Update: you can now download the trial document as Kindle or Ebook here. (HT: Bring the Books).
Pacific Northwest Presbytery has just published the documents form the Peter Leithart trial. Thanks to PNW for being willing to make these documents public so that the broader church can refelct on these important issues. You can find them here. Jason Stellman is going to post some sections of it on his own blog. You can read the first here. Lane Keister has posted another here. You can download the transcript of the trial here.
Tags: Federal Vision, Pacific Northwest Presbytery, Peter Leithart
Thanks for the links, Wes.
Thank you, Wes.
While I disagreed with PNW’s three month cone of silence surrounding the Liethart case, I do applaud their putting the relevant documents on the internet, and refraining from accusations about 9th Commandment Violations against those who do so as well.
As these documents become widely read, I can hear the old joke, “Who you gonna believe, me or your lyin’ eyes?”
Since Lane has posted his own testimony, I thought it would be fair to post the defense’s cross-examination of him:
http://www.creedcodecult.com/2011/10/keisters-cross-examination-by-rayburn.html
Here are some observations I made and some things that were brought to light for me.
Document..page 18 of the ‘Judgment and Reasoning of the Standing Judicial Commission To the Presbytery of the Pacific Northwest October 7, 2011.’
“38 Finally, the Bible makes it clear that there is a perfect obedience that is not meritorious, when Jesus said:
39 “So you also, when you have done all that you were commanded, say, ‘We are unworthy servants; we
40 have only done what was our duty’ ” (Luke 17:10).”
My thoughts…
The context of this passage seems to be a bit out of kilter to me when I think of the context of Adam the first and the Second Adam. We are unworthy servants because of sin. Now maybe God was graciously condescending to Adam in the Covenant of Life but Adam still had a context that isn’t quite like ours. He was to obtain that worthiness of life. He forfeited it. We are in a fallen estate now. We should always consider ourselves unworthy. Adam was charged to tend the garden and not eat of the tree. All of his posterity depended upon it. What did Christ do? As the second Adam he stayed a worthy servant and earned the right by duty. And in the Covenant of Grace I am going to be at peace with God based upon the Covenant of Life. I just didn’t fulfill it in a worthy manner as Adam was supposed to and as Christ Jesus did. Christ did it for me. Christ’s perfect obedience was meritorious. And He is a worthy servant. The Covenant of Life has been fulfilled.
I just don’t get the reference in the context of the Covenant of Works.
More from the document…
“3 Q: Do you believe that Christ is a representative head whose obedience and 4 satisfaction is imputed to believers?
5 A: I do believe that. If that’s intended as a statement of the imputation of active
6 obedience, I don’t agree with it and I don’t believe the standards require that I believe that.
7 Q: Do you believe that merit should be stricken from theological vocabulary?
8 A: I explained this some in the defense brief. Merit is an extra-biblical term but
9 so are a lot of our bibl- – are a lot of our theological terms. There’s nothing wrong with
10 using extra-biblical terms. As far as I’ve been able to tell, the Westminster Confession
11 never speaks of the merit of Jesus. And or of the imputation of Jesus’ merit. And, or the, I
12 should say, it speaks of the merit of Jesus but doesn’t speak of the imputed – - imputed
13 merit of Jesus. That’s not language that it uses. I should say too this was brought up by Dr.
14 Horton’s testimony. I – - I question the use of merit even when it’s, I do this in the defense
15 brief. I question the use of merit when it’s used in relation to the work of Jesus. Classically
16 there are two different kinds of merit. There is merit strictly speaking or condign merit,
17 which means that you have – - you do something and you earn by virtue of that action, earn
18 a reward. Or con- – or congruent merit, which is merit that is fitting to the action and not
19 necessarily earning it. I don’t think that either of those apply to the work of Jesus. Jesus is
20 the incarnate son. Jesus doesn’t come here in order to earn the father’s favor. He’s in the
21 father’s favor from beginning to end. He does come in order to obey perfectly. In order to
22 purchase our, in order to purchase our salvation. I think the idea of merit confuses,
PCA v. Leithart – Trial Transcript – Page 177
1 confuses that. And it seems to me it’s forgetful of the fact that this is the incarnate son that
2 we’re talking about”
My thoughts and more light…
I am not PCA and I am trying to understand this. So…. I understand that Christ was in favor with God as Adam was. We aren’t. Christ wasn’t under Adam as we are. But… He had to do something. Had he not done the things he did he would have sinned. Are his works attributed to us or not? How does union with Christ eliminate what He actively did on our behalf and is it credited to us as though we did it. Maybe I am off base in my understanding.
Also concerning “Merit” this was brought to my attention.
From the PCA’s study report accepted by about 98% of the 35th GA:
“3 In light of the controversy surrounding the NPP and FV, and after many months of careful
4 study, the committee unanimously makes the following declarations:”
“19 4. The view that strikes the language of “merit” from our theological vocabulary so that the
20 claim is made that Christ’s merits are not imputed to his people is contrary to the
21 Westminster Standards.
22
23 5. The view that “union with Christ” renders imputation redundant because it subsumes all
24 of Christ’s benefits (including justification) under this doctrinal heading is contrary to
25 the Westminster Standards.”
Also….
WLC:
Q. 55. How doeth Christ make intercession?
A. Christ maketh intercession, by his appearing in our nature continually before the Father in heaven,234 in the merit of his obedience and sacrifice on earth,235 declaring his will to have it applied to all believers;236 answering all accusations against them,237 and procuring for them quiet of conscience, notwithstanding daily failings,238 access with boldness to the throne of grace,239 and acceptance of their persons240 and services.241
Q. 70. What is justification?
A. Justification is an act of God’s free grace unto sinners, in which he pardoneth all their sins, accepteth and accounteth their persons righteous in his sight; not for any thing wrought in them, or done by them, but only for the perfect obedience and full satisfaction of Christ, by God imputed to them, and received by faith alone.290
The Westminster Standards speak of both the merit of Christ’s obedience and the imputation of that obedience to all believers.
Someone dropped the ball when they should have the thing with a bat.
“3 Q: Do you believe that Christ is a representative head whose obedience and 4 satisfaction is imputed to believers?
5 A: I do believe that. If that’s intended as a statement of the imputation of active
6 obedience, I don’t agree with it and I don’t believe the standards require that I believe that.”
The standards do require it. It is the active obedience of Christ imputed to believers that is meant by the standards. His sinless life is imputed to believers as if it were their own and on that basis they are declared righteous. This is proved from Scripture in Philippians 3:9; Romans 10:4, et. al.
What did the Leithart trial reveal about one of the major views of FV theology? It denies the biblical doctrine of the necessity of Christ’s active obedience as presented by Scripture. Now, some FV men speak of the “active obedience” but only in the sense that Christ kept the law perfectly for Himself thereby qualifying to be our redeemer, but this does not mean that Christ’s righteousness is imputed to us, so they say.
Norman Shepherd in his lectures in 2003 openly challenged the historic Reformed view of Christ’s active obedience asserting that neither Ursinus (mastermind behind the Heidelberg Catechism) nor Calvin taught the active obedience of Christ in the sense that Christ’s righteousness is imputed to us.
The Leithart trial brings out testimony where Leithart does not agree that Christ’s active obedience is imputed to as some kind of necessary requirement in order for us to be redeemed.
The FV men like to try to appeal to the Reformers, especially Calvin, in an attempt to support their views, but what did Calvin actually say? It is vital to see that Calvin definitively refutes what we know to be FV theology, and clearly advocates the necessity of Christ’s merits, and uses that term.
Here are some Calvin quotes from his Institutes of the Christian Religion:
“Therefore, we explain justification simply as the acceptance with which God receives us into his favor as righteous men. And we say that it consists in the remission of sins and the imputation of Christ’s righteousness.”(Book 3, Chapter 11:2) (emphasis mine)
“From this it is also evident that we are justified before God solely by the intercession of Christ’s righteousness. This is equivalent to saying that man is not righteous in himself but because the righteousness of Christ is communicated to him by imputation—something worth carefully noting.” (Book 3, Chapter 11:23)
“… what else is this but to lodge our righteousness in Christ’s obedience, because the obedience of Christ is reckoned to us as if it were our own?” (Ibid) (emphasis mine)
“Therefore Moses, after he had published the law, did not hesitate to call heaven and earth to witness that he had “set before Israel life and death, good and evil [Deuteronomy 30:19]. We cannot gainsay that the reward of eternal salvation awaits complete obedience to the law, as the Lord has promised. On the other hand, it behooves us to examine whether we fulfill that obedience, through whose merit we ought to derive assurance of that reward.” (Book 2, Chapter 7:3) (emphasis mine)
“Therefore if we look only upon the law, we can only be despondent, confused, and despairing in mind, since from it all of us are condemned and accursed (Galatians 3:10).” (Ibid)
“I reply: even if the promises of the law, in so far as they are conditional, depend upon perfect obedience to the law — which can nowhere be found — they have not been given in vain… For the Lord then freely bestows all things upon us so as to add to the full measure of his kindness this gift also: that not rejecting our imperfect obedience, but rather supplying what is lacking to complete it, he causes us to receive the benefit of the promises of the law as if we had fulfilled their condition” (Ibid)
“If we are justified through the works of the law, then Christ died for nothing (Galatians 2:21 p.). From this we infer that we must seek from Christ what the law would give if anyone could fulfill it; or, what is the same thing, that we obtain through Christ’s grace what God promised in the law for our works: “He who will do these things, will live in them (Leviticus 18:5, cf. Comm.). This is no less clearly confirmed in the sermon delivered at Antioch, which asserts that by believing in Christ “we are justified from everything from which we could not be justified by the law of Moses” (Acts 13:39; cf. Vg., ch. 13:38).
For if righteousness consists in the observance of the law, who will deny that Christ merited favor for us when, by taking that burden upon himself, he reconciled us to God as if we had kept the law? What he afterward taught the Galatians has the same purpose: “God sent forth his Son … subject to the law, to redeem those who were under the law” (Galatians 4:4-5). What was the purpose of this subjection of Christ to the law but to acquire righteousness for us, undertaking to pay what we could not pay? Hence, that imputation of righteousness without works which Paul discusses (Romans ch. 4). For the righteousness found in Christ alone is reckoned as ours.”
Concluding Remarks:
It is clear that Calvin believed that Christ’s righteousness was imputed to us and was essential for our salvation. The Gospel is that Jesus provides us what we cannot personally give God – perfect obedience to the law by Christ alone, and Christ bearing the penalty for our transgression of His law.
Our salvation depends upon BOTH the active and passive obedience of Christ. FV theology clearly denies the active obedience of Christ in terms of imputation. In its denial, FV theology aligns itself with Rome.
This is why the church must definitively and once and for all put an end to FV theology – the gospel is indeed at stake.
If anyone is interested in how FV theology attacks the active obedience of Christ, you can read much, much more in my chapter 4 of my book, “Danger in the Camp” titled “A Denial of Christ’s Active Obedience in Justification.” In this chapter, I discuss fully what the Westminster Standards teach, what the Belgic Confession and Heidelberg Catechism teach and how various FV men contradict these Reformed documents.
John Otis- could you get in touch with me about speaking at our church on the FV? Thanks.
A question was asked me on Green Baggins if I had read the responses of Leithart during his trial on imputation. The answer is: yes, I have. However, what matters is what Leithart means by “active obedience of Christ.”
As Sean Gerety has ably pointed out in some of his writings is that Leithart does not believe in the active obedience as understood by the Reformers and by the Westminster Standards.
The FV men are notorious for inserting new content into old words, giving the impression they are Confessional when they are far from it.
