I have to admit that I am somewhat flabbergasted that the Pacific Northwest Presbytery (of course, there was a minority that disagreed, and will push matters further) would so soon forget the lessons learned from the Louisiana Presbytery case regarding Steve Wilkins. In that case it was judicially decided that actual, verbal denials of the confession are not necessary for someone’s views to be out of accord with the confession. Any difference with the confession must be noted and catalogued according to the new regulations in RAO 16-3 (e) 5. Every difference must be ruled as to whether it is semantic only, an exception that does not strike at the system of doctrine, or hostile to the system of doctrine. In a case such as Leithart’s, this kind of care would be absolutely crucial. Instead, what happened was that the majority report went through all the differences and ruled that all of them were exceptions, none of which struck at the system of doctrine. The report that was approved at GA says differently. Let the PNW beware. They will be brought up on charges of negligence and refusal to find a strong presumption of guilt. It will happen in much the same way that the Louisiana case turned out, Rob Rayburn notwithstanding.
Leithart and the Pacific Northwest Presbytery