# AAPC votes to leave the PCA?



## Josiah

I found this Here and wondered if anyone would be able to confirm it?


----------



## Pilgrim

It apparently was first announced on the Yahoo OPC group here . (Like rtdisc, only viewable if you are a group member). Given the source (my pastor) I'd say that it's pretty much a lead pipe cinch that it must be true. He's not going to get out on front on something like this unless it is true.


----------



## Josiah

Pilgrim said:


> It apparently was first announced on the Yahoo OPC group here . (Like rtdisc, only viewable if you are a group member). Given the source, I'd say that it's pretty much a lead pipe cinch that it must be true.



Wow. Thats one way to avoid a trial...I wonder if there were any dissenting votes?


----------



## Zenas

Uhhh, can you post the message for those of us unable to view it?


----------



## Pilgrim

Zenas said:


> Uhhh, can you post the message for those of us unable to view it?



Here's basically the same message on a forum that has publicly viewable archives.


----------



## Pilgrim

Nothing on the AAPC website that I can find so far.


----------



## turmeric

My browser isn't accepting their cookies, or something. Can someone please just post it? Is it just a Yahoo thing?


----------



## Pilgrim

turmeric said:


> My browser isn't accepting their cookies, or something. Can someone please just post it? Is it just a Yahoo thing?



The link to the Warfield list I posted in post #5 of this thread should work. The other lists have private archives viewable only to group members, similar to our private forums here.


----------



## beej6

Does the PCA BCO allow for such a withdrawal? I'm comparing it to the OPC BCO, where ordinarily the presbytery must be informed of an intent to withdraw, and there must be two congregational meetings at least 3 weeks apart where a vote to withdraw passes and the presbytery is allowed to weigh in as well as make provisions for those who wish to remain in the OPC.

After looking up the PCA BCO, I guess it does:

"Particular churches need remain in association with any court of this 
body only so long as they themselves so desire. The relationship is 
voluntary, based upon mutual love and confidence, and is in no sense to be 
maintained by the exercise of any force or coercion whatsoever. A particular 
church may withdraw from any court of this body at any time for reasons 
which seem to it sufficient." (25-11)


----------



## SolaScriptura

Pilgrim said:


> Zenas said:
> 
> 
> 
> Uhhh, can you post the message for those of us unable to view it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here's basically the same message on a forum that has publicly viewable archives.
Click to expand...


This link isn't to a message per se.... just someone _asking a question_ about whether or not we've heard anything about AAPC leaving...


----------



## Pilgrim

SolaScriptura said:


> Pilgrim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zenas said:
> 
> 
> 
> Uhhh, can you post the message for those of us unable to view it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here's basically the same message on a forum that has publicly viewable archives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This link isn't to a message per se.... just someone _asking a question_ about whether or not we've heard anything about AAPC leaving...
Click to expand...


True, but it repeats verbatim what was posted.


----------



## NaphtaliPress

Interesting that this was posted in places where no discussion as far as I know was taking place on the topic. Green Bagginses was discussing the La plea, where they essentially threw in the towel and gave SJC the Wilkins case. See this thread.


----------



## Pilgrim

Doug Wilson weighs in.


----------



## Pilgrim

Josiah said:


> Pilgrim said:
> 
> 
> 
> It apparently was first announced on the Yahoo OPC group here . (Like rtdisc, only viewable if you are a group member). Given the source, I'd say that it's pretty much a lead pipe cinch that it must be true.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow. Thats one way to avoid a trial...I wonder if there were any dissenting votes?
Click to expand...


There were no dissenting votes according to the post by Doug Wilson.


----------



## Josiah

Pilgrim said:


> Josiah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pilgrim said:
> 
> 
> 
> It apparently was first announced on the Yahoo OPC group here . (Like rtdisc, only viewable if you are a group member). Given the source, I'd say that it's pretty much a lead pipe cinch that it must be true.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow. Thats one way to avoid a trial...I wonder if there were any dissenting votes?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There were no dissenting votes according to the post by Doug Wilson.
Click to expand...


aah...a nice clean break then. I wonder what will happen now with other presbyteries..


