# Dr. Oliphint’s case



## J.L. Allen (May 7, 2019)

Apparently it has been dismissed. 

https://reformedforum.org/oliphint/

Reactions: Rejoicing 2 | Sad 1


----------



## ZackF (May 7, 2019)

Johnathan Lee Allen said:


> Apparently it has been dismissed.
> 
> https://reformedforum.org/oliphint/



Not that I’m a master theologian but PTL! I’ve found Oliphint extremely profitable.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (May 7, 2019)

What does this mean?

May 3, 2019 — The OPC Presbytery of the Southwest addressed charges filed against Dr. K. Scott Oliphint and ruled the evidence inadmissible citing OPC Book of Discipline III.7.b(4), which refers to “the apparent authenticity, admissibility, and relevancy of any documents, records, and recordings adduced in support of the charge and specifications.” Consequently, the presbytery did not proceed to trial.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## TylerRay (May 7, 2019)

NaphtaliPress said:


> What does this mean?
> 
> May 3, 2019 — The OPC Presbytery of the Southwest addressed charges filed against Dr. K. Scott Oliphint and ruled the evidence inadmissible citing OPC Book of Discipline III.7.b(4), which refers to “the apparent authenticity, admissibility, and relevancy of any documents, records, and recordings adduced in support of the charge and specifications.” Consequently, the presbytery did not proceed to trial.


Based on something I read on Facebook (I know, I know), the charges were dismissed because the book was written more than 2 years ago. According to OPC order, a charge cannot be brought against someone for an offense committed more than 2 years prior to the charge being filed.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## J.L. Allen (May 7, 2019)

TylerRay said:


> Based on something I read on Facebook (I know, I know), the charges were dismissed because the book was written more than 2 years ago. According to OPC order, a charge cannot be brought against someone for an offense committed more than 2 years prior to the charge being filed.


But what about continued teaching of what some have thought questionable?

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## TheOldCourse (May 7, 2019)

TylerRay said:


> Based on something I read on Facebook (I know, I know), the charges were dismissed because the book was written more than 2 years ago. According to OPC order, a charge cannot be brought against someone for an offense committed more than 2 years prior to the charge being filed.



If true, that is rather strange unless he for some reason also retracted or at least ceased teaching the relevant material. I'm certainly one for proper procedure, but given the public nature of the case it seems like it still needs to be dealt with to either vindicate Dr. Oliphant's teachings or sustain the charge against them. I can't imagine the controversy going away quietly if it is perceived that he got off on a technicality.

Perhaps there was indeed a retraction. As I recall, WTS purchased the remaining inventory of Dr. Oliphant's book and destroyed them pending a rewrite so if the book and its teachings in the objectionable form no longer have circulation, that may have prompted the presbytery's decision.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## ZackF (May 7, 2019)

TheOldCourse said:


> If true, that is rather strange unless he for some reason also retracted or at least ceased teaching the relevant material. I'm certainly one for proper procedure, but given the public nature of the case it seems like it still needs to be dealt with to either vindicate Dr. Oliphant's teachings or sustain the charge against them. I can't imagine the controversy going away quietly if it is perceived that he got off on a technicality.
> 
> Perhaps there was indeed a retraction. As I recall, WTS purchased the remaining inventory of Dr. Oliphant's book and destroyed them pending a rewrite so if the book and its teachings in the objectionable form no longer have circulation, that may have prompted the presbytery's decision.


That’s what I didn’t understand the charges to begin with. If he conceded royalties, I figured he agreed to rewrite the book. I hope the whole thing is over.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Taylor (May 7, 2019)

TheOldCourse said:


> I can't imagine the controversy going away quietly...



I have a hunch you are correct about this.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (May 7, 2019)

Since it is not going to trial, I guess that means Jeff Waddington won't be suspended. Any word on that?

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## NaphtaliPress (May 7, 2019)

I would think those who filed charges would know the expiration clause; did they address this in the filing?


----------



## Contra_Mundum (May 8, 2019)

Whatever anyone _wants _to say on this topic, the starting point is this:

The Presbytery judicatory determined, presumably on good counsel, that this was not a case properly before it. So, regardless of anything that anyone thinks of one side or the other, I think its time to end the discussion of whether the subject of the complaint is under a cloud. The cloud of suspicion needs to dissipate, now; and the PB doesn't need to be a place where the vapors are lingering.

If someone wants to start a discussion of KSO's writings, lectures, or comments that are in the public domain, that's another conversation. Public men make themselves available for criticism and/or commendation. But no mention that he once had a charge leveled against him should be stated, without in the next breath stating that the charge was dropped.

