The esse of Christian unity is based on a minimal credible (i.e. truthful) confession of faith. But the bene esse of Christian unity is based on the fullness and precision of one's confession of faith. That's why an excerpt from the current case before the PCA's SJC regarding the NWP and Peter Leithart reads:
The only conclusion that a court should reach, given the excellent work product produced by the PNW Study Committee, would be that there is a strong presumption of guilt that some of the views of Leithart are out of accord with some of the fundamentals of the system of doctrine taught in the [Westminster] Standards. This does not mean that Leithart is a heretic. He is not. This does not mean that Leithart is not or whether he is a Christian. He is. This does not necessarily mean that Leithart is outside the broader reformed community. The sole question to be determined is whether Leithart's views place him outside of the Standards, as adopted by the Presbyterian Church in America.
4 comments:
Jay, not being familiar with the specific case, I have a broader question. Wouldn't you say that when someone willfully binds his/her conscience by a set of articulated beliefs, that that person is then sinning whenever they act outside of those beliefs? Also, would you differentiate between accidental errors and purposeful ones?
Good questions Tom. By "willfully binding his conscience by a set of articulated beliefs," are you referring to ordination vows?
simply put, yes.
Tom,
Yes, I believe that if a person takes vows to teach and uphold particular beliefs, it is sin to either teach or act outside those beliefs. While even accidental errors are serious, which is why ordination exams should be rigorous, I would distinguish between purposeful and accidental errors. Everyone has the capacity to slip up in word or deed from time to time. But one who purposefully errs should be held accountable through the church courts.
Post a Comment