Wilkins, Doug Wilson, and Rich Lusk do not understand active obedience as they should. In a section in my book, I have this information about Rich Lusk that is crucial. For his understanding of active obedience is what the FV men believe, i.e. Leithart.
Here are the relevant direct quotes from Rich Lusk:
Those who advocate a meritorious covenant of works put a great deal of weight on the so-called “active obedience” of Christ. I remember hearing sermons in which I was told “Jesus’ thirty-three years of law-keeping are your righteousness. They were credited to you! He kept the law, the covenant of works, on your behalf!” Similarly, but more formally, Dr. Smith writes, “It is Christ’s active fulfillment of the law that becomes the ground of our acceptance with God. It is this righteousness that is imputed to us”
Several things need to be said about this sort of theologizing. First, there is no question the perfect obedience of Jesus played a vital role in his salvific work on our behalf. If he had sinned, he would have fallen under God’s wrath and curse just like us, and wouldn’t have been be able to rescue us. If he hadn’t obeyed perfectly, he could not have been the spotless Lamb of God who went to the cross in fulfillment of the entire sacrificial system. So his active obedience is necessary to guarantee the efficacy and worth of his death and to guarantee his resurrection on the other side.
But the notion of his thirty-three years of Torah-keeping being imputed to me is problematic. After all, as a Gentile, I was never under Torah and therefore never under obligation to keep many of the commands Jesus performed. Moreover, much of what Jesus did was, in the nature of the case, not required of others. Surely God does not require everyone to work as a carpenter or to turn water into wine or to raise a twelve year old girl from the dead.
Lusk goes on to describe what he really understands imputation to mean. In his footnote 59, Lusk makes this comment:
That there is a double imputation of our sins to Jesus and His glory to us is certainly beyond question, and I am not disagreeing with the general doctrine of imputation, or of double imputation. But merit theology often assumes that Jesus’ earthly works and merits are somehow given to us, and there is no foundation for this notion.
The New Testament is clear throughout that what is given to the saints is the Spirit, who comes from the glorified Jesus. It is not Jesus’ earthly life and “works and merits” that are transferred to us, but His glorified and resurrected life in the Spirit that is transferred to us. There seems to be nothing in the Bible to imply that we receive Jesus’ earthly life and then also His death. His earthly life was “for us” in the sense that it was the precondition for His death, but it is not given “to us.” What we receive is not His earthly life and His death, but His death and His glorified life. What we receive is not Jesus’ merits, but His maturity, His glorification. (Emphasis Lusk)
As one can see, this is not the traditional Reformed (biblical) understanding of Christ’s active obedience. It is not what John Calvin clearly taught.
So, in a heresy trial, a man can say he believes in “the active obedience of Christ” but what matters is exactly what he means.
Unfortunately, this is how the FV are escaping in some presbyteries, which is why the General Assembly needs to step in.
This quote from Bishop J.C. Ryle is so timely in light of this trial and the SJC trial this week.
“If we would hold fast that which is good, we must never tolerate or support any doctrine which is not the pure doctrine of Christ’s Gospel. There is a hatred which is downright charity – that is the hatred of erroneous doctrine. There is an intolerance which is downright praiseworthy – that is the intolerance of false teaching in the pulpit. Who would ever think of tolerating a little poison given to them day by day? If men come among you who do not preach “all the counsel of God,” who do not preach of Christ, sin, holiness, of ruin, redemption, and regeneration, and do not preach of these things in a Scriptural way, you ought to cease to hear them.”
To Pastor Johnson:
Gary, I am not sure you received my email I sent you from your church website about your question above about coming to your church. You can reach me by going to my church website at crpcalamance.org
Here’s my closing argument:
http://www.creedcodecult.com/2011/10/closing-statement-of-prosecution.html
To faithful elders and church people in the PCA:
On Green Baggins, I have posted my plea to you to make one “last stand” to rid your church of FV theology. Take a look, and I hope you take it to heart.
Here is Part 1 of my Protest against the PNWP:
http://www.creedcodecult.com/2011/10/protest-against-pnwp-sjc-decision.html
JJS