Monthly Archives: October 2011

Yet another version of “child sacrifice” — China

Mish (Mike Shedlock), the best economic blogger out there, has posted a video that was too disturbing for me to finish watching. You’ll have to go to the original post to see it. But you can read the text to figure out what he shows. Here is his added conclusion:

Several people were upset at this video thinking it does not belong in an economic blog. They are mistaken.

The perpetual story regarding China is that the country will grow without end, it will overtake the US, and rule the world.

Instead I propose the China story is really about rampant credit expansion, malinvestments, unproductive assets, no free capital markets, centralized planning that people mistake for capitalism, no real legal system, no freedom of speech, and no respect for either property rights or human rights.

All the people who think China is some sort of miracle savior for the world economy are going to find out otherwise.

I thought the point was obvious, but judging from the number of emails I received, obviously it was not.

via Mish’s Global Economic Trend Analysis: A “Must See” Heart Wrenching Video of Moral Deterioration in China.

My impression reading Mish is that he is a secular person. So I’ll add something that seems obvious to me. If you look at the names of most of our hospitals, even today, it is obvious that medical care in the West never developed purely from free market transactions. Such a free economy provided ad great deal of prosperity, and that prosperity gave the West resources to use for the sick and orphaned.

But the care for the sick and disabled in the West was never only a “service” purchased by “customers.” It was a Christian mission (and Jewish also).

(Note, I posted this yesterday, which is why I wrote “another version” in the title of this post.)

Old world trying to come back, the Ugandan outbreak of child sacrifice

The villages and farming communities that surround Uganda’s capital, Kampala, are gripped by fear.

Schoolchildren are closely watched by teachers and parents as they make their way home from school. In playgrounds and on the roadside are posters warning of the danger of abduction by witch doctors for the purpose of child sacrifice.

Read the rest: BBC News – Where child sacrifice is a business.

What if Isaiah had been an experiential pietist?

In the year that King Uzziah died I saw the Lord sitting upon a throne, high and lifted up; and the train of his robe filled the temple. Above him stood the seraphim. Each had six wings: with two he covered his face, and with two he covered his feet, and with two he flew. And one called to another and said: “Holy, holy, holy is the Lord of hosts; the whole earth is full of his glory!”

And the foundations of the thresholds shook at the voice of him who called, and the house was filled with smoke. And I said: “Woe is me! For I am lost; for I am a man of unclean lips, and I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips; for my eyes have seen the King, the Lord of hosts!”

Then one of the seraphim flew to me, having in his hand a burning coal that he had taken with tongs from the altar. And he touched my mouth and said: “Behold, this has touched your lips; your guilt is taken away, and your sin atoned for.”

And I heard the voice of the Lord saying, “Whom shall I send, and who will go for us?” And the whole court grew strangely silent as I closed my eyes in prayerful meditation. Then finally I opened my eyes and noticed that all the seraphim were staring at me.

“What?” I asked. “Surely you don’t expect someone of unclean lips, from among a people of unclean lips, to presume to volunteer for a mission from the Lord of Hosts?”

And the Seraph hovering nearest to me shook the tongs that were still in his hands, and said, “Did I not just touch your lips with a coal from the altar?”

“But surely, sir, you cannot expect me to presume I am chosen, called, and/or forgiven on the basis of a visible sign!”

An initial brief thought on the economics of conservative Presbyterians that may or may not warrant further consideration

Andrew Sandlin’s mention of the waste of time and money on trials has got me thinking…

In terms of economic analysis, the problem is “misallocated resourcs.” Such misallocations are commonly caused by disruptions in pricing.

As I have argued before (“Machen’s Warrior Children Were Subsidized”), one problem is that the price of making false accusations in court is kept artificially low. At least when the pamphlet technology was used during the Reformation to overturn the powers that be, the writers and purveyors of the pamphlets were taking real risks. While the blogosphere is the more efficient development of the pamphlets, it is not accompanied by real accountability. As I wrote awhile back:

So by filing a complaint, culled from incredibly biased attacks on a man, one could get a free pass to only care about tearing down a man’s reputation and having virtually no responsibility for considering contrary evidence. What organization will survive a period of time in which accusers are given this kind of institutional cover? Jesus claimed that even Satan knew better than to allow this sort of internal conflict. A kingdom divided against itself cannot stand.

