPC’s Alan Strange commented today on PCA procedure @ Greenbaggins* ~

    I have commented on this, and other fora, in re: holding doctrinal trials in camera (closed, executive session, secret–call it what you will). I wrote a fuller objection for The Aquila Report.

    I understand that the OPC explicity forbids it and the PCA does not. But, may I suggest, that this is the sort of thing to which our consciences witness. It is, in other words, in accord with special and general revelation.

    For what reason would you hold a closed heresy trial? Either, if against the defendant, a star chamber proceeding to railroad him. Or, if for the defendant, an out-of-sight whitewashing.

    Brothers in the PCA, please stop this. I intend to bring this to my denomination’s Committee on Ecumencity and Interchurch Relations to call upon the PCA to desist in this practice.

    ….What could possibly be said in the closed session of a heresy trial that would remain secret? I understand a closed session and remaining mum in an ethical case, but not in a doctrinal case.

    How all this is being handled is rather sad to me and I want the PCA, for which I have the highest respect, better to conduct its doctrinal trials and to show itself to be above reproach in all these matters.

    Amen & amen. God save the PCA.


  6. Hugh McCann Says:

    Astute observations:

    The reason the OPC and PCA are plagued by false and deficient ministers is their very lax concept of subscription to the Westminster Standards. When traveling or moving to a new area the family that visits an OPC or PCA church does not know what they are going to encounter until they attend a church service. Will it be a “new life” celebrative (i.e. Arminian Charismatic style worship), a James Jordanite Anglo-Catholic service, a “traditional” old-fashioned service or a Westminster Confessional service (a cappella exclusive psalmody)? Will there be the many false teachings and practices that are allowed by way of exceptions to the Standards: paedocommunion, high church prelatical liturgies, priestly robes and vestments, deviant views on the early chapters of Genesis, mono-covenantalism, baptismal regeneration, higher life antinomian concepts of love, justification through faithful obedience, etc? A Presbyterian denomination that has a lax concept of subscription is “like a box of chocolates…you never know what you’re going to get.” If the OPC and PCA want to stop the declension they need to stop treating the Standards as a rubber yardstick or a set of broad recommendations. They must return to the full subscriptionism of their forefathers.

    If the OPC and PCA do not condemn and censure the heretics, which is likely given their rather advanced states of doctrinal decay on creation, the gospel, morality, biblical worship, the sacraments, etc; then they should be open and honest and rewrite the Westminster Standards to reflect what they really believe, allow and practice. The purpose of full subscription is to lock in a particular theological system and protect it from decay. Another purpose is to tell everyone what is confessed and represented. The lax system in place today really does neither. The Westminster Standards are sort of what we believe, sometimes, depending on who the local pastor and session is.

    In the OPC and PCA today there two rival religious systems. On the one side, generally speaking, we have the conservative remnant of New School Presbyterianism. On the other side we have the sacramentalists who are essentially Anglo-Catholic in worship and modern Judaizers on justification. They do not really look to Calvin, Knox and Melville but medieval Christianity, Norman Shepherd and Neo-legalism. Both sides cannot exist together in harmony, for fundamentally they are two separate, different religious systems: one of grace alone, the other of works righteousness…

  7. Denson Dube Says:

    “The Standing Judicial Commission reached the following verdicts, with the Commission vote on each charge noted.

    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”

    America’s dumbest!!!!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: