Posted on 06/11/2013 11:17:38 AM PDT by fishtank
One mans coffin nail could be the hinge pin keeping the PCA from going over the abyss.
Jason Stellmans flirtation with the Roman church-state right in the middle of his halfhearted prosecution of fellow closeted Roman Catholic, Peter Leithart, could be the means by which the PCA reverses its decision affirming Leitharts gross heresy as being within the bounds of the Westminster Confession, even his rejection of justification by faith alone and imputation.
Three PCA presbyteries that still believe that the Gospel is worth fighting for have approved an overture requesting the General Assembly to assume original jurisdiction over TE Peter Leithart, a teaching elder member of Pacific Northwest Presbytery. This means that the PCAs GA could retry the Leitheart case on the basis that there was a conflict of interest given the fact that Jason Stellman was a virtual Romanist while he was prosecuting another virtual Romanist. No kidding.
Now, I have little hope that the PCA will come to its senses, reverse itself, and turn things around. After all, the OPCs GA made a similar error declaring Shepherdite and Federal Vision heretic John Kinnaird to be within the bounds of Westminster orthodoxy and refused to reverse itself despite similar protests. The funny thing is that those in the OPC view themselves, even to this day, as stalwarts of the Reformed faith. The blemish of the Kinnaird decision is simply ignored as OPC TEs tell themselves, and anyone dumb enough to listen, that they did the right thing given the circumstances. Hogwash. That might be enough for a small, even micro, Presbyterian denomination like the OPC, but the PCA has a bigger tent to protect.
My guess it is that overtures such as these calling on the PCAs GA to reverse the miscarriage of justice when it exonerated Leithart are nothing more than spitting in the wind. But, sometime what sounds like death rattles are actually gasps for breath. Besides, I have to think that Peter Leithart, assuming he has even a remote sense of decency and is not as amoral as he is heretical, would simply leave the PCA for his current home in the proto-papist CREC where he labors. I have to think being such a despised man by those he wants to pretend are his brothers has to be, at the very least, uncomfortable. Lets hope he comes to his senses first and leaves the PCA as the PCA GA has already proven itself incapable of correctly identifying a man that is not even a Christian.
This article was never posted.
But I have a question: I'm not in the PCA, but is this a big deal for them now?
This article is hilarious because Catholics don’t believe in an invisible church.
What is the back ground on this? What is the point of the story?
>>What is the back ground on this? What is the point of the story?
Maybe this will help, but it just confused me. I guess I’d have to be a Presbyterian to understand.
http://southernreformation.wordpress.com/2013/04/03/jason-stellman-peter-leithart-and-the-pca/
Thanks for the links.!
I have a question: I'm not in the PCA, but is this a big deal for them now?
I'm still struggling with the article, as it's badly written and poorly structured. Apparently the "big deal" for the author is in being something something "proto-papist" "closet-Catholic", etc. If I had to guess, I'd say the author has trouble with anything and anyone touching the subject of covenant theology.
Well, I am not Presbyterian. So my interest is limited. That being said, according to the Presbyterian Church, most Presbyterian aren’t that interested in their Church.
Pretty much any time I see someone use the word “papist” in a negative context I am fairly certain that I am dealing with someone whose doctrine has become ideology.
C.S. Lewis explains a reasonable position on doctrines this way:
“We are told that Christ was killed for us, that His death has washed out our sins, and that by dying He disabled death itself. That’s the formula. That’s Christianity. That’s what has to be believed. Any theories we build up as to how Christ’s death did all this are, in my view, quite secondary: mere plans or diagrams to be left alone if they don’t help us, and even if they do help us, not to be confused with the thing itself.”
Doctrine saves no one. Once it has degenerated into an ideology, which is really just a way to look on others and determine the extent of their purity, even right doctrine has failed in its purpose.
I think the same can be said when we see someone using the word "fundamentalist" in a negative context.
C.S. Lewis explains a reasonable position on doctrines this way: We are told that Christ was killed for us, that His death has washed out our sins, and that by dying He disabled death itself. Thats the formula. Thats Christianity. Thats what has to be believed. Any theories we build up as to how Christs death did all this are, in my view, quite secondary: mere plans or diagrams to be left alone if they dont help us, and even if they do help us, not to be confused with the thing itself.
That's an excellent explanation, IMO.
Doctrine saves no one. Once it has degenerated into an ideology, which is really just a way to look on others and determine the extent of their purity, even right doctrine has failed in its purpose.
Ditto!
I agree. As one who is neither a "papist" nor a "fundamentalist" (though I believe I subscribe to the fundamentals of the faith) I am so weary of some of the doctrinal squabbling that much of the church seems to relish.
Ditto.
The trial involved the question of the authority of the WCF over Scripture, since Leithart could clearly defend his views from the Bible.
Leithart was acquitted on all counts. However, shortly after the trial, the prosecutor, Jason Stellman, out-Leitharted Leithart and became a Catholic.
That's the background as I understand it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.