But in addition to making attacking the brethren artificially inexpensive, we also ought to ask if somehow other avenues of Christian ministry are being made too expensive or if they seem too expensive.

We could go in several directions here. Sandlin mentioned “people who waste time on trivialities while Western civilization burns.” But perhaps that explains the economic motivations. If putting out the fire engulfing Western civilization looks impossible, frustrating, and dangerous, this itself could encourage an inward turn.

Is there stuff “out there” that seems to demand too high a price? If so, is there anything we can do about reassessing the values and potential rewards?

I can’t help but wonder if there might be an amillennial v. Postmillennial issue here, since Postmillennials believe that the fire will indeed be quenched by the Spirit and the Gospel.

But what else is there that diverts time and resources away from other tasks and into the manufacture of accusations?

I’ve stomached perusing some of these documents (some, thank God, not all) and am nothing short of appalled and embarrassed. How God’s people could use God’s money and God’s time to attack God’s man and on such comparatively inconsequential errors (if errors they be) is nothing short of ecclesial malpractice. I’m an acquaintance and not a close friend of Peter’s and I’m no partisan for his distinctive ecclesiology, sacramentolgy and liturgics.  I don’t have an axe to grind with anybody — except people who waste time on trivialities while Western civilization burns.

Note: Peter believes the Bible from cover to cover; believes historic Christian orthodoxy; believes in justification by faith alone in Jesus Christ alone; believes that the Faith should pervade all of culture; loves the church; loves his wife and children; lives a Christian life above reproach; preaches the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Apparently, that’s insufficient for the “prosecutors.”

READ THE WHOLE POST

Getting Leithart (edited)

Jon Barlow says something that needs to be said:

It has been interesting to read through the trial transcript of the Leithart trial. I haven’t finished reading it all, so perhaps I’ve missed it, but one of the things I simply assumed, since people in Peter’s presbytery would know him better than most of the internet critics, is that they would home in on the key insight of his theology. In what I read so far, however, I still found the crude “parallel soteriology” allegations that plague most other attempts to understand what Peter is getting at.

Maybe I’m wrong, but it seems like the key to Peter’s theology is his relational ontology. In other words, we are social beings – our “in relation”-ness is part of our very being. This is why Peter’s theology of baptism has the appearance of saying more than a lot of people are comfortable with about the sacrament. A person, prior to church relationship, is different (ontologically, even) from that same person, after being brought into the church. Peter is willing to speak in traditional language when needed, but he pushes back against traditional “inside” vs. “outside” language because that isn’t the key power of the sacrament for him – changing someone’s insides. A person is a social being. Baptism is a receptor site for the society of the church. Therefore, baptism changes the person – gives them new responsibilities, new relationships with the head of the church.

If we are social beings and social changes result in changes to who we are, then everything else Peter says about baptism follows nicely. I’m not saying he has a deductive theology. But it does seem like he has a philosophical insight about anthropology that can’t help but inform his exegesis and other theologizing. If “relational ontology” wasn’t on trial, then Peter Leithart’s theology wasn’t on trial.

I’ll add my own observations. Peter Leithart’s understanding is genuinely new in several ways, while within the Reformed tradition. But, within that tradition, Leithart has an obvious close relative: Ulrich Zwingli. (Note look in comments, when I have time, for more nuance. See Pastor Nolder’s question for a starting point)

Leithart is a rehabilitator of Zwinglian sacraments. Unlike Calvin, who with Luther and Trent, claimed that there was a substance in addition to the elements that was received by believers (and only by believers in Calvin’s view), for Leithart this is all unnecessary. Symbols are operative and performative. If a pastor marries a couple, one does not need to claim that some sort of mystical force is present to be joined to the words, “I now pronounce you husband and wife.”

I love Leithart’s relational ontology, but I’ve always found the more Calvinistic “dualism” in the sacraments to have an appeal. I can’t even say where I picked all this up about Peter. I think it came for more personal interaction a few years ago when I had such interaction. But on might look on what Leithart has to say about McCormack and Barth and Zwingli to see my point. Perhaps I am wrong and will learn better in the future.

Of course, in all of this, Leithart is obviously well within the bounds of the Westminster Confession and Catechisms. I’m just saying that he is located within those bounds quite differently than many people seem to think.

tolkienThe rolling hills of The Shire, the smoke-filled gloom of Mordor, the epic tales of selfless heroism, a vast history of a fantasy world called Middle Earth, and a hobbit. All born in the mind of one man, influenced by life’s unexpected twists and turns, ups and downs and a steadfast faith in God.

From his birth in South Africa till his death in England, Mark Horne takes us on a compelling journey through the life of beloved author, J.R.R. Tolkien. The tragedies and triumphs, the hardships and good times, the friends and loved ones, and his growing faith in the Catholic Church, all of which shaped, not only the course of Tolkien’s life, but also greatly influenced his works of writing; most notably the well-known and popular “The Hobbit” and “The Lord of the Rings”.

As I began reading this biography, which is part of the Christian Encounter Series, I found myself pulled into the pages within mere moments. Mark Horne has a beautiful way of enticing a reader with language that is concise, easily read and understood.

Read the Rest: Hear the Whisper, Taste the Sun: Book Review: J.R.R. Tolkien by Mark Horne.

Upcoming? (feel free to bug me if you don’t see some new stuff)

I don’t mean to be so lazy on this blog, but I simply don’t have much time in which to write…

But just so you know, I have three posts “under construction.” In no particular order:

  • I want to address the question Ron Paul was asked about the healthy guy who doesn’t buy health insurance and then requires major medical care. Do “we” just let him die?
  • I am trying to collate and write a coherent piece about all the mainstream or reliable info we have about the illegal drug trade and the complicity of the Intelligence and military services as well as mainstream corporations, especially banks.
  • I think it might be good to list “My favorite five audio podcasts.”

So that is what I have planned at the moment. Feel free to remind me if you don’t see something soon.

Refuting Hypercalvinism

Does the Bible teach a secondary way of salvation, a way of salvation that is experienced by the reprobate church member that is parallel but different in terms of duration than the way of salvation experienced by the decretally elect?

via It Comes Down to This « Green Baggins.

This way of putting the matter is slightly pejorative, but it is still worth thinking about.

In my opinion, this is simply a variation on the question as to whether there is any such thing as common grace.  As John Murray wrote:

2. Unregenerate men are recipients of divine favour and goodness.

The witness of Scripture to this fact is copious and direct. Attention will be focussed on a few of the most notable examples.

In Genesis 39:5 we are told that “the Lord blessed the Egyptian’s house for Joseph’s sake”. Truly it was for Joseph’s sake and for Joseph as the instrument through whom the chosen people were to be preserved and God’s redemptive purpose with respect to the world fulfilled. But, just as we found already in the case of Abimelech, the reason for the blessing bestowed does not destroy the reality of the blessing itself.

Perhaps the most significant part of Scripture bearing upon this phase of our subject is the witness of Paul and Barnabas at Lystra in Iconium. “Who in the generations gone by suffered all the nations to walk in their own ways. Nevertheless he left not himself without witness, doing good, and giving rains to you from heaven and fruitful seasons, filling your hearts with food and gladness” (Acts 14:16, 17). The “generations gone by” of this passage are the same as “the times of ignorance” mentioned by Paul in his speech on Mars’ hill (Acts 17:30). Paul and Barnabas in this case are referring to the past of those who had served dumb idols. They expressly state that although God allowed them to walk in their own idolatrous ways yet God did not leave them without a witness to Himself. The particular witness mentioned here is that He did good and gave them rains from heaven and fruitful seasons, filling their hearts with food and gladness. This is the most direct and indisputable assertion that men, left to their own ungodly ways, are nevertheless the subjects of divine benefaction. God showed them favour and did them good, and the satisfaction and enjoyment derived from the product of rains and fruitful seasons are not to be condemned but rather regarded as the witness, or at least as the proper effect of the witness, God was bearing to His own goodness. And it would be wanton violence that would /p. 14/ attempt to sever this “doing good” from a disposition of goodness in the heart and mind of God. Paul says that the “doing good” and “giving rain from heaven and fruitful seasons” constituted the witness God gave of Himself. In other words, the goodness bestowed is surely goodness expressed.

The testimony of our Lord Himself, as recorded in Matthew 5:44, 45; Luke 6:35, 36, establishes the same truth as that discussed in the foregoing passage. “But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you; that ye may be sons of your Father who is in heaven, for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sendeth rain on the just and the unjust.” “But love your enemies, and do them good, and lend, never despairing; and your reward shall be great, and ye shall be sons of the Most High: for he is kind toward the unthankful and evil. Be ye merciful, even as your Father is merciful.” Here the disciples are called upon to emulate in their own sphere and relations the character of God, their Father, in His own sphere and relations. God is kind and merciful to the unthankful and to the evil; He makes His sun to rise upon evil and good, and sends rain upon just and unjust. Both on the ground of express statement and on the ground of what is obviously implied in the phrases, “sons of your Father” and “sons of the Most High”, there can be no escape from the conclusion that goodness and beneficence, kindness and mercy are here attributed to God in His relations even to the ungodly. And this simply means that the ungodly are the recipients of blessings that flow from the love, goodness, kindness and mercy of God. Again it would be desperate exegetical violence that would attempt to separate the good gifts bestowed from the disposition of kindness and mercy in the mind of God.

Finally, we may appeal to Luke 16:25, “Son, remember that thou in thy lifetime receivedst thy good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things: but now here he is comforted, and thou art tormented”. The rich man was reprobate; but the gifts enjoyed during this life are nevertheless called “good things”.

It is without question true that good gifts abused will mean greater condemnation for the finally impenitent. “To /p. 15/ whom much is given, of the same shall much be required” (Luke 12:48). But this consideration, awfully true though it be, does not make void the fact that they are good gifts and expressions of the lovingkindness of God. In fact, it is just because they are good gifts and manifestations of the kindness and mercy of God that the abuse of them brings greater condemnation and demonstrates the greater inexcusability of impenitence. Ultimate condemnation, so far from making void the reality of the grace bestowed in time, rather in this case rests upon the reality of the grace bestowed and enjoyed. It will be more tolerable for Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment than for Capernaum. But the reason is that Capernaum was privileged to witness the mighty works of Christ as supreme exhibitions of the love, goodness and power of God.

The decree of reprobation is of course undeniable. But denial of the reality of temporal goodness and kindness, goodness and kindness as expressions of the mind and will of God, is to put the decree of reprobation so much out of focus that it eclipses the straightforward testimony of Scripture to other truths.

So they have received good, but this good includes special good within God’s covenant people:

4. Unregenerate men receive operations and influences of the Spirit in connection with the administration of the gospel, influences that result in experience of the power and glory of the gospel, yet influences which do not issue in genuine and lasting conversion and are finally withdrawn.

There are a few passages in the New Testament which so plainly attest the reality of such influence and resultant experience that no detailed exegesis is necessary.

We have spoken of this experience on the part of unregenerate men as that of the power and glory of the gospel. In the parable of the sower those who are compared to the rocky ground are those who hear the word and immediately with joy receive it. This implies some experience of its beauty and power. Yet they have no root and endure but for a while. When tribulation and persecution arise they just as immediately stumble and bring forth no fruit to perfection. The passages in Hebrews 6:4–8; 10:26–29 refer to experience that apparently surpasses that spoken of in the parable of the /p. 19/ sower. At least, the portraiture is very much more elaborate in its details and the issue much more tragic in its consequences. The persons concerned are described as “those who were once enlightened and tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Spirit, and tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come” (Heb. 6:4, 5), as those who had received the knowledge of the truth and had been sanctified by the blood of the covenant (Heb. 10:26, 29). We shudder at the terms in which the experience delineated is defined.23 Yet we cannot avoid its import, nor can we evade the acceptance of the inspired testimony that from such enlightenment, from such participation of the Holy Spirit and from such experience of the good word of God and the powers of the age to come men may fall away, crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, put him to an open shame, tread the Son of God under foot, count the sanctifying blood of the covenant an unholy thing and do despite to the Spirit of grace. Here is apostasy from which there is no repentance and for which there is nought but “a fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation which shall devour the adversaries”.

It is here that we find non-saving grace at its very apex. We cannot conceive of anything, that falls short of salvation, more exalted in its character. And we must not make void the reality of the blessing enjoyed and of the grace bestowed /p. 20/ out of consideration for the awful doom resultant upon renunciation and apostasy. As was pointed out already in other respects, it is precisely the grace bestowed in all its rich connotation as manifestation of the lovingkindness and goodness of God that gives ground for, and meaning to, the direful judgment that despite and rejection entail.

The teaching of such passages is corroborated by others that are to the same or similar effect. Peter in his second epistle devotes a considerable part to similar instruction and warning, and concludes with what is clearly reminiscent of the teaching of the epistle to the Hebrews. “For if after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, they are again entangled therein, and overcome, the latter end is worse with them than the beginning. For it had been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than, after they have known it, to turn from the holy commandment delivered unto them. But it is happened unto them according to the true proverb, The dog is turned to his own vomit again; and the sow that was washed to her wallowing in the mire” (2 Pet. 2:20–22). And Paul in his first chapter of the epistle to the Romans portrays for us the process of inexcusable abandonment of knowledge and of worship by which the heathen nations had lapsed into idolatry and superstition. But the knowledge they had relinquished is plainly represented as good, as that which should have been jealously cherished and as that for which they should have been thankful.

By these arguments, Murray justifies levels of common grace. Remember, “common” here does not mean indiscriminately universal, but rather in principle experienced by both a regenerate and unregenerate person:

The best classification with which the present writer has become acquainted is that offered by Dr. Herman Kuiper in the work aforementioned. In classifying the various manifestations of grace recognised by Calvin he gives three groups. The first category is that of the “grace which is common to all the creatures who make up this sin-cursed world…a grace which touches creatures as creatures”.13 This Dr. Kuiper calls universal common grace. There is, secondly, the grace recognised by Calvin as “common to all human beings in distinction from the rest of God’s creatures…a grace which pertains to men as men”.14 This Dr. Kuiper calls general common grace. Thirdly, there is the grace common not to all creatures and not to all men but to all “who live in the covenant sphere…to all elect and non-elect covenant members”.15 This Dr. Kuiper calls covenant common grace. There is, of course, within each classification the general and the particular. For the gifts bestowed upon each group of creatures are not indiscriminately dispensed. In each group there are differing degrees of the favour bestowed. This classification is inclusive and it also provides us with necessary and convenient distinctions. In the order stated we find the circle becomes more limited, but just as the limitation proceeds so does the nature of the grace bestowed become higher in the scale of value.16

So, what does the Bible say about “secondary” salvation?

Have nothing to do with irreverent, silly myths. Rather train yourself for godliness; for while bodily training is of some value, godliness is of value in every way, as it holds promise for the present life and also for the life to come. The saying is trustworthy and deserving of full acceptance. For to this end we toil and strive, because we have our hope set on the living God, who is the Savior of all people, especially of those who believe.

So if God is the “savior” of people who are not counted as believers, how can one condemn the claim that they have some form of “salvation”? It seems they clearly have a general salvation but not a special salvation. This gives rise to the theological distinction between common and saving grace.

And how does the Bible refer to professing believers who turn out to not persevere in the faith and thus demonstrate, as we Calvinists would say, that they never were truly regenerate?

From Romans 11:

But if some of the branches were broken off, and you, although a wild olive shoot, were grafted in among the others and now share in the nourishing root of the olive tree, do not be arrogant toward the branches. If you are, remember it is not you who support the root, but the root that supports you. Then you will say, “Branches were broken off so that I might be grafted in.” That is true. They were broken off because of their unbelief, but you stand fast through faith. So do not become proud, but fear. For if God did not spare the natural branches, neither will he spare you. Note then the kindness and the severity of God: severity toward those who have fallen, but God’s kindness to you, provided you continue in his kindness. Otherwise you too will be cut off. And even they, if they do not continue in their unbelief, will be grafted in, for God has the power to graft them in again. For if you were cut from what is by nature a wild olive tree, and grafted, contrary to nature, into a cultivated olive tree, how much more will these, the natural branches, be grafted back into their own olive tree.

From John 15:

I am the true vine, and my Father is the vinedresser. Every branch in me that does not bear fruit he takes away, and every branch that does bear fruit he prunes, that it may bear more fruit. Already you are clean because of the word that I have spoken to you. Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit by itself, unless it abides in the vine, neither can you, unless you abide in me. I am the vine; you are the branches. Whoever abides in me and I in him, he it is that bears much fruit, for apart from me you can do nothing. If anyone does not abide in me he is thrown away like a branch and withers; and the branches are gathered, thrown into the fire, and burned.

