I just saw your last comment/question here (albeit months after you posted it), posed to Andrew, and I’d like to take a stab at answering it.

I should say, first, that I have never been a member of the PCA, and when I did hold to Calvinistic convictions, it was as a “Reformed Baptist,” not a Presbyterian. However, my Reformed Baptist church did have an historic Protestant confession– the New Hampshire Confession of Faith.

All prospective church members were expected to affirm the New Hampshire Confession and to sign it as part of the process of becoming church members. Certainly, the *official teachers* of Scripture in the church (such as the “senior pastor,” and the other “teaching elders,” who actually preached from the pulpit almost as often as the “senior pastor” himself) were expected to teach according to the New Hampshire Confession of Faith. If they did not do so, then they could be removed from their teaching positions, and presumably, eventually disciplined by the church leadership. This situation never came up, regarding a preacher or teacher of Scripture, while I was a member there, but according to the church disciplinary process, if such a dilemma had come up, it would have probably been addressed in those ways.

Anyway, about the PCA and the Leihart trial. Knowing what I do know (from my reading and from PCA friends), in regard to the Westminster Confession’s role in the PCA, and the disciplinary process for ministers who are suspected of not being teaching faithfully (according to the Confession), there would decidedly be *no* appeal to “tradition” or “magisterium” in this process. I know that this seems very foreign to the “cradle Catholic” mind, which has always been taught, rightly, to hold to both Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition. I’ll try to explain it, from my knowledge and experience as a former Protestant.

For those Protestant ecclesial communities who do choose to adopt a specific, historic Protestant confession of faith, such as the Westminster Confession, “tradition” is simply not seen as part of the equation– or at least, not as the primary part. In the PCA, the Westminster Confession is affirmed, as a document, because it is simply seen as being a faithful statement of what is *already* taught in Scripture. This is why the PCA affirmed and adopted the Westminster Confession as the “official historic confession” for the denomination. In PCA thinking, the Confession is only valuable in that it is (according to the Biblical exegesis of those who founded the denomination) “faithful to Scripture”– and Scripture *alone*.

It’s important to note the distinction here, especially for cradle Catholics, who have, presumably, never had “Scripture alone” as part of their mindset. All that the Catholic Church officially, definitively teaches, via the Magisterium, on faith and morals, is *faithful* to Scripture. Nothing that she definitively teaches can be contrary to Scripture. For example, as Catholics, we would affirm that the Marian teachings of the Church are faithful to Scripture. They do not contradict anything found in Scripture. They are actually *based* on what Scripture itself teaches us about Jesus. However, one will not find the Immaculate Conception of Mary explicitly stated, as such, in Scripture. It is *based* in Scriptural *reasoning*, as part of the apostolic deposit of faith in the Church. It is not contrary to Scripture in any way– but the Church would not even claim that the dogma of the Immaculate Conception is a matter of the teaching of “Scripture alone.” The IM is a matter of both Scripture and Tradition– in accordance with St. Paul’s clear admonition in 2 Thessalonians 2:15.

By contrast, for the PCA, the Westminster Confession is affirmed according to the “historic Reformed standards” of “Sola Scriptura.” It’s important to note that these Reformed standards do not posit that tradition, itself, is an absolute *evil*. In fact, where tradition is understood (according to a particular denominations’s exegesis of the Bible) to be “faithful to Scripture,” it can be affirmed. However, Scripture alone is seen as the only *infallible authority* for faith and practice. It is on this basis that the PCA requires its ministers to affirm, and to teach according to, the Westminster Confession. The Confession itself is not viewed as infallible, but it is seen as being a faithful statement of Scripture infallibly teaches.

