# Louisiana Presbytery Report on FV



## raderag (Aug 24, 2005)

http://www.louisianapresbytery.com/AAT-FV_final.htm


----------



## Roldan (Aug 24, 2005)

WOW!!! I think now the Louisiana Presbytery should be brought up on charges on being tolerant to blasphemous heresy.

Absurd to the third degree! OPC here I come 





[Edited on 8-24-2005 by Roldan]

[Edited on 8-24-2005 by Roldan]


----------



## CalsFarmer (Aug 24, 2005)

Old news. Still absurd.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Aug 24, 2005)




----------



## Robin (Aug 24, 2005)

I suppose it's a good thing and inevitable...but I heard last week (via a prominent Presbyterian theologian) that the PCA/OPC will condemn the FV next synod.



Robin


----------



## fredtgreco (Aug 24, 2005)

Moving to New Perspective forum


----------



## raderag (Aug 24, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Robin_
> I suppose it's a good thing and inevitable...but I heard last week (via a prominent Presbyterian theologian) that the PCA/OPC will condemn the FV next synod.
> 
> 
> ...



Interesting...


----------



## fredtgreco (Aug 24, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Robin_
> I suppose it's a good thing and inevitable...but I heard last week (via a prominent Presbyterian theologian) that the PCA/OPC will condemn the FV next synod.
> 
> 
> ...



Don't count on it. There is no way the OPC does ANYTHING until the Committee on Justification report comes out, and I believe that won't happen until at least 2007 (maybe later).


----------



## AdamM (Aug 24, 2005)

Here is a link to a response to the report by the PCA members of the A.A. Colloquium:

http://www.ecalvinbeisner.com/farticles/LA_Pres_Response.pdf

I think if people read the Louisiana report and the response, they will see the core concerns people have with the FV.


----------



## Augusta (Aug 24, 2005)

My OPC Pastor attacked FV from the pulpit last Sunday. He never called it by name but I knew and I am sure others knew what he was talking about. The text was John 3 with Nicodemus. How he was faithful within the covenant but that was not good enough, he had to be born from above. You get the picture.


----------



## Poimen (Aug 24, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Augusta_
> My OPC Pastor attacked FV from the pulpit last Sunday. He never called it by name but I knew and I am sure others knew what he was talking about. The text was John 3 with Nicodemus. How he was faithful within the covenant but that was not good enough, he had to be born from above. You get the picture.



I'm glad to hear that someone else in my neck of the woods is addressing it. Your church also had a great little conference awhile back with Venema and others who clearly addressed the issues. So tell your session: keep up the good work!


----------



## Augusta (Aug 24, 2005)

:bigsmile:


----------



## Herald (Aug 27, 2005)

> _Originally posted by raderag_
> http://www.louisianapresbytery.com/AAT-FV_final.htm



I want to make sure I interpreted correctly what I read. Is the Louisiana Presbytery actually saying that baptism regenerates? Am I missing something here?


----------



## Bladestunner316 (Aug 27, 2005)

I could adress it but I dont think the local charimatic church would have a clue as to what the FV was


----------



## SRoper (Aug 28, 2005)

I understood them to mean that baptism can sometimes regenerate.


----------



## Poimen (Sep 8, 2005)

I am mistaken or is it true that Rich Lusk has been disciplined/deposed? I thought I read this awhile ago.


----------



## wsw201 (Sep 8, 2005)

> _Originally posted by poimen_
> I am mistaken or is it true that Rich Lusk has been disciplined/deposed? I thought I read this awhile ago.



I believe he is now in the CRE. I don't think he was disciplined.


----------



## Poimen (Sep 8, 2005)

> _Originally posted by wsw201_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by poimen_
> ...



So did he leave because he would face discipline or was it a matter of expediency?


----------



## wsw201 (Sep 8, 2005)

> _Originally posted by poimen_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by wsw201_
> ...



From what I have heard, he was in the process of accepting a call and that during the process with Presbytery, he and the Presbyterian. committee came to the determination that his views were not going to work in that Presbytery, so he and the church that made the call left the PCA and joined the CRE. Now I have heard several different versions, but this seems to be the basics of what happened.


----------



## Poimen (Sep 8, 2005)

> _Originally posted by wsw201_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by poimen_
> ...



How would that work out (consistently)? Unless I am mistaken, he was assistant pastor of the AAPC which has, along with the Louisana Presbytery, exonerated Wilkins. If Wilkins was freed from accusation by them, why didn't they do the same with Lusk? (I say this because I believe that both of their positions are radical and open to serious censure).