From Luke 8:

Now the parable is this: The seed is the word of God. The ones along the path are those who have heard; then the devil comes and takes away the word from their hearts, so that they may not believe and be saved. And the ones on the rock are those who, when they hear the word, receive it with joy. But these have no root; they believe for a while, and in time of testing fall away. And as for what fell among the thorns, they are those who hear, but as they go on their way they are choked by the cares and riches and pleasures of life, and their fruit does not mature. As for that in the good soil, they are those who, hearing the word, hold it fast in an honest and good heart, and bear fruit with patience.

From Hebrews 2:

Therefore we must pay much closer attention to what we have heard, lest we drift away from it. For since the message declared by angels proved to be reliable, and every transgression or disobedience received a just retribution, how shall we escape if we neglect such a great salvation?

From Hebrews 3:

Take care, brothers, lest there be in any of you an evil, unbelieving heart, leading you to fall away from the living God. But exhort one another every day, as long as it is called “today,” that none of you may be hardened by the deceitfulness of sin. For we have come to share in Christ, if indeed we hold our original confidence firm to the end.

From Hebrews 10:

Anyone who has set aside the law of Moses dies without mercy on the evidence of two or three witnesses. How much worse punishment, do you think, will be deserved by the one who has trampled underfoot the Son of God, and has profaned the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has outraged the Spirit of grace? For we know him who said, “Vengeance is mine; I will repay.” And again, “The Lord will judge his people.” It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God. But recall the former days when, after you were enlightened, you endured a hard struggle with sufferings, sometimes being publicly exposed to reproach and affliction, and sometimes being partners with those so treated. For you had compassion on those in prison, and you joyfully accepted the plundering of your property, since you knew that you yourselves had a better possession and an abiding one. Therefore do not throw away your confidence, which has a great reward. For you have need of endurance, so that when you have done the will of God you may receive what is promised.

From First Corinthians 12:

For just as the body is one and has many members, and all the members of the body, though many, are one body, so it is with Christ. For in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body—Jews or Greeks, slavesor free—and all were made to drink of one Spirit.

For the body does not consist of one member but of many. If the foot should say, “Because I am not a hand, I do not belong to the body,” that would not make it any less a part of the body. And if the ear should say, “Because I am not an eye, I do not belong to the body,” that would not make it any less a part of the body. If the whole body were an eye, where would be the sense of hearing? If the whole body were an ear, where would be the sense of smell? But as it is, God arranged the members in the body, each one of them, as he chose. If all were a single member, where would the body be? As it is, there are many parts,yet one body.

The eye cannot say to the hand, “I have no need of you,” nor again the head to the feet, “I have no need of you.” On the contrary, the parts of the body that seem to be weaker are indispensable, and on those parts of the body that we think less honorable we bestow the greater honor, and our unpresentable parts are treated with greater modesty, which our more presentable parts do not require. But God has so composed the body, giving greater honor to the part that lacked it, that there may be no division in the body, but that the members may have the same care for one another. If one member suffers, all suffer together; if one member is honored, all rejoice together.

Now you are the body of Christ and individually members of it.

So being grafted in the tree, vine, sanctified by the blood of the covenant, made a member of the body of Christ, is never in any sense to be considered “salvation” apart from some sort of revelation about whether a person in question is truly regenerate?

That makes no sense at all and it is not required by orthodox Calvinism. Quite the contrary.

By the way, is that excerpt from First Corinthians 12 referring to the Visible Church or the Invisible Church?

The irony of Peter Leithart’s vindication and the accusations against him

Here is the court document. I had to laugh when I read the top of page 6. In listing a principle of church government that was to “guide this Court in the discharge of its duty to exercise discipline over the purity of the truth,” it quotes from “Our own Book of Church Order, thus:

Preliminary Principle 3: “Our blessed Saviour, for the edification of the visible Church, which is His body, has appointed officers not only to preach the Gospel and administer the Sacraments, but also to exercise discipline for the preservation both of truth and duty. It is incumbent upon these officers and upon the whole Church in whose name they act, to censure or cast out the erroneous and scandalous, observing in all cases the rules contained in the Word of God.

But when I used to read Peter’s accusers (and mine) they constantly insisted that only “the invisible church” was the body of Christ.

So there you have it. By following the book of Church Order, the entire court was a “federal vision” court. No wonder it vindicated Dr. Leithart.