We do have this duty: protect the good name of everyone, so far as in us it is. We all barely knew (if at all) there was any kind of controversy a couple months ago. It became more public when one of the signers of the complaint got some press, when an open letter was published for his benefit. All this brought matters into light that might have stayed within a Presbytery, or a Seminary, at least until such a decision was made to prosecute (which did not, in the end, take place).

We are not a part of any of the processes that put one man under a cloud, and another man under a challenge to his livelihood. All we are are spectators (if we choose) and (ignorant) commentators. Fred Greco had some wise words in an earlier thread about being cautious about airing such opinions.

We are in danger of promoting fresh slanders, based in untoward curiosity and improper prying.

Reactions: Like 11 | Edifying 2 | Amen 4


----------



## jwright82 (May 8, 2019)

I for one loved the book and think he's innocent.


----------



## alexandermsmith (May 8, 2019)

This is bizarre:

_"The fact that the suspension is on the grounds that Jeff signed charges against Dr. Oliphint and is to be for the duration of the trial process, is also a cause of grave concern. This is very hard to reconcile with Dr. Lillback’s statement that the Seminary would leave the matter to the courts of the church."_
_
https://www.theaquilareport.com/twe...minster-board-to-lift-waddingtons-suspension/_

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## NaphtaliPress (May 8, 2019)

TylerRay said:


> Based on something I read on Facebook (I know, I know), the charges were dismissed because the book was written more than 2 years ago. According to OPC order, a charge cannot be brought against someone for an offense committed more than 2 years prior to the charge being filed.


I didn't see anything about 2 years at that section in the BOCO; so maybe this is just facebook speculation as you say, but that makes me ask, so if someone wrote a paper clearly calling into question some significant doctrine, he is not subject to charges if it is discovered 2.01 years later?


----------



## Edward (May 8, 2019)

Contra_Mundum said:


> But no mention that he once had a charge leveled against him should be stated, without in the next breath stating that the charge was dropped.



Let's be fair and accurate. It appears that the charge was not dropped, the case was dismissed after the evidence was deemed inadmissible. Or if the link at the top of the thread is inaccurate, let's have links to something better. 



Contra_Mundum said:


> The Presbytery judicatory determined, presumably on good counsel, that this was not a case properly before it. So, regardless of anything that anyone thinks of one side or the other, I think its time to end the discussion of whether the subject of the complaint is under a cloud.



An adjudication on the merits would have done a better job of dissipating any cloud.

Reactions: Like 4 | Amen 1


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (May 8, 2019)

TylerRay said:


> Based on something I read on Facebook (I know, I know), the charges were dismissed because the book was written more than 2 years ago. According to OPC order, a charge cannot be brought against someone for an offense committed more than 2 years prior to the charge being filed.



Assuming that what you read on Facebook was correct, that seems like a rather strange basis to drop such a complaint. The fact that a book was written two years ago does not mean that the perceived offence only took place two years ago because the author continues to teach the doctrine complained about through his writings _unless_ he has publicly retracted the views that were troublesome.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (May 8, 2019)

Contra_Mundum said:


> The Presbytery judicatory determined, presumably on good counsel, that this was not a case properly before it. So, regardless of anything that anyone thinks of one side or the other, I think its time to end the discussion of whether the subject of the complaint is under a cloud. The cloud of suspicion needs to dissipate, now; and the PB doesn't need to be a place where the vapors are lingering.



The cloud of (ostensibly well-grounded) suspicion cannot dissipate because it has not been proved that KSO's doctrine is in accordance with scripture or the Westminster Standards.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## TylerRay (May 8, 2019)

Here's the relevant portion of the Facebook post from Rev. Jim Stevenson (this was part of a conversation in the Genevan Commons group on Facebook):


> With respect to charge 1 and the preliminary investigation of BD III.7.b:
> 
> (1) the form of the charge was approved;
> (2)the form and relevancy of the specifications were approved;
> ...

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## alexandermsmith (May 8, 2019)

Reformed Covenanter said:


> Assuming that what you read on Facebook was correct, that seems like a rather strange basis to drop such a complaint. The fact that a book was written two years ago does not mean that the perceived offence only took place two years ago because the author continues to teach the doctrine complained about through his writings _unless_ he has publicly retracted the views that were troublesome.



I suppose we won't know all that happened behind the scenes but when first hearing about the charges it did strike me as strange that it had taken so long for these charges to be made. The book came out, what, seven years ago was it? That's not to say that the charges were inappropriate. Just another wrinkle in the whole affair.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (May 8, 2019)

alexandermsmith said:


> I suppose we won't know all that happened behind the scenes but when first hearing about the charges it did strike me as strange that it had taken so long for these charges to be made. The book came out, what, seven years ago was it? That's not to say that the charges were inappropriate. Just another wrinkle in the whole affair.



