Quote:
Originally Posted by Gryphonette  This is obviously coming straight from the peanut gallery...which is overstating the case, actually, seeing as how I'm not even in the building, not being a member of the PCA....but do you PCA'ers think perhaps it might be a good idea to have a workshop or a video class or something on The Correct Manner Of Conducting An Examination?
I don't recall whether it was here or at Greenbaggins, but someone mentioned that the way the LAP conducted its examination of Pr. Wilkins was pretty much the way the commenter's presbytery conducts them, too. IOW, apparently the Official PCA Manner Of Conducting An Examination Per the BCO doesn't appear to be as uniformly used as one would wish.
I wonder if that might not be a valuable topic at this year's GA? Does it allow for workshops and so on? |
Someone will have to clarify this issue for me. I don't believe the issue is the nature of the examination itself but the conclusions that were drawn. It is apparently obvious, to the casual observer, that Wilkins' answers are un-Confessional. The transcript makes that very clear. It seems to me, at least, that the most egregious issue is that when they checked all his work they said that all his answers were substantially confessional.
Quote:
Originally Posted by greenbaggins I just got off the phone with Sam. The results are posted here. |
Thanks for this Lane.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Lane's Blog I don’t currently have access to the second case. Sam was referring to the fact that the SJC has made up its mind against the Louisiana Presbytery. What is important to note here is that Sam does not mean that the (unofficial) conclusion the SJC has come to regarding the Louisiana Presbytery is incorrect. Sam agrees with the SJC that the LAP was wrong. Otherwise, he would not have accepted the position as prosecutor! I fear that some are taking Sam’s statements as implying that the SJC is wrong. The issue can be clarified by reference to a normal court case. In a normal case, the facts of the case are not divulged to the judge and jury prior to the case. In fact, people with a knowledge of the case are usually not allowed to serve on the jury, for fear of being biased. In the LAP case, just about everyone in the PCA knows about it at least somewhat. It would be well-nigh impossible for the SJC to find anyone who hadn’t heard a thing about it, and hadn’t formed any opinions about who is right. This is what Sam means. Sam is a lawyer. In comparison to a normal civil case, the LAP could not expect to receive a fair “clean-slate” trial. The evidence has been before us and before the SJC for many months. This is what Sam means. He told me. |
Nor would we want to necessarily find people who are somehow completely ignorant of the case. I fear that, ever since the O.J. trial, America has this idea that true Justice demands that you obfuscate facts and only those things that were not tainted by the "fruit of the poisonous tree" are admissable in trials. I served for about 3 years in Command billets where I was, essentially, in a magisterial position and, let me tell you, the Church would be destroyed if we had to follow the rules of evidence that we're so used to seeing on
Law and Order and
CSI. That's not to say that we have to be careless but it's also important to note that modern jurisprudence is not the standard.
How does one avoid reading the Wilkins' examination, know the Laws of non-contradiction, know the Confession, and come away with anything other than being convinced that he is outside the bounds of the Confession? Oh, I know, such men go by the name of "The Federal Vision"! Everyone else can see it for what it is.
So let the FV advocates lather over this. They're accustomed to a handful of men drawing their firm conclusions about the nature of justification and election. Their leaders, after all, have pulled them out of Reformed orthodoxy in the span of a few years and we have the proverbial Pot complaining to the Kettle that those remaining in orthodoxy are convinced they're just plain wrong. Perhaps the FV advocates ought to ask: Where was the long, well thought out, systematic discussion in a Church council that decided to break off a new denomination and call itself the CREC?