Peter Leithart Calls For The End Of Protestantism

Ironically we were just talking about the Protestant Reformation in class then in comes a blog post from First Things where Peter Leithart (member of the PCA) is calling for the end of the Protestantism. In its stead Leithart is calling for something that he calls "Reformational Catholicism". I have been following Leithart for several years now and while I don't agree with much of what he has been saying; I would have to say he is a very intelligent and well informed author, pastor, and theologian. I don't want to give the impression here that I could hold my own with Leithart but his intelligence isn't in question here. Rather, i'm wondering about some of the claims he makes in this article that are just overtly and blatantly incorrect at the most fundamental level. I will just high lite a few:

First I will start by saying I am not heavily vested in a brand. It isn't uncommon for some to be very brand conscious when it comes to their particular type of Christianity.  So for Leithart to go after "Protestantism" isn't all too important for me. However, we typically use these "brands" to share with others where we are on the "theological map." Behind many of these brands are teachings that some feel reflect the Bible's teaching and in cases of unresolved disagreement on essential matters, separation is warranted. This was the case of the Protestant Reformation.

However, Leithart makes the Reformation debate out to be a reactionary response to secondary issues when he says things like "Protestantism is a negative theology; a Protestant is a not-Catholic. Whatever Catholics say or do, the Protestant does and says as close to the opposite as he can." I realize Leithart understands the issues and Reformational theology but that's why I can't understand why he would say such a thing. Luther's 95 theses were a response to Catholic indulgences but that hardly makes Reformed theology a "negative theology" (by this I take Leithart to mean a theology that explains what we are not, as opposed to a theology that seeks to articulate what we are). Later in the article he looks to Baptists and Bible churches as proof of this. Hypothetically if that were true it doesn't validate the claim since Reformational theology is not defined by the beliefs of modern day isolated individual churches. 

He further goes on to say, "A Protestant exaggerates his distance from Roman Catholicism on every point of theology and practice, and is skeptical of Roman Catholics who say that they believe in salvation by grace." I haven't met that person who is skeptical of Rome's claim to salvation by grace. What was called in to question was the way Rome was defining grace. Rome taught that grace is infused righteousness which helped the believer work her way to justification. The Reformers on the other hand argued that grace was an imputed righteousness where God sees the believer as bearing Christ's righteousness. As you can probably tell this is a very large issue the outcome resulting in whether or not one believes in a works based system or a grace based system.    

In its whole I found many problems with Leithart's article. There seems to be a lot of fudging for the sole purpose of a thesis calling for the "end of Protestantism." Leithart may want to consider the possibility that if he has to do that much fudging to make his point, it is quite possible that his thesis is wrong. Just a thought. Read  his article and tell me what you think.

Federal Vision

I found this article written a few years back by RC jr. on the subject of the Federal Vision.  Let me know your thoughts on it.

Not long ago two Southern Baptist scholars met to debate the sovereignty of God in election. Al Mohler fought on the side of the angels, and won. Paige Patterson fought on the side of, well, the Remonstrants, and lost. Along the way Patterson sought to score some points by pointing out the deadly trajectory of Calvinism, by quoting from my book Almighty Over All on God’s sovereignty and the fall. Trouble is, he thought he was quoting my father. While I am most certainly a Calvinist, I am not the Calvinist. Pinning something on me isn’t pinning something on the entire school of thought.

Because we share a name, someone confused my father and I. Because Doug Wilson and I share a friendship, and an ecclesiastical affiliation, and perhaps a conviction or two, some have confused the two of us. Some have assumed because Doug and I are friends, a reality I trust will continue after the publication of this brief essay, that I believe in what has come to be known as federal vision theology. I do not now believe in it, nor have I ever. I do believe in paedocommunion, as did most of the church for the first millennium. I do believe, recognizing that we cannot read hearts, that we ought to treat our covenant children as believers unless or until they show otherwise, as has the great bulk of the Dutch Reformed tradition. I do not believe that this, nor being in the CREC (which welcomes Baptists into its midst), nor publishing men in Tabletalk who later came to be identified with federal vision, makes me federal vision.

I do not pretend to know exactly what defines federal vision. I certainly don’t know all the different convictions of all the different men associated with this movement, who sit at different places along the spectrum. I do not pretend to know everything the Westminster Standards have to say on the issues, far less all that Calvin had to say. I do know this. I believe that all those who have been given new hearts by the Holy Spirit, who trust in the finished work of Christ alone, will always so trust, and enter into eternal life. I believe that all such people will bear fruit in their lives, though that fruit is in no way the ground of their justification. I believe God justifies the ungodly, though the ungodly who have been regenerated by the Holy Spirit and respond in living faith. I believe that those who believe that some come to real trusting faith and then fall away into apostasy, even if they affirm that God ordained all this and brought it all to pass, have denied perseverance of the saints. I believe non-elect covenant members, whatever grace they receive along the way, are not given new hearts that trust in the finished work of Christ alone, and are never actually at peace with God. I believe I can’t say for sure what the men involved in this controversy actually believe about all this.

I believe that no one who has not been given a new heart, who has not trusted the finished work of Christ alone, will enter into eternal life. That’s almost universally true. It allows for no exceptions for unborn children, little babies who die or the feeble-minded. The only exception is Jesus. I believe this makes me more committed to the scope and purity of justification by faith alone than many federal vision critics. I am to their right on this issue. I believe that the death of Christ is why my sins are forgiven, and the life of Christ is why I receive a gracious reward, as our Father has promised. Or, to put it more theologically, I believe in double imputation and in the active obedience of Christ. And always have.

I take a southern Presbyterian view on Romish baptism, believing Rome to be apostate since the adoption of the sixth session of the Council of Trent. Just as I do not require others to submit to my views on paedocommunion (that is, no one at Saint Peter, where I serve, is required to practice it) so I do not require others to submit on this issue. My view on Rome is by no means the majority report. But once again, it is to the right of many federal vision critics. I am troubled by the relative sanguinity of federal vision toward Rome and Eastern Orthodoxy. But I’m a cranky TR.

I have, since this controversy first came to the public eye, sought to be, as much as is possible, at peace with all men. I have had many conversations with men on both sides of the fence. I spoke against federal vision at Auburn Avenue II in 2003. I have also written, I pray graciously, about some of my concerns about this movement from time to time. You can find those brief essays at our website: www.highlandsstudycenter.org/journals/hsc/archive.html (Oct 30, Dec 30 2003, Jan 5, March 8, June 28, 2004). I have also, from the beginning, been decrying the rhetoric surrounding this controversy. This is the first great theological controversy to be played out in the age of the internet. The internet has been about as useful in encouraging thoughtful theological discourse, or even appropriate ecclesiastical judgments, as it has been in encouraging sexual fidelity. I have seen shameful rhetoric from both sides, and precious little effort by the more reasonable on both sides to silence the bomb-throwers.

I take the old perspective on Paul. I have not read N.T. Wright, nor Norman Shepherd. I believe that the animus behind all this animosity is not the defense of theological purity, nor a recovery of biblical language. I believe that behind it all is pride. I believe that the devil has his hooks in both sides, and that both sides could do much more for the kingdom of God if they would spend their time and energy heeding the wisdom of Luther who said, “When our Lord and Master Jesus Christ said, ‘Repent’ (Mt 4:17), He willed the entire life of believers to be one of repentance.”

Amen!