However, the well-catechized Catholic knows that this does not settle the issue– which goes back to your comment. How has the PCA determined that the Westminster Confession is faithful to what Scripture infallibly teaches? On what basis does the denomination require its leaders to affirm it and teach according to it? Ultimately, it is on the basis of the Biblical exegesis *of the founding PCA leaders* who determined, from their studies, that the Westminster Confession is faithful to what Scripture alone (supposedly) teaches. This exegesis, and the adoption of the Confession, according to it, have an “authority” of sorts within the PCA. Leaders can be brought up for discipline, as with Peter Leithart, if they are believed to be publicly contradicting the Confession. However, in the end, even if they are excommunicated, they can very well found their own new “historic Reformed” denominations, which hold to *their interpretations* of the Bible and the Westminster Confession. As can be seen from the multitudes of “historic Reformed” denominations (to say nothing of Protestant denominations in general), this process is virtually self-perpetuating, given that there is no Magisterium, within Protestantism, to even try to define any theological and ecclesiastical “non-negotiables” (as the Magisterium authoritatively does in the Church).

There is no need for a Protestant debate concerning whether baptism introduces one into “the Visible and Institutional Church” when there can be no such thing in Protestantism as “the Visible and Institutional Church.” Underneath the semantics of a “visible catholic Church” is a gnostic ecclesiology (because of the rejection of the sacrament of Holy Orders) that is presently collapsing, and for which the only solution is an ecumenism of return.

From what I’ve gathered at other Reformed blogs, it appears that they are appealing to Tradition and a Magisterium of sorts (at least the prosecution did). I’ve asked about this and they have said, no, that is not the case. But I don’t see how that makes any sense. I’m not going to keep pressing because it may be that I’m lost in translation and it will just end up appearing like I’m trying to stir a pot.

Andrew, can you explain to me how the prosecution’s approach to this case is not making an appeal to a pseudo-Tradition and a pseudo-Magisterium that, apparently, are on the same authoritative level as Scripture? I’m really struggling with this and I think that’s simply because it’s beyond my grasp.

Thanks for the note. As noted at the beginning of the post, this was a trial in the PNWP of the PCA. The verdicts, accordingly, were that of the SJC of the PNWP of the PCA. The document to which I linked, in reference to the verdicts, is simply titled, “Judgment and Reasoning of the Standing Judicial Commission to the Presbytery of the Pacific Northwest.” I suppose that could be confusing for some, despite the context. So thanks again for this clarifying comment.

Andrew

The divines in the 17th century simply did not have the FV in mind. They need a magisterium, but instead they just split and form new churches. That was one of the things that lead me to seriously lose faith in the Reformation.

Same with me. Upon committing to Calvinism in 2005-2006, I was warned about the Federal Vision and how eerily close their beliefs were to Catholicism — “salvation by works, pastors wearing robes, paedocommunion! ” They even recite the Collect! In 2010, I came to a conclusion that they were “truer” to the Scriptures and WCF than the “truly Reformed” were. But in the mainstream Reformed circles, they were already judged as heretics. I wonder how this Leithart trial will impact the dialog. Will the truly Reformed respect “church authority” or defer to their private judgment. Ultimately, I determined that whether FV, Horton Reformed, Lutheran, Anglican, was all based on private judgment and one’s agreement with its interpretation of scripture.

True, and don’t get me wrong, what Ray laid out in #11 is worth considering. It is definitely easier to single out a dissenter in geographically singular (US of A) denomination that is small enough to fit all members at Talledega Motor Speedway than the Catholic Church. And, there are examples of the Catholic Church addressing dissent ‘head on.’ One such example, I documented in this thread.

Sean – You are obviously right here and certainly Christians need to take seriously the sort of high level dissidents that is the subject here. But the thing that never ceases to surprise me about both Protestant and Catholic congregations is their often unwillingness to deal with rejection of even basic theological and moral truths on an individual congregational level. The foundational role of the overseer (bishop), as laid out in Scripture, is to guide and protest the people of a given congregation. It is this episcopal responsibility that has always been such a part of Reformed praxis and something which is sadly lacking in so many congregations in Evangelical world who seem to have skipped overall of those inconvenient biblical passages concerning discipline.

The higher level disciplinary actions such as those of Leithart are Acts 15 extensions of this process where congregations in a region come together to deal with issues that where an individual congregation cannot or won’t deal with a matter.