OPC Justification Report Out

Discussion in 'Federal Vision/New Perspectives' started by NaphtaliPress, Apr 18, 2006.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. NaphtaliPress

    NaphtaliPress Administrator Staff Member

    Someone posted the missing Greek font everyone needs at the OPC discussion group files section. see the link below.
    Hope it helps.
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/presbyterians-opc/files/
    Page down to GreekNTb.TTF You may need to join to be able to get to this though. If so I'll post it here or maybe someone's else can if I don't soon enough.
     
  2. NaphtaliPress

    NaphtaliPress Administrator Staff Member

  3. Bladestunner316

    Bladestunner316 Puritan Board Doctor

    Im glad its available.

    To those who have read it what do you think?
     
  4. fredtgreco

    fredtgreco Vanilla Westminsterian Staff Member

    For those without access to the OPC list (and ease), here is the file:
     
  5. Contra_Mundum

    Contra_Mundum Pilgrim, Alien, Stranger Staff Member

    Thank you Fred!

    And now, as the official "restrictor" of this thread, I would now like to proclaim this thread OFFICIALLY non-restricted.


    You can bet your last dollar that the spin-meisters from all sides will be coming out of the woodwork. The OPC haters will say the report or its reception actually proves the denomination really is going to hell after all (just as they knew all along). The FV lovers will say they've once again been misunderstood (and so will publish additional reams of print and internet traffic that add obfuscation to the unintelligible).

    Meanwhile, the report will be added to the growing body of literature critiquing the FV, and basically pointing out its anti-confessional, contra-sound-doctrine positions, vis a vis the historic reformed faith. Those who want to meld these positions are going to have to create their own denomination (or join the CRE).

    For at least another year, the OPC proves it's still the little engine that could.

    Oh well, haters, maybe next year they'll derail. Its bound to happen, right?

    I'm going to keep praying her up though. Faithfulness is never a matter of yesterday's triumphs. Pride is what will bring her low, if/when.



    Dear God! I love that lady! See, she's my mother...
     
  6. Puddleglum

    Puddleglum Puritan Board Sophomore

    Fred,

    When I tried to open that file, I got a bunch of Greek letters, but that was it . . . ??
     
  7. NaphtaliPress

    NaphtaliPress Administrator Staff Member

    Jessica,
    That is the Greek font to "use" with the report. Load the font as you would any in Windows (simply drag and drop it in the fonts folder). The report should be available at the bbwarfield link above. I couldn't find the old link to the opc.org site.
     
  8. PuritanCovenanter

    PuritanCovenanter Moderator Staff Member

    Can we discuss this now?
     
  9. NaphtaliPress

    NaphtaliPress Administrator Staff Member

    Yes Randy. See Bruce's all clear above.
     
  10. JohnV

    JohnV Puritan Board Post-Graduate

    Coming out of retirement just for this one post:

    Without having read the report, but looking at it from the outside, I see both a positive and a negative in this action by the OPC. I still need to read the report, the official one. So I'll wait until it is published before I comment on it directly, if I do at all.

    But I think that it is important to us that the denomination has at least discussed it. We have to be careful that it doesn't turn into a sort of class-action suit against a certain party, whether they are actually named specifically or indirectly pointed to. If this is a heresy, then we have to actually have trials of persons for the doctrines they are propounding, not just for the views they are holding personally. Because this was an "issue" report, so to speak, I think the OPC did all it could really do. Because the views under question may change somewhat in definition according to the individual, it is most difficult to define a doctrine that is actually out there, as opposed to a generalization or a composite of the doctrine. What may be defined in the report may actually be, by definition, what none of the proponents actually hold to individually. So I think it was wise not to turn this into a theological class-action type of thing, and just deal with actual charges if they come up in light of the clarifications intended by the GA by this report.

    On the other hand, there are assertions of Biblical interpretation that are being propagated. And the Church is the stage being used for it. That is serious, I think. So I see this as a matter of the use of the ordained office to do something that is actually outside the office calling. And if this is suggested at all by the GA, then they had an obligation to that as well, not just to the report. Well, that's how I understand the Book of Order, anyways. I don't think that they are necessarily confined from making a proactive decision, if they have sufficient evidence for it. As I understand the BOCO, if they know something with sufficient evidence, then they are responsible for it, and cannot cite objections of propriety or procedure in order to escape that responsibility. And the way this has come about, it forced the GA to walk a very thin line that way. The wording of the report itself may have obviated some sorts of actions, but it may also have made it very difficult to walk that line for them, from a BOCO and responsibility perspective. And it seems to me that is why the provisos are included in the charge to publish it to the Presbyteries.

    In sum, the GA can't take action against individuals or even movements unless the charges are specific, as opposed to composites or generalized versions of the doctrine involved. This was a report of two separate things: the issue itself; and what is happening in the churches by it. They did the best they could with it under the circumstances, it seems.

    But that is just looking at it from the outside, in a way, from a perspective of looking at the thing generally: and not knowing the specifics of the report or the Committee's recommendations, but having read much of the material that was presented here on the PB about it. (This, then, assumes that the PB is a reliable source.)

    Anyways, for what its worth, that's my take on it so far.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page