----------



## Pilgrim

Josiah said:


> Pilgrim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Josiah said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow. Thats one way to avoid a trial...I wonder if there were any dissenting votes?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There were no dissenting votes according to the post by Doug Wilson.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> aah...a nice clean break then. I wonder what will happen now with other presbyteries..
Click to expand...


Are there actions pending against other presbyteries? Or are you wondering about the indictment that the LA Presbytery pled not guilty to?


----------



## raekwon

Seems cowardly. What does this say to those who come under church discipline?


----------



## Zenas

I'm happy that he's gone and he can stop causing such a stir in the PCA, but it does disturb me that one would elect to subjugate themselves under the discipline of a church and then run at the hint of being held accountable for what they affirm. 

Maybe I'm just a Negative Nancy though.


----------



## travis

Rae stole my comment. I will tell you what it does... it gives an example of cut and run. If you come under examination by your session, get out as soon as you can instead of either A) clarifying and clearing your name, or B) being brought to repentance. And in those cases that none of us like, excommunication.


----------



## Southern Presbyterian

travis said:


> I will tell you what it does... it gives an example of cut and run. If you come under examination by your session, get out as soon as you can instead of either A) clarifying and clearing your name, or B) being brought to repentance. And in those cases that none of us like, excommunication.


----------



## Poimen

I thought people (including Doug Wilson) were outraged that Steve Wilkins was not going to get a trial. And I thought that since the LA Presbytery had 'handed over' the case to the SJC that Steve Wilkins was going to be brought up on charges.

Am I wrong in my evaluation?


----------



## greenbaggins

My guess is that Wilkins simply did not want to come before the SJC. Given that the SJC thought Wilkins should have been charged, it makes sense for Wilkins to leave. This way he does leave as a minister in good standing, with no judicial proceeding against him. I think it was a good decision for AAPC to make, frankly.


----------



## Romans922

Isn't that what everyone wanted? Him to remain a minister in 'good standing'. At least that is what I hear all the FV guys saying, he is STILL a minister in good standing.


----------



## Poimen

greenbaggins said:


> My guess is that Wilkins simply did not want to come before the SJC. Given that the SJC thought Wilkins should have been charged, it makes sense for Wilkins to leave. This way he does leave as a minister in good standing, with no judicial proceeding against him. I think it was a good decision for AAPC to make, frankly.



So do you think Wilson was wrong? (as per my post above)


----------



## raekwon

greenbaggins said:


> My guess is that Wilkins simply did not want to come before the SJC. Given that the SJC thought Wilkins should have been charged, it makes sense for Wilkins to leave. This way he does leave as a minister in good standing, with no judicial proceeding against him. I think it was a good decision for AAPC to make, frankly.



If there was an erring member of your church, Lane, who you and your session were about to bring up on charges . . . but before you got the chance, he decided to leave and go to another church (PCA or otherwise) so he technically leaves in good standing, would that be an equally "good decision" for that member?


----------



## greenbaggins

I was on the prosecution team against the LA Presbytery. Obviously I think Wilkins's theology is in error. The SJC was probably not going to rule in Wilkins's favor, had he gone to trial. Many, many people had asked Wilkins to leave the denomination for the sake of purity. He did not want to do that until he had exhausted all his options. 

The case of an individual as a member of a church is different, I think, precisely because the properties of an individual are not the same as the properties of the group. At this point it is speculation to try to decide what Wilkins's motives were in leaving. Don't forget that the church voted unanimously to leave. It is not just Wilkins here.


----------



## Reformed Musings

greenbaggins said:


> My guess is that Wilkins simply did not want to come before the SJC. Given that the SJC thought Wilkins should have been charged, it makes sense for Wilkins to leave. This way he does leave as a minister in good standing, with no judicial proceeding against him. I think it was a good decision for AAPC to make, frankly.



I agree with Lane. I started encouraging FV officers to leave the PCA quietly when I first started my blog last year after the 35th GA approved the study committee's recommendations almost unanimously. For me, this isn't about lining people up against the wall and shooting them, or even making examples of them. For me it is and always will be about the peace and purity of the PCA. The quickest and most peaceful courses are either to repent of FV or to leave quietly.

I am confident that Wilkins would have been convicted because of the stacks of evidence against him and the high quality of the prosecution team . But that doesn't mean that I wanted to see a trial. A trial would just cause further division and disruption of peace. LAP and AAPC did the right thing for the peace and purity of the church in my opinion.

As for Wilson, Wilson wants what Wilson wants on any given day--whichever way he thinks he can force the wind blow to stir the waters. Who cares? He's nothing to the PCA.


----------



## wsw201

Even though a trial would be desruptive, folks within a denomination look to court cases for the definative position of a denomination. I can hear FV'ers in the PCA saying that Wilkins left the PCA in good standing and was never convicted for for his views, therefore FV (as far as they are concerned and despite the PCA paper on FV approved by GA) is within the bounds of the Standards.


----------



## Reformed Musings

wsw201 said:


> Even though a trial would be desruptive, folks within a denomination look to court cases for the definative position of a denomination. I can hear FV'ers in the PCA saying that Wilkins left the PCA in good standing and was never convicted for for his views, therefore FV (as far as they are concerned and despite the PCA paper on FV approved by GA) is within the bounds of the Standards.



Well, that's certainly true. However, there will be many around who will be able to tell...the REST of the story.


----------



## Pilgrim

wsw201 said:


> Even though a trial would be desruptive, folks within a denomination look to court cases for the definative position of a denomination. I can hear FV'ers in the PCA saying that Wilkins left the PCA in good standing and was never convicted for for his views, therefore FV (as far as they are concerned and despite the PCA paper on FV approved by GA) is within the bounds of the Standards.



And I suppose some could draw an analogy with the Shepherd case in the OPC and at WTS.


----------



## DMcFadden

Coming to this discussion recently, it has made interesting reading for an outsider to the process. As a Baptist, I cannot help but admire the care with which the PCA dealt with erroneous teaching in its midst. In my church background, there is absolutely NO way to deal with doctrinal aberrations. Some of you life-long Presbyterians may have a quibble here or there about loose ends. But, it sounds as if the outcome was a "satisficing" decision for everyone. Wilkins gets to leave in good standing, the PCA avoids a fractious fight, and, while it does not tie up as many loose ends as a precedent, it makes it pretty clear what the doctrinal limits are in the PCA. Again, as a Baptist, I cannot help but admire a system that takes truth seriously.


----------



## greenbaggins

Sounds like someone is in the wrong denom! 

Oh well, I suppose there's probably a baptism thingy with you, isn't there?


----------



## turmeric

I'm relieved. It's going to take a while to sink in...
As for needing some direction about doctrine, we can look to the Study Committee's report, which was adopted at GA last summer.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

DMcFadden said:


> Coming to this discussion recently, it has made interesting reading for an outsider to the process. As a Baptist, I cannot help but admire the care with which the PCA dealt with erroneous teaching in its midst. In my church background, there is absolutely NO way to deal with doctrinal aberrations. Some of you life-long Presbyterians may have a quibble here or there about loose ends. But, it sounds as if the outcome was a "satisficing" decision for everyone. Wilkins gets to leave in good standing, the PCA avoids a fractious fight, and, while it does not tie up as many loose ends as a precedent, it makes it pretty clear what the doctrinal limits are in the PCA. Again, as a Baptist, I cannot help but admire a system that takes truth seriously.



I think this is a good point. I remember a pretty prominent Baptist member here that was critical of the Presbyterian denominations - beside himself that they had not yet declared the FV a heresy (this was two years ago that he was ranting).

It struck me as a bit hypocritical that his ecclesiastical convictions were for complete independency but yet he wanted the PCA, OPC, and others to be acting quickly as if it was a local Church with 2-3 elders.

What is remarkable about the process is not that there are mistakes made along the way in some cases but, given sin, that there remains some remarkable unity around the truth of the Gospel. That God allows so much unity across hundreds of congregations and many Presbyteries is to His glory!


----------



## Josiah

Pilgrim said:


> Josiah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pilgrim said:
> 
> 
> 
> There were no dissenting votes according to the post by Doug Wilson.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aah...a nice clean break then. I wonder what will happen now with other presbyteries..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are there actions pending against other presbyteries? Or are you wondering about the indictment that the LA Presbytery pled not guilty to?
Click to expand...


I am not sure. I think It was alluded to at Green Baggins

"Perhaps they were thinking ahead to their allies in the Missouri and Northwest Presbyteries, where other prominent Federal Visionists sit awaiting the outcome of this case and its wider repercussions. Update: HaigLaw provided some good insight in comment #18 below. I happily defer to an elder who was there and seems to have no dog in the fight. That said, NW and Missouri Presbyteries should be paying close attention." - Bob Mattes


----------



## Romans922

No there are no other actions against other presbyteries. No one within a presbytery has filed anything like people within LA presbytery did.

Those who went against the PCA FV/NPP/AA Report were to report to their presbyeries, only Leithart did I believe (I could be wrong about this) and that was to NW Presbytery. No other actions are being held, no known action is being taken against Leithart.


----------



## turmeric

Look what happens when you turn the light on!

They're studying the light-hearted one in NW Presbytery now. They have a committee on it anyway. Hard to say what the response to this latest will be.


----------



## DMcFadden

greenbaggins said:


> Sounds like someone is in the wrong denom!
> 
> Oh well, I suppose there's probably a baptism thingy with you, isn't there?



 Thanks a LOT, buddy! Actually, my judicatory DID withdraw from its mainline denomination over issues of sound doctrine during the last couple of years.  

But, that is just about the only sanction possible in a "Baptist organization" (oxymoronic, isn't it?). We simply do not have a good mechanism for confronting error or for the discipline of heresy.

Lane, frankly, my disgust with the doctrinal latitudinarianism of my former group has left me with agonizing angst and launched me on a bit of an existential journey, including a reconsideration of issues thought to have been settled years ago. We would all like to think that we give ALL of our childhood beliefs serious consideration. However, at times, we simply allow ourselves to travel down a road (more like a rut) in the same tradition in which we were raised. We learn to defend those beliefs and can do so with erudition and Greek-based arguments. However, being well trained in defending a tradition is much different from saying that it is true. We seminary grads are all well trained monkeys when it comes to aping what we were taught. But the Lord requires more from us than this, he requires an unswerving commitment to truth and himself as THE truth.


Currently I am reading books on Reformation and post-reformation dogmatics and taking some classes on the same. Don't hold your breath (there is that "baptism thingy" with me to consider). However, my presence on this message board is part of my search. Who knows . . . maybe you will win me over to the "decently and in order" set yet. My soteriology is already thoroughly Calvinist. Since I am the CEO of a "Baptist" organization, this exploration could prove VERY costly to me professionally. However, on issues of inerrancy, feminism run amuck, a denial of the clear teaching of scripture in any number of OT and NT instances, my patience with my group is just about spent. Fundamentalism is an intellectual and spiritual cul de sac and hardly a valid alternative. What is missing in my tradition is honest to goodness confessionalism.


----------



## Gryphonette

*Mercy Maud, isn't that the truth?*



SemperFideles said:


> DMcFadden said:
> 
> 
> 
> Coming to this discussion recently, it has made interesting reading for an outsider to the process. As a Baptist, I cannot help but admire the care with which the PCA dealt with erroneous teaching in its midst. In my church background, there is absolutely NO way to deal with doctrinal aberrations. Some of you life-long Presbyterians may have a quibble here or there about loose ends. But, it sounds as if the outcome was a "satisfying" decision for everyone. Wilkins gets to leave in good standing, the PCA avoids a fractious fight, and, while it does not tie up as many loose ends as a precedent, it makes it pretty clear what the doctrinal limits are in the PCA. Again, as a Baptist, I cannot help but admire a system that takes truth seriously.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think this is a good point. I remember a pretty prominent Baptist member here that was critical of the Presbyterian denominations - beside himself that they had not yet declared the FV a heresy (this was two years ago that he was ranting).
> 
> It struck me as a bit hypocritical that his ecclesiastical convictions were for complete independency but yet he wanted the PCA, OPC, and others to be acting quickly as if it was a local Church with 2-3 elders.
> 
> What is remarkable about the process is not that there are mistakes made along the way in some cases but, given sin, that there remains some remarkable unity around the truth of the Gospel. That God allows so much unity across hundreds of congregations and many Presbyteries is to His glory!
Click to expand...


It's astonishing, considering how many fallen, sinful people have left their fingerprints on the PCA's FV situation, how well it's worked on the whole. 

Why on earth do people react with indignation as if perfectly carried out investigations, discipline, etc. are - or _should_ be - the norm? 

What's worthy of note is not how missteps were made in the process, or that some Monday-morning quarterbacking will doubtless disclose some areas needing to be punched up, but that for the most part the process proceeded in an appropriate manner.

What both amuses and annoys me has been the accusation of "witch hunt" that's frequently been made regarding the PCA's attempt to rein in the errors of the FV. Only in America could people say that with a straight face, clearly having never had any experience of the honest-to-goodness "witch hunts" that are taking place in other areas of the world.

Pr. Wilkins has been permitted to switch smoothly from the PCA to the CREC, and the AAPC with him, retaining their property and avoiding any further possibility of trial? THIS is an example of a "witch hunt"?

Oy vey. 

We are spoiled rotten here in America, that's the top and bottom of it. If someone has the nerve to doggedly refute and rebuke what they view as significant error, it's for sure those being rebuked will be outraged and insulted, and claim "victim" status to boot.


----------



## DMcFadden

> What both amuses and annoys me has been the accusation of "witch hunt" that's frequently been made regarding the PCA's attempt to rein in the errors of the FV. Only in America could people say that with a straight face, clearly having never had any experience of the honest-to-goodness "witch hunts" that are taking place in other areas of the world.
> 
> Pr. Wilkins has been permitted to switch smoothly from the PCA to the CREC, and the AAPC with him, retaining their property and avoiding any further possibility of trial? THIS is an example of a "witch hunt"?
> 
> Oy vey.



Exactly! I know you Presbyterians want to do EVERYthing "decently and in order." But, yikes! As fallen people go, this was pretty amazingly clean.


----------



## HaigLaw

*Punish the LaP?*



greenbaggins said:


> My guess is that Wilkins simply did not want to come before the SJC. Given that the SJC thought Wilkins should have been charged, it makes sense for Wilkins to leave. This way he does leave as a minister in good standing, with no judicial proceeding against him. I think it was a good decision for AAPC to make, frankly.



It seems to me that the goals of church discipline are either repentance or excommunication, and even with the latter, you still hope they eventually repent.

Given that the goal of the SJC was clarification or enforcement of its view that Pastor Wilkins was out of accord with Reformed standards, what do you brethren feel their disposition of the LaP will be now that Wilkins has effectively excommunicated himself from the LaP?


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

SemperFideles said:


> DMcFadden said:
> 
> 
> 
> Coming to this discussion recently, it has made interesting reading for an outsider to the process. As a Baptist, I cannot help but admire the care with which the PCA dealt with erroneous teaching in its midst. In my church background, there is absolutely NO way to deal with doctrinal aberrations. Some of you life-long Presbyterians may have a quibble here or there about loose ends. But, it sounds as if the outcome was a "satisficing" decision for everyone. Wilkins gets to leave in good standing, the PCA avoids a fractious fight, and, while it does not tie up as many loose ends as a precedent, it makes it pretty clear what the doctrinal limits are in the PCA. Again, as a Baptist, I cannot help but admire a system that takes truth seriously.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think this is a good point. I remember a pretty prominent Baptist member here that was critical of the Presbyterian denominations - beside himself that they had not yet declared the FV a heresy (this was two years ago that he was ranting).
> 
> It struck me as a bit hypocritical that his ecclesiastical convictions were for complete independency but yet he wanted the PCA, OPC, and others to be acting quickly as if it was a local Church with 2-3 elders.
> 
> What is remarkable about the process is not that there are mistakes made along the way in some cases but, given sin, that there remains some remarkable unity around the truth of the Gospel. That God allows so much unity across hundreds of congregations and many Presbyteries is to His glory!
Click to expand...


If my recollection serves me correctly the Particular Baptists had an association. In their midsts arose men who picked up unsound doctrine and they were confronted by Elders of multiple congregations and then disassociated from their midst if they didn't repent. I read about this recently from a book I picked up from Dr. Kear. 

If you were in the ARBCA I think you would be in a situation where you would be challenged and disassociated if you were found doctrinally unfit. But the first place to start with would be from your local congregation. Your Elders would be the first line of defense against heresy and the congregation would be responsible also. It is dealt with a little more quickly in my opinion.

It really helps being a confessional church.


----------



## wsw201

HaigLaw said:


> greenbaggins said:
> 
> 
> 
> My guess is that Wilkins simply did not want to come before the SJC. Given that the SJC thought Wilkins should have been charged, it makes sense for Wilkins to leave. This way he does leave as a minister in good standing, with no judicial proceeding against him. I think it was a good decision for AAPC to make, frankly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It seems to me that the goals of church discipline are either repentance or excommunication, and even with the latter, you still hope they eventually repent.
> 
> Given that the goal of the SJC was clarification or enforcement of its view that Pastor Wilkins was out of accord with Reformed standards, what do you brethren feel their disposition of the LaP will be now that Wilkins has effectively excommunicated himself from the LaP?
Click to expand...


Not sure but I would guess that they would look to ajudicate the issues that the LAP pled not guilty on, which if I remember right is the one regarding the process they went through in the examination of Steve Wilkins.

In my humble opinion one of the good things that has come out of all this mess is the clarification of how an examination is suppose to be handled. I know for a fact that in the PCA Presbytery that I use to be apart of, the way the LAP examined Wilkins was the way everyone was examined! And I would hazzard to guess that a number of Presbyteries, much less Sessions, would have (and have done!) held exams the same way LAP did theirs.

For what it's worth, I would hope that the SJC, GA or somebody would put together a "how to" manual on examinations, versus folks having to connect the dots in the BCO, RAO or SJC manual (or just visit Bob Mattes blog!!  ).


----------



## greenbaggins

HaigLaw said:


> greenbaggins said:
> 
> 
> 
> My guess is that Wilkins simply did not want to come before the SJC. Given that the SJC thought Wilkins should have been charged, it makes sense for Wilkins to leave. This way he does leave as a minister in good standing, with no judicial proceeding against him. I think it was a good decision for AAPC to make, frankly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It seems to me that the goals of church discipline are either repentance or excommunication, and even with the latter, you still hope they eventually repent.
> 
> Given that the goal of the SJC was clarification or enforcement of its view that Pastor Wilkins was out of accord with Reformed standards, what do you brethren feel their disposition of the LaP will be now that Wilkins has effectively excommunicated himself from the LaP?
Click to expand...