Really? Is it that long? I still stand by my initial comment that unless he has expressly retracted what he taught either in publications or lectures he should be construed as still teaching it. Thus, rendering the procedural point about the two-year statute of limitations null and void. Also, I do not believe it is in Dr Oliphint's best interest for him not to have a trial wherein he can either defend himself or renounce his views.

Sadly, this whole situation is going to further contribute to the impression that the Reformed churches do not really care about catholic doctrines such as theology proper, Trinitarianism, Christology, and so on. As a result, you can expect to see more people depart from our communions to either Eastern Orthodoxy or Rome.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## alexandermsmith (May 8, 2019)

Reformed Covenanter said:


> Really? Is it that long? I still stand by my initial comment that unless he has expressly retracted what he taught either in publications or lectures he should be construed as still teaching it. Thus, rendering the procedural point about the two-year statute of limitations null and void. Also, I do not believe it is in Dr Oliphint's best interest for him not to have a trial wherein he can either defend himself or renounce his views.
> 
> Sadly, this whole situation is going to further contribute to the impression that the Reformed churches do not really care about catholic doctrines theology proper, Trinitarianism, Christology, and so on. As a result, you can expect to see more people depart from our communions to either Eastern Orthodoxy or Rome.



Agreed. It's just curious to me why it took so long. Unless the Aquinas book was a trigger. But I don't know. But I do think a two year statute of limitations on false teaching is rather strange.


----------



## ZackF (May 8, 2019)

It would be much more fruitful, as Bruce suggested, to see a discussion thread of Oliphint’s positions if they are in fact wanting. I am partial to his apologetics but certainly don’t believe he’s beyond scrutiny. Other than Jacob’s book reviews are there any threads? I can’t find any others except the one in March of course.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## NaphtaliPress (May 8, 2019)

The case is over. It is subject to historical scrutiny as anything is, but it's too close to the event right now and we lack cohesive information to really understand the justification, at least it does not make any sense to me. I know this is getting a lot of Facebook attention, but let's give this time and pursue the content in question as has been suggested, not persons or courts, or the circumstances of the case and its handling. Competent commentators hopefully will take up the last as more info comes out.

Reactions: Amen 1


----------



## Alan D. Strange (May 8, 2019)

Pronouncements of woe and doom are premature, I believe. The PSW took the action that it did in the particulars of this case because of perceived problems with the charges in their totality, some of which have been suggested herein, though rather de-contextualized. 

I retain full confidence in the PSW in continuing its oversight of Scott's teaching, as well as in Scott in candidly speaking to the Presbytery about his views. The book in question (why it was found not to be proper evidence had to do with a number of things, including its having been withdrawn by WTS with the author's agreement) will be available, in its revised form, for review by the Presbytery before the end of summer. 

Scott's work remains under scrutiny, as does mine, and as does yours, if your judicatory is doing its job. Much more could be said here, but there is no reason to think that the PSW has failed in its procedures with respect to KSO. That's my quickly summarized view.

Peace,
Alan

Reactions: Like 5 | Informative 1


----------



## Contra_Mundum (May 8, 2019)

Edward said:


> Let's be fair and accurate. It appears that the charge was not dropped, the case was dismissed after the evidence was deemed inadmissible. Or if the link at the top of the thread is inaccurate, let's have links to something better.
> 
> 
> 
> An adjudication on the merits would have done a better job of dissipating any cloud.


We don't always get to decide what is handed to us.

Lk. 6:31, "And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise"

WLC Q. 144. What are the duties required in the ninth commandment?
A. The duties required in the ninth commandment are, the preserving and promoting of truth between man and man, and the good name of our neighbour,...

That would include the good name of the individuals concerned and the Presbytery. There's the presumption of innocence that we must work at, especially as outsiders being fed scraps of information; and not slide or drift into the cast of mind that regards people as "guilty, why else would they be charged?"

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Romans922 (May 8, 2019)

It seems to me this thread has served it's purpose. The case is over being dismissed.

Perhaps the moderators should close it. If someone wants to talk about Oliphint's views they may in a new thread. This has been stated many times in this thread.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## NaphtaliPress (May 8, 2019)

Agreed. Folks coming late, see Bruce's and Alan's posts above.


Romans922 said:


> It seems to me this thread has served it's purpose. The case is over being dismissed.
> 
> Perhaps the moderators should close it. If someone wants to talk about Oliphint's views they may in a new thread. This has been stated many times in this thread.

Reactions: Like 1


----------