----------



## AdamM (Sep 8, 2005)

> How would that work out (consistently)? Unless I am mistaken, he was assistant pastor of the AAPC which has, along with the Louisiana Presbytery, exonerated Wilkins. If Wilkins was freed from accusation by them, why didn't they do the same with Lusk? (I say this because I believe that both of their positions are radical and open to serious censure).



Perhaps Fred can correct this, but it is my understanding that a presbytery in the PCA is under no obligation to accept the transfer of a teaching elder from another presbytery. I think one of consequences (perhaps unintended) of the recent subscription changes to the BCO is that each presbytery has been given more latitude to determine what constitutes the boundaries of the system of Reformed doctrine that teaching elders must stay within. So you have a situation like Lusk's where he ministers with no problem in Louisiana and then tries to transfer to Evangel and they won't allow it. It is a real recipe for a Balkanized denomination.


----------



## fredtgreco (Sep 8, 2005)

> _Originally posted by AdamM_
> 
> 
> > How would that work out (consistently)? Unless I am mistaken, he was assistant pastor of the AAPC which has, along with the Louisiana Presbytery, exonerated Wilkins. If Wilkins was freed from accusation by them, why didn't they do the same with Lusk? (I say this because I believe that both of their positions are radical and open to serious censure).
> ...



No need for correction, Adam. You have it exactly right. A Presbytery has complete liberty to "determine the makeup of its membership." In theory, a man could be rejected for wearing a blue shirt to Presbytery.

As I am aware of the matter at hand, Lusk was denied transfer by Evangel and rather than not call him, the church headed for the CRE. What we have here is the beginnings of what occured in the mainline church in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, Presbyteries that are "safe" for aberrant theology. The fact is that everyone knows that there certain Presbyteries where you can hold aberrant views and get away with it.


----------



## Scott (Sep 8, 2005)

Sorry for the lack of understanding but what is "CRE?"


----------



## wsw201 (Sep 8, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Scott_
> Sorry for the lack of understanding but what is "CRE?"



Its that demonination that Doug Wilson helped start. The Confederation of Reformed Evangelicals.

[Edited on 9/8/2005 by wsw201]


----------



## AdamM (Sep 8, 2005)

> No need for correction, Adam. You have it exactly right. A Presbytery has complete liberty to "determine the makeup of its membership." In theory, a man could be rejected for wearing a blue shirt to Presbytery.
> 
> As I am aware of the matter at hand, Lusk was denied transfer by Evangel and rather than not call him, the church headed for the CRE. What we have here is the beginnings of what occured in the mainline church in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, Presbyteries that are "safe" for aberrant theology. The fact is that everyone knows that there certain Presbyteries where you can hold aberrant views and get away with it.



Thanks Fred.

Long term the system is unworkable.


----------



## rgrove (Sep 8, 2005)

I know I'm Baptist, but I'm curious. Do these presbyteries know they're known for being like that? Are they proud of it in some way? Could more restrictions come from the PCA level to try and get them back in line? Or would the better presbyteries reject that move as well because of a desire for a degree of autonomy? 

Just curious because I like the PCA (and OPC for that matter). I'd hate to see any declines like has already happened in the past and would hope to see that there are mechanisms in place to prevent it.


----------



## Poimen (Sep 8, 2005)

> _Originally posted by AdamM_
> 
> 
> > How would that work out (consistently)? Unless I am mistaken, he was assistant pastor of the AAPC which has, along with the Louisiana Presbytery, exonerated Wilkins. If Wilkins was freed from accusation by them, why didn't they do the same with Lusk? (I say this because I believe that both of their positions are radical and open to serious censure).
> ...



So the situation was, if I understand you correctly, that Lusk received a call from another congregation in another Presbytery (which would not accept him) so the congregation simply left for the CRE?

[Edited on 9-8-2005 by poimen]


----------



## Poimen (Sep 8, 2005)

> _Originally posted by rgrove_
> I know I'm Baptist, but I'm curious.



Are you sure?

And are you implicitly affirming the lack of curiosity amongst Baptists?


----------



## fredtgreco (Sep 8, 2005)

> _Originally posted by poimen_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by AdamM_
> ...



Yes. Given the choice beween commitment to the denomination (Church) and a heterdox minister, the congregation chose the latter.


----------



## rgrove (Sep 8, 2005)

> _Originally posted by poimen_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by rgrove_
> ...


Hehehe... I'm just particularly adept at making poorly worded statements that people can easily turn on me is all. :bigsmile:


----------



## Poimen (Sep 9, 2005)

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by poimen_
> ...



Well it would seem that this church already had some problems if it decided to call him so maybe it was for the best that they left (at least profitable for the PCA to have one less FV-leaning church/pastor).


----------