I doubt much will change. Mark Duncan will still be an FV guy, but the Jim Jones crowd will still oppose them. It is a divided presbytery. Wilkins leaving will probably not do much to alter that, except that the good guys will now have an easier time with the voting.


----------



## greenbaggins

DMcFadden said:


> greenbaggins said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds like someone is in the wrong denom!
> 
> Oh well, I suppose there's probably a baptism thingy with you, isn't there?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks a LOT, buddy! Actually, my judicatory DID withdraw from its mainline denomination over issues of sound doctrine during the last couple of years.
> 
> But, that is just about the only sanction possible in a "Baptist organization" (oxymoronic, isn't it?). We simply do not have a good mechanism for confronting error or for the discipline of heresy.
> 
> Lane, frankly, my disgust with the doctrinal latitudinarianism of my former group has left me with agonizing angst and launched me on a bit of an existential journey, including a reconsideration of issues thought to have been settled years ago. We would all like to think that we give ALL of our childhood beliefs serious consideration. However, at times, we simply allow ourselves to travel down a road (more like a rut) in the same tradition in which we were raised. We learn to defend those beliefs and can do so with erudition and Greek-based arguments. However, being well trained in defending a tradition is much different from saying that it is true. We seminary grads are all well trained monkeys when it comes to aping what we were taught. But the Lord requires more from us than this, he requires an unswerving commitment to truth and himself as THE truth.
> 
> 
> Currently I am reading books on Reformation and post-reformation dogmatics and taking some classes on the same. Don't hold your breath (there is that "baptism thingy" with me to consider).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know of a few books... Maybe a pboard here or there...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> However, my presence on this message board is part of my search. Who knows . . . maybe you will win me over to the "decently and in order" set yet. My soteriology is already thoroughly Calvinist. Since I am the CEO of a "Baptist" organization, this exploration could prove VERY costly to me professionally. However, on issues of inerrancy, feminism run amuck, a denial of the clear teaching of scripture in any number of OT and NT instances, my patience with my group is just about spent. Fundamentalism is an intellectual and spiritual cul de sac and hardly a valid alternative. What is missing in my tradition is honest to goodness confessionalism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I certainly respect your open mind on these things. It is a good journey to be on, wherever you net out on these issues.
Click to expand...


----------



## Romans922

They move quick don't they:

Augustine Presbytery - Confederation of Reformed Evangelical Churches

Look down at the State of LA.


----------



## jaybird0827

Romans922 said:


> They move quick don't they:
> 
> Augustine Presbytery - Confederation of Reformed Evangelical Churches
> 
> Look down at the State of LA.


 
No fooling! They must've started building their life raft some time ago and had it waiting.


----------



## HaigLaw

*SJC do now?*



greenbaggins said:


> I doubt much will change. Mark Duncan will still be an FV guy, but the Jim Jones crowd will still oppose them. It is a divided presbytery. Wilkins leaving will probably not do much to alter that, except that the good guys will now have an easier time with the voting.



What I meant was -- what is the SJC gonna do next with our LaP plea of not guilty to count 1 and guilty to count 2?


----------



## jfschultz

jaybird0827 said:


> Romans922 said:
> 
> 
> 
> They move quick don't they:
> 
> Augustine Presbytery - Confederation of Reformed Evangelical Churches
> 
> Look down at the State of LA.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No fooling! They must've started building their life raft some time ago and had it waiting.
Click to expand...


The AAPC site is also updated.

With how all this matter was so much in the open, what does this say about the CREC? But then with all the "Presbyterian" micro-demonimantions around there is bound to be one that would accept some confessional departure or another.


----------



## Zenas

John,

Ever hear of the Cumberland Presbyterian Denomination? Completely Arminian. There's a Presbyterian denomination for any theological position. It's rather sad.


----------



## Stephen

Please pardon my ignorance on some of the issues involved, because frankly this gets more confusing by the day. This reminds me of a never-ending soap opera. Why was the SJC interested in trying Steve Wilkins when there are FV churches in LA Presbytery, MO Presbytery, and other congregations scattered across the PCA?  I believe it is a shame that a man can be allowed to leave a denomination in good standing if he is being tried for suspicion of violating the standards.


----------



## Zenas

He left before he was tried, I believe, preserving his status.


----------



## jfschultz

Zenas said:


> John,
> 
> Ever hear of the Cumberland Presbyterian Denomination? Completely Arminian. There's a Presbyterian denomination for any theological position. It's rather sad.



Yes their headquarters is here in Memphis off of Union Ave., with their seminary at Union and E. Parkway.


----------



## Zenas

Yep, they're nutty. I thinky my fiance' visited one once, I think she may be physically afraid of them.


----------



## mvdm

Wilkins has now published his explanation for leaving the PCA:

http://www.auburnavenue.org/documents/PCADepartureRationale.pdf


----------



## Casey

wsw201 said:


> Even though a trial would be desruptive, folks within a denomination look to court cases for the definative position of a denomination. . . .


It may be true that folks look to court cases in this way, but is it right? I am under the impression that court cases are for specific situations dealing with particular individuals and do not offer "definitive positions" as such. They offer a ruling on individuals. Court cases don't set precedents. We have our primary (Bible), secondary (Westminster CF, L & SC), and tertiary (BCO) standards, but court cases and even denominational reports don't provide a fourth level. Right? At least, this is my impression of how the OPC does it -- some denominations may be different, such as those who add "Testimonies" to the Confession. (This post is not meant to say Ay or Nay to a trial, I'm just wanting to understand the force of them correctly.)


----------



## fredtgreco

StaunchPresbyterian said:


> wsw201 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Even though a trial would be desruptive, folks within a denomination look to court cases for the definative position of a denomination. . . .
> 
> 
> 
> It may be true that folks look to court cases in this way, but is it right? I am under the impression that court cases are for specific situations dealing with particular individuals and do not offer "definitive positions" as such. They offer a ruling on individuals. Court cases don't set precedents. We have our primary (Bible), secondary (Westminster CF, L & SC), and tertiary (BCO) standards, but court cases and even denominational reports don't provide a fourth level. Right? At least, this is my impression of how the OPC does it -- some denominations may be different, such as those who add "Testimonies" to the Confession. (This post is not meant to say Ay or Nay to a trial, I'm just wanting to understand the force of them correctly.)
Click to expand...


Casey,

Trials do provide a help to all of the Standards. COurt cases are not a standard in themselves - but rather guidance in how to interpret the various Standards (Bible/WCF/BCO). If there is a question for example, about what constitutes "notice" in a given provision of the BCO, or what is meant by "every effort" in a text, a case can provide guidance that "notice" is satisfied by a phone conversation or email, but not a voice mail (for example).


----------



## CDM

> If my recollection serves me correctly the Particular Baptists had an association. In their midsts arose men who picked up unsound doctrine and they were confronted by Elders of multiple congregations and then disassociated from their midst if they didn't repent. I read about this recently from a book I picked up from Dr. Kear.
> 
> If you were in the ARBCA I think you would be in a situation where you would *be challenged and disassociated if you were found doctrinally unfit*. But the first place to start with would be from your local congregation. Your Elders would be the first line of defense against heresy and the congregation would be responsible also. It is dealt with a little more quickly in my opinion.
> 
> It really helps being a confessional church.



Brother, in your opinion do you believe these Baptist associations are worthwhile? 

I mean, after all, no action or judgment is ever reached on the "erring" party. To put it plainly, what difference does it make if one group of Baptists decides not to associate with another Baptist or group? 

I am just trying to understand the benefits that come from these sorts of associations. I have not considered it much but they seem to be like Presbyteries without authority and/or power. Maybe this should be a topic for a new thread.

Blessings, brother.


----------



## Pilgrim

Here is the statement by Wilkins on the rationale for their withdrawal from the PCA.


----------

