You just named the blog’s mission statement, Mark

No, kidding. Someone named Mark comments:

I am no advocate of the federal vision or Peter Leithart’s view of baptism or his view of apostasy. (I’m a Baptist and, besides having come from a religious background where there were strong elements of baptismal regeneration, I find teachings that even have a shade of baptismal regeneration distasteful).

However, you would have done well to quote a larger portion of that text on page 99. I think you are doing a disfavor to Mr. Leithart. Whatever the merits (or de-merits) of his theology, Leithart certainly did qualify what he was saying by indicating that this was only in one sense, and in another sense God certainly does not change at all.

via Leithart: “Apostasy Happens” « Johannes Weslianus. (my boldface).

It might be interesting in just how false an impression the blog post is designed to communicate, regarding Dr. Leithart (or the Rev…: he is both a Ph. D., and ordained in the PCA).  But the point of the blog is to claim that this represents one monolithic theological position that can be attributed to a bunch of people. No need for precision, just spray the accusations.

Well here is the only collective statement. This is the “federal vision theology.” I don’t think Wes is capable of accurately representing Peter Leithart’s thinking, but even if he did so, he would only be describing Peter Leithart’s thinking. If he wants to target others, he needs to actually deal with them. I have seen no evidence he is capable of doing that, either (for example).

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *