oakleys.org.uk

What follows is a debate that took place on my Facebook page last October (2009). It really shouldn’t be allowed to slip down the wormhole of past FB posts. It’s worth reviewing. Perhaps my RC sparring partner, Bryan Cross, will want to add something to this.

It began with me posting a quotation from Martin Luther on enforced priestly celibacy:

. . . the pope has as little power to give this command as he has to forbid eating, drinking, the natural processes. . . No one, therefore, is duty bound to keep this commandment, and the pope is responsible for all the sins that are committed against this ordinance, for all the souls lost thereby, and for all the consciences thereby confused and tortured (Plass, What Luther Says, p. 888).

That was the catalyst for the following debate. (The reader should know that my FB rules forbid posting links to Roman Catholic propaganda sites in comments. That will explain a few lacunae in the flow of the argument.)

1. Kevin Branson: The Church has deemed it best that her ministers be single, and celibate, as Paul deemed it best. At present, the Church therefore requires a vow of celibacy from priests. Someday, that could change, and in certain situations exceptions are made even now, but ordinarily, them’s the rules. Nobody puts a gun to a priest’s head and forces them to take a vow of celibacy, nor did anyone force Luther to do so. It was his own choice, as it was his own choice to break his vow of celibacy.

2. Shawn Honey: Celibacy was chosen by Paul and he recommended it to others; it was not bound upon him from the outside, nor did he bind others to it. Peter chose to marry as did other Apostles and, presumably, countless elders (“husband of one wife…”). I think the point pertains to whether a church has the right to bind the consciences of its ministers in a way that Scripture seems to speak against.

3. Craig Lawrence Brann: True as Mr. Branson’s points are, it remains that the Apostle Paul had good reason for suggesting that men facing an apocolypse not be wed and likewise that women not become pregnant—this counsel was not at all timeless or abstract and it really is one of the roman church’s silliest Order’s to make apology for. Wasn’t it the same Apostle who called forbidding marriage a, ‘doctrine of demons.’ Hardly a class of teaching that ought only be obtained by the clergy!

4. Jeff Meyers: Good points, Sean. Remember, too, that the 1 Tim 3 passage (“husband of one wife”) is about the qualifications for “bishop” (episkopos).

5. Jeff Meyers: Craig, right on. Enforced celibacy for pastors is demonic, as Paul says.

6. Jeff Meyers: Kevin, get real. According to Rome, everyone that wants to be a pastor/priest must take a vow of celibacy. That is one big ecclesiastical gun at the head of every young man who desires to serve the church as a pastor. Also, “the Church” has not deemed it best for her ministers to be singe. Nope. ROME has arrogated to herself the make-believe position of sole authority over the entire church of Jesus Christ, East and West. Rome has no authority to make such a decree.

7. Jeff Meyers: BTW, you apologists for Roman tyranny, don’t bother to put links to RC web sites here in my FB comments. My FB page is not the place for you to seduce people to follow you to Rome. I’ll delete them.

8. Kevin Branson: Jeff, my comment was placed before your “warning”, or maybe they passed each other like ships in the night, or maybe I didn’t refresh soon enough to be “warned”. My point, without the link, is that celibacy is not required of all Catholic priests. The link would have explained the exceptions, but nevermind. Too much information can be bad. My other point which was deleted is that if one truly believes the Catholic Church is demonic, then that should be plainly stated, rather than merely offering relatively polite criticisms of the errors of the Catholic Church, and/or the Pope.

9. Jeffrey Steel: I am honestly trying to figure out why you even care about this Jeff… I think if you’re going to engage with the discipline of priestly celibacy as the norm, dispensations are given to some married men by the way, you need to understand the Catholic Church’s teaching on the theology of the body.

10. Jeff Meyers: Kevin I didn’t say the Catholic church was demonic. I only repeated Paul’s statement that for the church to forbid marriage is a demonic doctrine.

11. Jeff Meyers: Jeff: it’s the norm and ideal that is the problem. That dispensations are given to some men is lame. That doesn’t exonerate Rome from gross error in demanding celibacy of pastors and bishops. The prohibition is against the Scriptures’ explicit instructions and warnings. No “theology of body” can ever compensate for that.

12. Jeffrey Steel: Jeff, I understand your concerns but how much of your (and most of us in the West) view of sexuality been shaped by the Western culture? The Church doesn’t hold a gun to men’s head to be a priest; that is a gift given and men offer themselves to the vocation of celibate chastity. Pope Paul VI admitted exceptions but East and West are very similar here. In the East, for instance, only celibate men can be bishops. If a man has the sacrament of marriage prior to receiving the sacrament of ordination he maintains both until his wife dies which then he remains celibate and chaste for the remainder of his life. The Latin rite Church is the same with regards to exceptions. It’s not lame, it’s the charity of the Church recognising the prior valid ministry of men from outside her walls and discerning a call to vocational ministry and marriage. Celibacy is freely chosen.Celibacy is a charism. It is the total gift of self in and with Christ to his Bride and it expresses that relationship of the priest’s service to the Church and to Jesus. Theology of the Body does compensate lame shots at a theology of the chrism of priestly celibacy.

13. Tim Gallant: Celibacy is indeed a charism. And one which very few have, which is why the so-called celibate priesthood is one very long train wreck.

14. Kevin Branson: Not sure exactly what Tim Gallant is specifically referring to as regards the “very long train wreck” that is the celibate priesthood. Probably more than just the Catholic child sex abuse problem, but that is probably part of what he is referring to. In observance of the “rule” for Catholics who post in this thread, I have to be careful not to post a link here, so you will have to dig up the answer to this question for yourselves: What is the ranking of the relative incidence of sexual crimes against children amongst these four groups: a) Catholic priests, b) protestant ministers, c) school teachers, and d) family members? Hint: you are more likely to rank these in the correct order if you successfully ignore the media’s reporting regarding Group A). And yes, sexual abuse is very bad, no matter who commits the sin.

15. Tim Gallant: The one long train wreck is not simply the sexual abuse of children by clergy, which is simply part of the pattern, or should I say the tip of the iceberg. Those who want to know can dig deeply into the inconvenient pregnancies caused throughout history by monks and priests, to say nothing of those who remained technically celibate but who were anything but on any other level. What is sown is reaped. The Roman church has on the one hand exalted a particular sort of life as spiritual unlike “secular” life, and on the other tied it to celibacy. The result is the necessary conclusion that truly spiritual life requires celibacy, and that leads people who have no charism into an abyss.

Yes, it is indeed one long train wreck, and it is a train wreck that is built into the system.

16. C Frank Bernard: As much as I like Luther, I don’t think I like “[...]and the pope is responsible for all the sins that are committed against this ordinance[...]” Where’s this in the bible? I think I’d stick to demonic (antithesis) references for lies/false doctrine, that rulers will undergo stricter judgment, etc. As Luther realized, so do we (adults, assuredly those 20 and over) have a responsibility to realize that anyone who tries to bind the conscience of those called to a 1Tim3 or Titus1 office by prohibiting the subsequent entrance to the blessed covenant of marriage is plainly biblically wrong and should be counseled by the best elders (each most likely having a godly wife and godly children). We no longer have the high office of apostles (2nd only to Jesus) but even when we did, there were multiple apostles who could rebuke one another (e.g., to Peter’s face and god-breathed into scripture for all to take heed).

17. Jeff Meyers: Charles, Any pope at any given time is responsible for the Roman church’s well-being as the chief pastor of that flock. I wouldn’t want to be in their shoes on judgment day. They are indeed responsible, just as Jesus told the Jewish leaders that they would answer for all the sins of their predecessors if they didn’t heed his warning (Mat. 23).

18. C Frank Bernard: That’s a good point, but skimming that chapter I wonder if the rulers alive in that generation were about to receive the very unique judgment in AD 70. The blood wrath of the saints was stored and poured on that particular gen of rulers.

19. Jeff Meyers: Charles, the AD 70 judgment was unique, but it was also an example. The connection between pastor and people is so strong that Paul can command Timothy: “Watch yourself and your doctrine closely; persevere in them: for in doing so you will save both yourself and your hearers” (1 Tim. 4:16). The salvation of our people depends, in some sense, on our example and teaching as pastors. The pope has a very large church for which he is directly responsible.

20. Bryan R Cross: Before addressing Luther’s statement itself, we have to step back and consider the meta-level question of how to evaluate such a statement. If Luther’s statement were false, how would we know?

21. Jeff Meyers: If Rome’s law requiring celibacy for priests were false, how would we know?

22. Bryan R Cross: It would be contrary either to natural law or to the Church’s dogmas concerning morality.

23. Jeff Meyers: Rome’s law is contrary to both created nature and the Word of God’s explicit, clear teaching about marriage and ministry in the church. Church dogma can be wrong and is always answerable to the Scriptures. This is one of those unmistakably clear instances of Rome’s error.

24. Bryan R Cross: Jeff, celibacy itself is not contrary to created nature. Otherwise, anyone who did not marry would be acting contrary to nature. That would make Jesus a pervert. So the conditional requirement of celibacy is not a violation of natural law, because the priestly vocation is a supernatural calling, not a natural calling. Nor is the celibacy requirement contrary to any Church dogma (so it is irrelevant to this question whether the dogma is right or wrong). The Bible nowhere teaches that the presbyter must be married (or must have been married). The discipline in the NT time was not that marriage was a necessary condition for ordination, but that no one having more than one wife could be ordained. So the celibacy requirement does not contradict Scripture; it is fully compatible with Scripture.

25. Jeff Meyers: Bryan, what a tangled mess of an argument. I’ll let the readers of this tread decide if it’s sophistry or not. Of course, the Bible does not require marriage for a presbyter or bishop. I never said anything like that. What the Scriptures do indeed condemn is “forbidding people to marry,” and that is the real issue here. The Roman way is to forbid marriage in the priesthood (little dispensations to various groups here and there notwithstanding). That violates God’s Word with a vengeance. Adam had to learn that it was “not good to be alone.” Man and woman are made to marry. If there are those who chose NOT to marry for good reasons, they are free not to do so. But it is a special and dangerous calling, as Jesus makes clear. There are all sorts of possible licit reasons for remaining celibate, including the desire to serve Christ’s church as a pastor/bishop without distractions. A man is free to embrace celibacy if he wants. But he will be embracing something against his created nature. Not everyone can do so. Jesus chose to do so, but he only had three years of service. Not taking a wife was his wise choice. But the implications of the fact that he chose married apostles is pretty obvious, except to Roman churchmen blinded by their erroneous tradition.

26. C Frank Bernard: Bryan: celibacy requirement or option? Where’s the requirement?

27. Bryan R Cross: Charles, if your question is “Where in Scripture is the requirement of celibacy for the priesthood stated?” then we see that this disagreement (between Protestants and the Latin Rite discipline) is itself based on a deeper disagreement concerning whether or not any ecclesial discipline must be stated in Scripture.

28. Jeff Meyers: Bryan, in your note to Charles I see that you’re still not getting it. It’s not just that there’s no requirement for celibacy in Scripture. Rather, it’s that by explicit example (apostles, etc.) and direct command (1 Tim 3; 1 Cor. 9:5), marriage is commended to pastors and bishops. To decree clerical celibacy is in direct violation of explicit biblical teaching.

29. C Frank Bernard: So the requirement citation I’m inquiring about is first in the post-biblical Latin Rite? How exactly did we go from the apostolic requirement of having no more than 1 wife to having no more than 0?

30. Jeff Meyers: That’s exactly the way to put it, Charles. The Bible says that a presbyter/bishop “must be the husband of one wife.” The Roman church decrees that a presbyter/bishop is forbidden to have one wife. So how’s all that Aristotelean logic working for you?

31. Bryan R Cross: Jeff, Catholics agree that St. Paul condemns forbidding marriage. The context for that statement by St. Paul is proto-gnosticism, based on the notion that marriage is evil, and that bringing children into the world is evil, because matter is evil. But you are interpreting Paul’s statement to be without qualification, i.e. anyone, regardless of their vocation state, has the right to marry in that vocational state. Whereas the Catholic Church understands St. Paul’s statement with an implicit qualification: anyone, has the right to choose the vocation of marriage [which is good and holy], but that does not mean that St. Paul is saying that anyone in the priestly vocation has the right to marry, or that everyone has the right to both vocations simultaneously. So it is not enough to appeal to 1 Tim 4:3, because both sides interpret it differently. And it is not prima facie self-evident which interpretation is correct.

32. Jeff Meyers: Bryan, for the church to forbid pastors to marry is against explicit NT teaching (1 Tim. 3; 1 Cor. 9:5; etc.) and is violating Paul’s warning against “forbidding” people to marry. Proto-gnostic or not, the problem is when church authorities FORBID pastors from marrying. If individuals want to forgo marriage, that’s their choice. But to authoritatively decree that no one who is married may be a pastor is in DIRECT violation of Pauline teaching. Paul says that a pastor/bishop “must be the husband of one wife” (1 Tim. 3; Titus 1). Rome says that no man with one wife may be a pastor/bishop This is demonic.

33. Bryan R Cross: Jeff, I’m aware that many of the Apostles were married. But again, the question is whether their being married entails that all subsequent bishops and priests have a right to be ordained *and* be married. I don’t see how it does. The fact that some of the Apostles were married does not entail that the Church does not have the authority to require that those men who wish to be ordained as priests in the Church lay down their right to married, for the sake of Christ.

34. Jeff Meyers: Bryan, if the apostolic example is not normative, then where in the world is Rome getting the inspiration for her decree to DEMAND celibacy for pastors and bishops? Paul tells us: demons. Once again, the clear contradiction:

The Holy Spirit says through Paul that a pastor/bishop “must be the husband of one wife” (1 Tim. 3; Titus 1).

Demons speak through Rome saying that no man with one wife may be a pastor/bishop.

35. Bryan R Cross Jeff, the 1 Tim 3 passage can be ready either way, as I pointed out. It can be read as a requirement that every priest be married to one wife (or have been married only to one wife), OR it can be read as forbidding the ordination of someone with two or more wives. The Church has always understood it in the latter sense, never in the former sense. So it seems to me that the burden of proof is on those who claim that it means that every priest *must* be married. Either way, it does not teach that every man has a right to both vocations simultaneously.

Regarding 1 Cor 9:5, of course St. Paul had the right to take a wife. Catholics fully agree. That doesn’t show that the Church has no authority to require that those men who wish to be ordained as priests in the Church lay down their right to married. So I don’t see the Church’s celibacy discipline to be “in DIRECT violation” of any of St. Paul’s statements. Of course I can see how you read them that way, but I don’t think you see how a Catholic can see these verses as fully compatible with the Church’s discipline. Just pointing to verses doesn’t resolve the disagreement, because interpretation is involved.

36. C Frank Bernard: Regarding 1 Tim 3: “Either way, it does not teach that every man has a right to both vocations simultaneously.” But it does teach, either way and at a minimum, that ordained men could have both vocations simultaneously. But then somehow later the “Latin Rite” and/or “the Church” forbade marriage after ordination? Care to explain the birth of this celibate discontinuity?

37. Jeff Meyers Bryan, are you kidding me? The burden of proof is on Rome that says that every pastor/priest MUST be unmarried. Such a requirement flies in the face of the entire Bible, Old and NT, re: Levitical priests or Christian apostles and pastors.

Granted that 1 Tim. 3 forbids the ordination of anyone with more than one wife. It does. But what it does NOT do is FORBID a man who has one wife from being ordained. Rome does that. Not Paul. Titus 1:6 says that a presbyter “must be the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of riot or unruly. . .” Children. Are you now going to present to me some sophistry that concludes that Paul’s instruction was not meant to lead us to believe that the men presented for ordination to presbyter were ordinarily married and had children?

38. Bryan R Cross: Jeff, if you are interpreting 1 Tim 3 to mean that a pastor/bishop “must be the husband of one wife”, then the instant his wife dies, he loses his ordination, and can’t be re-ordained until he remarries. But you don’t believe that. So St. Paul cannot mean there that every priest/bishop must be married. There are other, more charitable explanations besides “demons” for why Rome adopted the celibacy requirement. It is the same reason why the Orthodox require celibacy of their bishops; for the reasons St. Paul explains in 1 Cor 7. “One who is unmarried is concerned about the things of the Lord, how he may please the Lord. but one who is married is concerned about the things of the world, how he may please his wife, and his interests are divided.”

39. Jeff Meyers: No, Bryan. Quote 1 Cor. 7 all you want. I referred to it obliquely earlier. Paul was talking about making responsibly choices. Yes, it applies to the pastorate. I grant that. But not even Paul will do what the Pope has arrogantly done: authoritatively decree that all men who enter the pastorate be celibate. Paul carefully avoids using his authority as an apostle to demand celibacy.

Let me be clear here. For a man to choose celibacy as a pastor based on 1 Cor. 7 considerations is not demonic. For the church or those in authority to counsel men on the benefits of celibacy for ministers is NOT demonic. But when the pope and leaders of the Roman church make celibacy ecclesiasetical LAW and FORBID marriage to men entering the ministry or serving as pastors, well, that is demonic. Talk to Paul about the charity of that judgment, not me.

40. Bryan R Cross: Charles, you wrote, “But it does teach, either way and at a minimum, that ordained men could have both vocations simultaneously. ” I agree. But everything lies in the term ‘could have’. Does the ‘could have’ mean “have an intrinsic right to”, or does it mean “are compatible”? The Church sees it in the latter sense. That is why married Anglican priests, who become Catholic, can then be ordained Catholic priests and remain married. The compatibility of the two vocations does not entail that the Church may not require as a discipline that those men seeking ordination in the Latin Rite remain celibant.

41. C Frank Bernard: If the Latin Rite is merely the name assigned to the celibate ordained, no big deal in many ways. But I suspect the Latin Rite is either the only ordination option presented in some churches and/or has privileges not offered to the married ordained.

42. Bryan R Cross: The Latin Rite is one among 23 Rites within the Catholic Church. And so far as I know (though I don’t know very much about the other Rites), the Latin Rite is the only one requiring celibacy of priests. So if someone wanted to be married and discerned a vocation to be a Catholic priest, he could pursue ordination in the other Rites.

43. Garrett Craw: Bryan that seems rather convenient to me. So, its okay to be married if you’re in some far-flung ethnic group but not in the heart of the vast majority of the RCC? That makes no sense. BTW speaking of anecdotal train wrecks. Everyday I have to wade through the train wreck while wearing my Protestant dog collar because people think I’m some weird unmarried creepo leering at their children. That’s just the real-world out here in Los Angeles where the pedophile priest scandal blew up like a hydrogen bomb.

44. Justin Donathan: Bryan, how is it that Apostolic counsel and practice is not normative for the church and can be abrogated in the case of celibacy for priests, while so much of the rest of RC teaching and practice is based precisely on Apostolic precedent?

45. Bryan R Cross: Garrett, the solution to abuse in the Church is not to start a sect, but to stay within and serve and reform, with charity and patience, even if that means white martyrdom or red martyrdom. Two wrongs don’t make a right; that’s why schism from the Church is never justified. Trying to reform the Church from the outside is a dead-end. How much longer would it take before that became evident? Another 500 years? We’ve got to realize that the outside strategy was mistaken. Any Protestant who is tempted to complain about the state of certain Catholics must first consider the responsibility he bears for that state by not being in the Catholic Church. I’m not saying this as a criticism of you or other people like you; on the contrary, it is because of the great deal of respect I have for PCA/CREC people like yourself (and all those solid men that I graduated with at CTS) that I believe that when Protestants finally bring their gifts back into the Church, the effect in the Church will be powerful. I wasn’t ignorant of the abuse scandal when I returned; I came to believe that that’s no excuse for remaining in schism.

Justin, discipline and dogma are not the same. For example, it is not a sin to eat meat from animals killed by strangulation (Acts 15). That’s a discipline that was based on the time/context. But Apostolic dogma can never be revoked.

46. Garrett Craw: “Trying to reform the church from the outside.” Gotta love that one. I think you’re trying to get the conversation away from the Bible back into philosophy so you can talk about tradition. The Church has been very powerful in the last 500 years. Its Protestants that are taking the Gospel to Africa and China not the RCC. This actually reminds me of debating Marxists. Rather than admit that some things really don’t work and never have (like enforced clerical celibacy and Utopian proletariat states). You still haven’t answered the biblical arguments put forth by Jeff and others and that is problematic.

47. Jeff Meyers: Bryan, this is pure arrogance: “when Protestants finally bring their gifts back into the Church.” I don’t need to return. I was baptized into the Church 52 years ago and have never left it. What you conveniently overlook is that men tried to reform the church from the inside in the 16th century. Rome refused. She exiled them and the declared herself to be the true Church at the council of Trent. Before the 16th century there was no Roman Catholic church. There was just the Church. Now there is this arrogant sect, ruled from Rome, that arrogates to itself the title of “the Church.”

48. Jeff Meyers: Bryan, you write: “But Apostolic dogma can never be revoked.” This is exactly what Rome has done by mandating celibacy – revoked Apostolic dogma.

The Apostle Paul says that a pastor/bishop “must be the husband of one wife” (1 Tim. 3; Titus 1).

Rome’s dogma says that no man with one wife may be a pastor/bishop.

And don’t give me some nuanced definition of “dogma” in an attempt to escape the issue.

49. Valerie Kyriosity: If I may add my two cents to the melee (sorry for the mixed metaphor, but I didn’t want to claim any more violent contribution), Jesus’ unmarried state has been mentioned a couple of times as a model of celibacy. Well, only of premarital celibacy. Jesus’ whole incarnation is about His marriage. All of creation is about His marriage. He is the ultimate example of marriage which all human marriages are to reflect. If a man — pastor or layman — would be like Jesus, let him lay down his life to seek and sanctify a bride. And note that it’s only one bride He came for…not a harem as sentimental or hypermystical folks on both sides of the Tiber would have it. He’s neither the husband of each nun who dons a wedding dress to take her vows in a perversion of a marriage ceremony nor of each girl of either sex who sways gently to the creepy, quasi-romantic music of the “Jesus is my boyfriend” tunes at the local evangellyfish church.

50. Bryan R Cross Jeff, regarding whether before the 16th century there was a Roman Catholic Church, here are Aquinas’ dying words, receiving Viaticum: “I receive Thee, the price of my redemption, for Whose love I have watched, studied, and laboured. Thee have I preached; Thee have I taught. Never have I said anything against Thee: if anything was not well said, that is to be attributed to my ignorance. Neither do I wish to be obstinate in my opinions, but if I have written anything erroneous concerning this sacrament or other matters, I submit all to the judgment and correction of the Holy Roman Church, in whose obedience I now pass from this life.”

51. Jeff Meyers: Bryan, that some, such as Thomas, obsequiously bowed to Rome, does not mean that all theologians and churches in Europe, let a lone the entire world, did so. You can find examples of theologians, bishops, and pastors from the 4th century on that sought to make Rome the center and authority for the entire church. Sure enough. You can also find just as many IN THE CHURCH who resisted Rome’s imperialistic attempts to centralize church authority, like Augustine.

52. Bryan R Cross: Jeff, my point wasn’t about bowing. My point was that if, as you put it, there was no such thing as the Roman Catholic Church until Trent, then Aquinas’ words make no sense. Aquinas clearly believed there was such a thing.

Regarding Augustine’s alleged “resistance” to “Roman imperialistic attempts to centralize church authority,” here’s what he said to the Donatists:

“You know what the Catholic Church is, and what that is cut off from the Vine; if there are any among you cautious, let them come; let them find life in the Root. Come, brethren, if you wish to be engrafted in the Vine: a grief it is when we see you lying thus cut off. Number the Bishops even from the very seat of Peter: and see every succession in that line of Fathers: that is the Rock against which the proud Gates of Hell prevail not.”

53. Jeff Meyers: Oh there was a particular Roman church alright, and lot’s of pastors and bishops believed that local church in Rome, Italy, had primacy. But others did not. I affirm there was an arrogant, power-hungry local Roman church in Italy before the 16th century. But there was no monolithic “Roman Catholic Church” before Trent.

Recently the magazine Tabletalk published a series of essays against Calvinist theologian N. T. Wright. The black cover of this issue lets us know just how dangerous this man is.

But how dangerous is N. T. Wright? Well, he’s dangerous to some people, but not to others. Let’s see:

1. He believes in paedocommunion. He thinks baptism is enough to admit children to the table. There’s no particular essay on paedocommunion in this issue of Tabletalk, but you can be sure that it’s in the background. Paedocommunion is a much more churchy and less intellectualistic approach to the Kingdom than the writers in Tabletalk believe in.

2. He believes in theocracy. He thinks that it is of the essence of the Gospel that Jesus is King, and not just King of the Church but King of kings. God has been forgiving and justifying people ever since Adam, but now He’s made Jesus King and calls all societies to repent. This is completely rejected by the Klineans and pietists who dominate the “Reformed” world today. They are opposed to any idea of theocracy. For Wright, salvation is both individual and social, and the baptistic individualists who attack him completely disagree with this, especially John Piper, who as a baptist is not really into a covenantal view of society and salvation. It is no surprise that baptists and amillennialists, who think that God is only saving individuals and not societies, would be confused by traditional Calvinists like Wright.

3. He’s basically postmillennial. He thinks we have not yet arrived at the end of history. He doesn’t think everything has been settled, and that the Great Conversation needs to continue. He’s willing to be open to correction on lots of secondary issues. This is a problem for amillennialists, who naturally tend to think that everything has been settled and that any departure from their views is a move into serious error or heresy.

4. He’s a member of the Church of England. So, he believes in sung, liturgical worship. As far as the Ligonier types, most of them anyway, that’s a great evil. I know some of the men who wrote in this issue of Tabletalk, and believe me, they are strongly against weekly communion, singing psalms, and structured covenant-renewal worship. Two of these authors are pastors at First Presbyterian, Jackson, MS, and you can go to that website and see for yourself.

5. He’s a bishop. You’ll notice that all the people attacking him in this issue of Tabletalk are baptists or presbyterians. But Wright’s view of bishop is very low church: The bishop is nothing more than an ordinary minister who is regarded as first among equals. Wright is strongly opposed to any separate “office” of bishop. The “presiding minister” in the Confederation of Reformed and Evangelical Churches is pretty much the same as what Wright views as a bishop. Still, just hearing the word “bishop” makes some of these men react. I know some of these men, and they have an emotional revulsion when it comes to Episcopalians of any variety.

6. Wright joins with the original Calvinist reformation and views justification as forgiveness, and does not see any “imputation of active obedience” as part of it. This is a technical question that grew up a generation or two after the Reformation and that was an issue at the Westminster Assembly, and concerning which the Westminster Standards are deliberately silent. Many modern Calvinists believe that when we are united to Jesus in His resurrection, we receive all His righteousness plus His glorified power, and that is what gives us the power to obey and live as Christians. But we are pronounced innocent simply because of the cross. As far as I am concerned, this is correct. The Lord’s Supper shows forth Jesus’ death, not some kind of “imputed righteousness.” But whatever the case, anyone who thinks that “imputation of active obedience” is part of the essence of the Reformed faith is in error. The Reformed faith has always had people on both sides of this question.

7. The fact that Wright is an openly declared Calvinist is not an issue, of course, but you’d never know that from the way these men have written about him. Wright has never tried to be “above” the differences between Protestant and Catholic, as one of these writers falsely alleges. He’s completely Reformed and Calvinistic, and has said so many times.

8. Of course, Wright, like most English evangelicals, is in favor of women’s ordination. And he’s got some political views that I don’t agree with, though he’s an openly declared “small government man.” And of course, as a participant in the Great Conversation, there are a number of places where I disagree with Wright’s interpretation of a particular passage.

9. The final thing I’ll say about Wright is this: There is absolutely nothing in anything N. T. Wright has ever written that even in the slightest compromises the Protestant doctrine of salvation by faith alone. Anyone who says otherwise is just ignorant.

10. So, the question for us is this: Is N. T. Wright dangerous to US? I don’t think so. He’s a fine evangelical and Reformed scholar who has much to say, and we should not be afraid to listen, and disagree sometimes or often.

Back in March 2008, I wrote a series of three posts here on how Paul employs Scripture in Romans 3. One of the key bits under focus was the phrase “the righteousness of God,” since Rom 3 is essentially the New Testament epicenter for the term.

In those posts (read them for more detail), I showed that throughout the chapter, Paul is alluding to and citing Old Testament passages where God’s righteousness is mentioned. And the meaning of “Your righteousness” or equivalent could be described as God’s faithfulness to His commitments, His verity (truthfulness), commitment to the salvation of His people. (Thus the general reading of “covenant faithfulness” is a pretty good way to sum up.)

The question arises, though: what about 2 Corinthians 5.21? “He made Him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in Him we might become the righteousness of God.” This verse has long been employed as proof of “the great exchange” – Christ takes our sin, and gives us His righteousness.

Now, those familiar with my writings will know that I have absolutely no problem with the first part of that equation – certainly Christ bears our sin on the cross. And there is also a sense in which Christ’s righteousness becomes ours, but the shape of that is a bit different from what is usually meant by “the great exchange” reading. (I.e. it’s usually taken to mean that Christ’s active obedience is imputed to us.)

But 2 Corinthians 5.21 is not a general statement about the “how” of salvation.This is demonstrated by the immediately preceding and succeeding context. Paul is speaking of his role as an ambassador of Christ (2 Cor 5.20). It is through these ambassadors that God makes His appeal; and it is in this role as a minister of reconciliation that Paul is speaking to the Corinthians, which is why in the verses that immediately follow he goes to such lengths to vindicate his ministry (6.1-13).

Second Corinthians 5.21 follows a pattern seen on more than one occasion in the Old Testament. God selects a servant who will act on His behalf, but it turns out the servant is unclean. So He cleanses him, and then commissions him. Probably the most familiar example is Isaiah 6: Isaiah confesses that he is a man of unclean lips, and dwells among a people of unclean lips. Whereupon God cleanses him by touching his lips with a coal from the altar, after which He sends – “apostleizes” (an apostle is one sent on behalf of another) Isaiah to speak for Him.

A quite similar passage is Zechariah 3, where Joshua the high priest is standing before the Angel of the LORD, and Satan is accusing him – probably because he is clothed in filthy garments (iniquity). The angel has the filthy garments removed from Joshua, and has him clothed with pure vestments so that he is qualified to serve as a righteous priest.

Paul has already said something of that kind in 2 Corinthians 5, just a few verses earlier: “All this is from God, who through Christ reconciled us to Himself, and gave us the ministry of reconciliation” (5.18). The apostles and other emissaries have been cleansed for the purpose of being God’s agents to bring His reconciling message to the world.

In this context, in 6.2, Paul quotes from Isaiah 49.8, “In a favorable time I listened to you, and in a day of salvation I have helped you” (ESV).

Along with the Psalms, Isaiah is the Old Testament center of the righteousness of God theme. Shortly after the verse cited, YHWH speaks,

My righteousness draws near, my salvation has gone out, and My arms will judge the peoples; the coastlands hope for Me, and for My arm they wait… My salvation will be forever, and My righteousness will never be dismayed.

Here again is the familiar usage of divine righteousness. What is in view is not lawkeeping, but God’s commitment to the salvation of His people.

In Isaiah 49, the chapter Paul quotes, the servant is appointed “to bring Jacob back” to YHWH (49.5). But YHWH says even that is “too light a thing;” the servant will also be made “a light for the nations, that My salvation (synonymous with My righteousness, remember) may reach to the end of the earth” (Is 49.6). Isaiah 49.8, the first half of which Paul quotes in 2 Cor 6.2 runs this way in full:

Thus says YHWH, In a time of favour I have answered you; in a day of salvation I have helped you; I will keep you and give you as a covenant to the people, to establish the land, to apportion the desolate heritages.

Of course, it is Christ Himself who is ultimately the “covenant to the people” – He is the new covenant. Yet because an apostle is an agent on behalf of another, Paul is rightly taking key aspects of this role (in terms of proclamation) as applying to himself. He is the one “saying to the prisoners, ‘Come out,’ to those who are in darkness, ‘Appear’” (Isaiah 48.9), which is why he has spoken a couple chapters earlier of “our gospel” which is veiled to those who are perishing, because “the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God” (2 Cor 4.4). Even more clearly, he adds,

For what we proclaim is not ourselves, but Jesus Christ as Lord, with ourselves as your servants for Jesus’ sake. For God, who said, “Let light shine out of darkness,” has shone in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.

In other words, the apostles do not speak for themselves, but speak representatively, as servants, for the Servant, and they have become agents of the light of the gospel.

What, then, is the point of 2 Corinthians 5.21? Paul is saying that just as Isaiah and Joshua the high priest were cleansed for the purpose of their commissions, Christ – who knew no sin – has become a sin offering for the ambassadors, so that they in turn may fulfill His role (in its function of proclamation) as the embodied righteousness of God. When the gospel is preached, God’s commitment to salvation comes to fruition, and the world is reconciled.

“That we might become the righteousness of God,” then, is not a circumlocution for “that we might receive the active obedience of Christ imputed to us.” It is an affirmation of the apostolic role (and analogically, all those who proclaim the gospel) as the means by which God faithfully brings His salvation to the world. Those who proclaim the gospel are the embodied righteousness of God.

You need to read Rob Rayburn’s defense of his presbytery to the PCA SJC (Standing Judicial Committee). If you’ve been out of the loop on this, that’s okay. But what has happened in the last few years is that people have made accusations against Peter Leithart, and in response the Pacific Northwest Presbytery has investigated Peter’s views with two separate committees. Each time Peter has been exonerated. But now someone has appealed to SJC. A committee of the SJC met in Atlanta last fall and Rob was there. The SJC has produced a tentative report that is still to be voted on by the whole commission in March. Click here to download that document.

After he witnessed the proceedings in Atlanta, Rob wrote this response. It is worth reading a couple of times. He nails it. He nails the SJC. But will he be heard? Will anyone in the PCA care? Those are the big questions.

—————————————————–

SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF
Judicial Case 2009-6
Pacific Northwest Presbytery
Robert S. Rayburn
Respondent

Presbytery has received the Proposed Decision of the SJC Panel in Case 2009-6 and respectfully offers this supplemental brief in protest of the decision and its reasoning. To be frank the respondent offers this brief with no expectation of it being read with sympathy. At no point in this process has there been any indication of an intention to give Dr. Leithart or the Presbytery of the Pacific Northwest a sympathetic evaluation, to examine his statements in context, or really to enter into the exploration of the issues raised in this discussion. Nor has there been any acknowledgement that Scripture provides us with data for which the Standards provide us no specific explanations and that is it chiefly this material that comes to the fore in Dr. Leithart’s explorations. I regret to say this brief is offered more as an effort to satisfy the demands of conscience than in any expectation of provoking serious reflection upon the part of the SJC. To that end I protest the decision of the panel and plead with the entire SJC to think again on the following grounds.

The Make-up of the Panel

When the case was first assigned to a panel, Presbytery noted that one of its members had been part of a panel that had heard a case involving similar issues in the Siouxlands Presbytery. Presbytery inquired of the Stated Clerk and the SJC Chairman whether the rules by which panels were appointed had been observed in our case (RAO 17-3) as it seemed doubtful to us that between the spring and the middle of the summer all other members of the SJC would have been selected to serve on panels and the names in the pool been completely turned over (17-3c). The new chairman appointed a different panel, suggesting to us that the roster of the original panel had, in fact, been rigged. But Presbytery now learns that RE Sam Duncan, who authored the panel’s opinion in the present case, was not only a member of the Siouxlands panel, but its chairman. We are trying very hard to believe that this was not an intentional violation of the rules with a view to ensuring that the panel’s judgment would be what it has proved to be. Surely in highly politicized cases such as these, great care should be taken to ensure that the SJC’s conduct of its affairs be above reproach. Has it been? One remembers Herman Bavinck’s melancholy observation – the observation of a politician and a churchman – that while politics are often seamy, church politics are always so.

The Impression of a Prevailing Bias

I simply note the fact that in the panel’s reasoning (C iv) not only is Dr. Leithart cited as writing “The baptized are implanted into Christ’s body, and in Him share in all that he has to give,” but emphasis is added to the last six words. The panel knows very well – it is in the record of the case and was further brought to the panel’s attention during the discussion – that Dr. Leithart retracted that statement as overreaching and unhelpful. To have it used against him in the panel’s report is unconscionable and heightens the overall impression that no effort was made really to extend to Dr. Leithart the courtesy of dealing fairly with his words.

Or, take another illustration. Dr. Leithart’s statement, cited under C vi, that “justification and definitive sanctification are not merely simultaneous…” becomes in the panel’s evaluation a failure to distinguish between justification and sanctification, as if Dr. Leithart were speaking of sanctification in the customary sense of its definition in the Confession and Catechisms. Everyone knows that the distinction between definitive sanctification, a theologoumenon now widely embraced in our circles, and sanctification as a life-process of renovation in righteousness does not appear in the Standards and that definitive sanctification is a dimension of the biblical doctrine that is not clearly represented in their definitions. This failure to extend to a brother the ordinary courtesy of faithfully representing what he actually writes seriously undermines the credit of the panel’s report.

Or, once more, take the statement in the panel’s reasoning that “The Standards teach that faith is the proper response to the Gospel – not to baptism.” [C v] Not only is it an egregious misrepresentation to suggest that Dr. Leithart does not think that faith is the proper response to the Gospel, it is passing strange that a Reformed Christian would not think that faith is the proper response to one’s baptism. Am I not to believe that by baptism I have been enrolled in the church of God? Am I not to believe that being baptized in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit I have a calling to fulfill? Am I not to believe that great and precious promises have been sealed to me in the sacrament and that is my privilege to base my life and hope upon them? Paul certainly seems to feel that faith is the proper response to one’s baptism (e.g. Romans 6:3-4). This kind of argument by false disjunction betrays a spirit and it is not a spirit we should commend.

Theological Reasoning

As the original brief submitted by Presbytery argued there are two fundamental questions that must be answered if a fair judgment is to be reached. Neither of these questions is even addressed, much less answered in the reasoning offered for the panel decision.

The first question is whether any of Dr. Leithart’s teaching actually amounts to a strike at the vitals of the “system of doctrine” taught in the Westminster Standards. The panel can’t have it both ways. Dr. Leithart cannot belong to “the broader reformed community” and, at the same time, have placed himself outside the boundaries of Westminster Calvinism with respect to the vitals of the system. He can’t belong to the broader reformed community and teach that justification is by baptism, not through faith in Christ alone. One suspects that the panel doesn’t really take its own reasoning seriously if it can, at the end of the day, cheerfully acknowledge Dr. Leithart’s membership in the “broader Reformed community.” Quite apart from whether the panel has faithfully represented Dr. Leithart’s views – it most certainly has not (I would say its report demonstrates a perverse tendency not only to cherry-pick citations but to interpret them without regard to the context in which they are found) – Christian brotherhood and loyalty to Holy Scripture (as well as loyalty to the Standards as our subordinate rule of faith) require it to engage the discussion as to whether this teaching in any particular amounts not to a difference of emphasis or an attempt to refine by reference to other biblical data but amounts instead to an attack upon the nervous system of the Reformed Faith. Let me remind the brothers that the sort of arguments used by the panel have not persuaded a significant number of PCA men (two presbyteries have placed their considered opinions on the record), including honored teachers in a number of our theological faculties that Dr. Leithart’s teaching strikes at the vitals. You are purporting to drive out of the church a long-serving minister and you haven’t convinced a sizeable number of able men, just as committed to Westminster Calvinism as you are, that there is any need to do so! It is indeed problematic that a committee of ministers and elders, including men “who have studied at seminary and beyond,” cannot explain to the satisfaction of many of their peers the great danger present in Dr. Leithart’s teaching. [C iv]

In a similar way to represent Dr. Leithart’s taking a side in the now longstanding debate about the covenant of works as striking at the vitals of our system of theology is absurd. Are we seriously of a mind to think that John Murray could not serve in the Presbyterian Church in America? First, the panel treats us to the more than faintly ridiculous conclusion that though Dr. Leithart teaches that is there is discontinuity between the Adamic covenant and the post-lapsarian covenants [C i] – a discontinuity rooted in the entrance of sin and change of federal head from Adam to the Son of God! – that there is nevertheless no significant difference between the covenants. Surely God’s covenant with sinners in Jesus Christ represents a difference of some significance! Second, there is a total failure accurately to represent the nature of this debate. Strip away the sloganeering and what is left is, first, Dr. Leithart’s assertion that there is grace in the first covenant – as demonstrated in Presbytery’s brief, this a commonplace of Reformed teaching and of the teaching of Westminster divines and certainly is not contradicted by any statement in the Standards – and, second, there was the necessity of faith on Adam’s part. Surely, unless Adam was omniscient in Eden and God was then a visible being, Adam must have had to have been a believer! Surely he was required to believe what God told him and to believe that his life lay in obedience to God’s commandments! To equate this position in this debate with overturning our system of doctrine is the worst sort of overreaching. Palmer Robertson wisely points out that the nomenclature of covenant of works/covenant of grace has strengths and limitations and he too asserts that there was grace in the first covenant. Those who read the Standards as emphasizing a meritocracy and those who read them as emphasizing the gracious foundation of all God’s covenant dealings with humanity can both find their view in the language of the Standards and in the Westminster tradition. The Standards are simply not sufficiently precise to settle this debate.

The second question is whether it is proper for PCA ministers to draw our attention to biblical data for which our theological Standards provide no summary. Is it not a salutary work to attempt to account for biblical teaching that is not incorporated in the theological summary provided in the Standards? Is it possible, that is, to affirm from the heart, the assertions of the Standards while pointing out that there are senses in which the Bible uses the same theological terminology in other ways and to other effects? This is, in fact, what the Presbytery concluded Dr. Leithart has done. For example, the panel argues that it is obviously impossible for someone to be justified temporarily. And, no doubt, in the ordinary sense of the term in its theological usage, that is a correct conclusion. But there is no constitutional warrant for the conclusion that the term can always and only be used in accordance with this confessional usage. Justification – whatever else it is – is the forgiveness of sins. It is perfectly obvious that there is such a thing as temporary forgiveness because the Bible says there is (cf. Num. 14:20 with 1 Cor. 10:5; Ezekiel 16:1-14; Matthew 18:32-34; etc.). Whether we are entirely satisfied with Dr. Leithart’s effort to incorporate this biblical material into the larger picture of the way of divine grace, the fact is, temporary forgiveness is a biblical datum. The panel has the audacity to say that “What Scripture says about a particular topic is set forth in our Standards.” [C vi] Really? Where do the Standards deal with temporary forgiveness? If, indeed, Holy Scripture is really our only infallible rule of faith we cannot possibly object to a man working hard to understand how such teaching is to be incorporated into the system, all the more if, as in Dr. Leithart’s case, he confesses loyalty to that system and proves it in his writings. What is more, our loyalty to Holy Scripture absolutely requires us in such a case as this to acknowledge in our discussion of his views of justification and the other benefits of Christ’s redemption that there is obviously a sense in which forgiveness may be temporary, holiness temporary, a family relationship with God temporary, “life” itself temporary, even the love of God temporary (Deut. 7:7-11; Hos. 11:1). To fail to do that, to act as if such ideas were preposterous, is to betray our theology with a kiss. Where, pray tell, do the Standards “reject any form of `theoretical’ or temporary justification”? Do the Standards teach us to deny that the Lord pardoned Israel in the wilderness notwithstanding that she perished in her sins or to deny that he himself says that he washed Israel and made her clean (Ezek. 16:4,9)? If so, let the panel tell us where they teach us to do so?

In the same way, the GA Report notwithstanding, where do the Standards teach that our justification on the last day (our “acquittal” as the Catechisms have it) is not based in any way on our works? [C v] Presbytery’s original brief demonstrated that this is hardly the opinion of the authorities of Westminster Calvinism in general and, in fact, the Standards don’t explain one way or another how our works may be related to our final acquittal. The panel admits that “in one sense” Dr. Leithart’s statement is true that “we are justified by works in whatever sense James means it.” Well, then, in what sense is Dr. Leithart’s statement untrue? Dr. Leithart hasn’t gone nearly so far as Robert Dabney in relating our final justification to our works! What is his error?

Again, who denies that the Standards employ the phrase “union with Christ” to signify Christ’s relationship with the elect? Certainly not Dr. Leithart. When he uses the terminology this way he is in explicit agreement with the Standards. But while this understanding of union with Christ is essential to the Scripture-based theological definition of the term as it is employed in the Standards, it is hardly fair to suppose that the Standards’ definition of union with Christ be deemed present in every biblical passage that uses that same terminology or that drawing attention to the different biblical uses of the terminology somehow amounts to a betrayal of the teaching of the Standards. What grounds (constitutional or otherwise) are there for insisting that all the Hebrew and Greek terms and phrases under consideration must be used by biblical writers only as we find them used in the Standards? The biblical idea of union with Christ is multiform, not uniform and richer than the specific use of this terminology in the Standards. Why is this not cheerfully admitted when it is so obviously true? It poses no threat whatsoever to the constitutional usage to admit this. Why is the discussion of Dr. Leithart’s teaching not conducted with an eye open to these other uses of the terminology? Why is it not obvious in the panel’s reasoning that it is well aware of these facts and was concerned to remain faithful to them in its evaluation of Dr. Leithart’s writings?

Once again, it remains a simple fact that the Standards do not explain what precisely we are to think of the experience of a man who was baptized and who enjoyed powerful experiences of the ministry of the Holy Spirit but who proved at last not to be saved. I am frankly flabbergasted by the assertion of the panel that it is untrue that “some baptized unbelievers have for a time some measure of a real connection with the Son and the Spirit.” [C v] Does not the Scripture say explicitly of such people that they “shared in the Holy Spirit” (Heb. 6:4) and were “sanctified” by the “blood of the covenant” (10:29)? I want very much to believe that we are together committed to Holy Scripture as our only infallible rule of faith, but it becomes harder to believe that when statements are made in the panel’s reasoning in defense of what they take to be the Standards teaching that seem to amount to a direct contradiction of the plain speaking of the Bible.

The Bible does not scruple to attribute life to people who eventually die in their sins (Ezek. 16:6; Matt. 13:5-7). It does this repeatedly. It does not scruple to speak of God’s love for such people and of their having been his children (Isa. 1:2; Jer. 1:16; Matt. 13:5-7; etc.). These are facts and any good faith examination of Dr. Leithart’s work should clearly and emphatically take note of those facts and discuss his proposals in view of them. Otherwise we are not reasoning biblically and theologically, we are sloganeering.

What is repeatedly revealed in the panel’s argument, alas, is a persistent failure to grasp the real status questionis and, consequently, the lines of argument are not drawn with the precision necessary to ensure a proper solution. This is true in respect to every issue the panel takes under its review. For example, in the matter of justification the panel fails carefully to distinguish between the causa materialis and the causae instrumentalium. Reformed theology does not doubt, for example, that faith is a cause of justification, but it is not its ground, which is alone the righteousness of Christ. The Word of God, the gospel, is a cause of justification, but not its ground (1 Cor. 15:2; Eph. 1:13; 2 Thess. 2:14). And, in the same way, the works of a Christian’s life are a cause of the sinner’s final justification (whether as its vindication or its demonstration) while certainly not being its ground or material cause. Without attention to such careful distinctions and without the demonstration that Dr. Leithart’s view has been scrutinized in keeping with these distinctions the panel’s reasoning is an exercise in comparing, as we say, apples and oranges.

In the same way the panel’s argument fails to disclose in what ways baptism may serve as a causa instrumentalis in the salvation of sinners, which our Standards certainly teach that it is when they refer to it as a means of grace or as Scripture does when it says that we are cleansed “by the washing with water through the word” (Eph. 5:26). After all, a very simple piece of confessional reasoning leads us to the conclusion that baptism is ordinarily necessary for salvation. We read in WCF XXVIII, i, that baptism is “for the solemn admission of the party baptized into the visible church….” And we read in WCF XXV, ii, that “outside of [the visible church] there is no ordinary possibility of salvation.” The conclusion follows by rigorous necessity: ordinarily baptism is necessary for salvation. Whatever else one may say about this, it is a reminder that in our Standards there is more to baptism than there is in the panel’s argument! Dr. Leithart’s position is critiqued as if the theological alternative were solely baptism as the ground of justification or salvation, on the one hand, or baptism as contributing little or nothing to salvation on the other.

What the panel should have done was to work hard to set Dr. Leithart’s teaching within the context of this much more sophisticated theology of the causae salutis and the instrumenta gratiarum in hopes of finding that it fits adequately within such a framework. This it very clearly did not do.

Biblical Exegesis

At the beginning of Presbytery’s thirty minutes before the panel Presbytery’s respondent was told in quite a peremptory way to read Romans 6:1-7. “That is not about baptism,” he was told. I assume they meant that it was not about water baptism, the rite of baptism. This is the view now represented in the panel’s reasoning [C v]. Gentlemen, do you really want to go on record saying that the PCA does not believe that Romans 6 is about water baptism? That is a conclusion you will find in no reputable commentary on Romans: from Hodge to Murray, from Bruce to Cranfield, from Ridderbos to Moo. Let’s not make ourselves a laughingstock. Is PCA baptism really so light, so weightless, so invisible that it cannot be found even where it is the explicit subject of a text of Holy Scripture? However else one may account for the reality of baptized unbelief, Romans 6 is most assuredly about water baptism and it is an offense to the entire tradition of Christian biblical study to deny this!

The argument of the panel, according to which we are told how particular texts of Holy Scripture are to be interpreted, amounts to a very different assertion than that the Standards represent “standard expositions of the teachings of Scripture” (BCO 29-1). We are being told that the Standards demand a particular exegesis of various texts, even historically controversial texts such as 1 Pet. 3:21. The SJC has no such authority in our church to determine the exegesis of passages of Holy Scripture. We do not have in the PCA a constitutional standard of exegesis whose effect is that all of us must agree that Romans 6, for example, is not about water baptism! This is only another way in which the panel’s reasoning proves to be extra-confessional if not anti-confessional.

The panel seems to be operating with the assumption that the Standards’ view of sacramental relation (WCF XXVII, ii) amounts to permission to choose in any text whether the reference is to the sacrament or what the sacrament signifies and seals. This is hardly the meaning of the Confession’s statement however and it will be very difficult to find any Reformed authority who thinks it is. The solution to the “problem” created by the fact that the rite of baptism is performed in many cases when the subject does not belong to the elect of God does not lie in the sacramental relation between the sign and the thing signified. That relation rather means that whatever is true of Baptism with the Holy Spirit is attributed to Baptism with water. There is no principle of theology or exegesis according to which we may believe that when the Bible mentions baptism it is referring to something else than what everyone understands by the term!

Theological Statement

I have already referred to what I regard as errors of interpretation in the panel’s reasoning. But there are other examples of this that ought not to go unnoticed. For example, we are told [C v] that, according to the Standards “baptism only `represents’ Christ and his benefits.” That is, of course, incorrect. According to the Standards baptism signifies, seals, and exhibits the benefits of Christ. Indeed, in baptism when rightly used, “the grace promised is not only offered, but really exhibited, and conferred, by the Holy Ghost…” [WCF xxviii, 6] It makes some difference whether the Standards’ actual view of baptismal efficacy lies behind the critique of Dr. Leithart’s views or the much weaker view of the sacrament entertained by the panel. Their statement about what baptism does raises the obvious question as to whether the panel members themselves should register an exception to the Standards on this point.

Again, we are told that “Leithart is categorically wrong” in saying that baptism “has the power to grant newness of life.” What does that mean? Is the panel supposing that Dr. Leithart actually teaches that baptism works as an opus operatum? That is preposterous and certainly unproven in the record. Are they then denying that baptism is a means of grace? Of course the sacraments have power to grant newness of life. Our Standards say as much. They are “the outward and ordinary means by which Christ communicates to us the benefits of redemption” among which newness of life is chief! The Word has that power; so do the sacraments; so does prayer. Of course they work instrumentally. Of course they are not the efficient or the material causes of salvation. Of course they are the apparatus of divine grace and the means of the application of Christ’s redemption by the Spirit. But they certainly have power to grant newness of life. God invests them with that power as our Standards plainly teach. Gentlemen, please do not confirm an explanation of our church’s doctrine that manages to deny what our Standards explicitly affirm.

Similarly, we have the extraordinary statement in C v: “In the place of the Biblical and confessional teaching of salvation, Leithart teaches that those who are baptized with water obtain eternal salvation only through persevering in covenant faithfulness.” Are we actually denying the truth of that statement? Are we denying that sinners obtain eternal salvation only through perseverance? Is it the panel’s view that we obtain salvation without perseverance in covenant faithfulness? Is the necessity of perseverance not what we believe and is it not what the Bible and our Standards plainly teach? Can you not see how such statements as these wholly undermine the case the panel is attempting to make? Brothers, the panel’s reasoning is an argument so confusing as an account of the doctrine of our Standards and so suspiciously uncaring of the plain speaking of both the Standards and Holy Scripture that I can’t help but think it would be deeply embarrassing to us to have it published as the thinking of our church.

The Unity of the Church

Perhaps the most disturbing and discouraging aspect of the panel’s report is its cavalier dismissal of the obligations of Christian unity. In section A, after quoting a statement from the original brief of the Presbytery to the effect that Dr. Leithart holds to the great system of Reformed theology as expressed in the Westminster Confession and Catechisms, we read, “But such external criteria of central tenets is not the appropriate criteria.” I, for one, thought the central tenets by which any system of theology is formed were precisely the criteria by which we determined whether a man held to our system of doctrine. That is almost entirely what the Westminster Confession is concerned with: central tenets. That explains why there is so much biblical data it does not summarize or systematize. It is precisely the challenge posed by Dr. Leithart’s work that he is proposing to give an account of other things besides central tenets. I was, by the way, unaware until reading the panel’s report that there are Anglican Presbyterians! Reformed Baptists, we read, could affirm “some central tenets of the Standards.” Precisely. But they couldn’t affirm others. That is why Reformed Baptists are not Presbyterians. But Dr. Leithart affirms all the central tenets.

The panel seems to accept the existence of denominations with blithe indifference rather than as a tragic necessity that must be worked against with might and main. The panel seems to think it convenient, a happy providence, to be able to offload Dr. Leithart on to the “broader reformed community.” There has been in all of this discussion in our church precious lack of any concern that rending the body of Christ over hyper-fine points of biblical and systematic theology may in fact be an offense to God and a betrayal of the one, holy, catholic church. There is a real risk here, brothers, and the risk is that the Lord Christ will be displeased with what we are doing. I fear that the world will never be likely to infer either that the Father sent the Son or that God loves his people by observing the way our church is practicing unity. [John 17:21-23] No yeoman effort to preserve and protect that unity. No determination to be sure that we have read our brother fairly, have honestly engaged the challenge of his writing, and that we have been compelled to conclude, virtually against our will, that it is an absolute necessity that he not be permitted to remain in our brotherhood. Quite the contrary. The blogs, I hear, are dripping with glee over the panel’s report. What is more, the panel seems virtually to hold it against the Presbytery that we chose to place Dr. Leithart’s statements in the best possible light. Love always hopes but I see little of this hope in the panel’s report. I fear the Lord’s displeasure at this unseemly disunity fueled by party spirit. May I remind the brothers of this statement from the “Preface” of our Book of Church Order:

“While it is necessary to make effective provision that all who are admitted as teachers be sound in the faith, there are truths and forms with respect to which men of good character and principles may differ. In all these it is the duty both of private Christians and societies to exercise mutual forbearance toward each other” (Preliminary Principle 5).

May I also remind the SJC that even such a finding as the panel purports to make, viz. that Dr. Leithart “holds views that place him out of accord with the Standa
rds,” is not yet grounds for a trial. Dr. Leithart has made no secret of his views and so has not been neglectful of his vows. Indeed, the panel has failed to persuade the Presbytery that he does not in fact hold to the general and the specific teaching of our Standards. But the fact is, even were the SJC panel correct in its assessment of the relationship between Dr. Leithart’s views and the teaching of our Standards, it would still be possible, indeed preferable, to seek to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace by simply requesting that he register certain exceptions to the Standards and leave it to Presbytery to determine if those exceptions strike at the vitals. Indeed, I think the Presbytery would be very interested to know what exceptions the SJC believes he should take to what particular assertions of the Standards.

What Presbytery is still waiting to receive is a fair representation and examination of Dr. Leithart’s work and Presbytery’s evaluation of it, conducted in a spirit that cherishes unity as well as purity, and that eschews a simplistic criticism that fails to do justice to the richness of biblical teaching and Reformed theology. We despair to believe that such an evaluation cannot still be forthcoming from the courts of our church.