Thread: AAPC votes to leave the PCA?

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

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.

Originally Posted by 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, 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?

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

Originally Posted by Zenas

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.

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

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

Originally Posted by turmeric

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.

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)

Originally Posted by Pilgrim

Originally Posted by Zenas

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.

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...

Originally Posted by SolaScriptura

Originally Posted by Pilgrim

Originally Posted by Zenas

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.

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...

True, but it repeats verbatim what was posted.

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.

Doug Wilson weighs in.

Well, DW certainly seems sure of it.

Confirmed at GB.

Originally Posted by Josiah

Originally Posted by 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, 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?

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

Originally Posted by Pilgrim

Originally Posted by Josiah

Originally Posted by 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, 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?

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..

Originally Posted by Josiah

Originally Posted by Pilgrim

Originally Posted by Josiah

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.

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

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

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

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.

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.

Originally Posted by travis

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.

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?

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.

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.

Originally Posted by 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.

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

Originally Posted by 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.

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?

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.

Originally Posted by 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.

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 IMO.

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.

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.

Originally Posted by 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.

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

Originally Posted by 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.

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

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 presbys 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.

Sounds like someone is in the wrong denom!

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

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.

Originally Posted by 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 presbys 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!

Originally Posted by Pilgrim

Originally Posted by Josiah

Originally Posted by Pilgrim

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..

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

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

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.

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.

Originally Posted by greenbaggins

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.