Thread: AAPC votes to leave the PCA?

Originally Posted by SemperFideles

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 "satisfying" 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!

It's astonishing, considering how many fallen, sinful people have left their fingerprints on the PCA's FV situation, how well it's worked on the whole.

Why on earth do people react with indignation as if perfectly carried out investigations, discipline, etc. are - or should be - the norm?

What's worthy of note is not how missteps were made in the process, or that some Monday-morning quarterbacking will doubtless disclose some areas needing to be punched up, but that for the most part the process proceeded in an appropriate manner.

What both amuses and annoys me has been the accusation of "witch hunt" that's frequently been made regarding the PCA's attempt to rein in the errors of the FV. Only in America could people say that with a straight face, clearly having never had any experience of the honest-to-goodness "witch hunts" that are taking place in other areas of the world.

Pr. Wilkins has been permitted to switch smoothly from the PCA to the CREC, and the AAPC with him, retaining their property and avoiding any further possibility of trial? THIS is an example of a "witch hunt"?

Oy vey.

We are spoiled rotten here in America, that's the top and bottom of it. If someone has the nerve to doggedly refute and rebuke what they view as significant error, it's for sure those being rebuked will be outraged and insulted, and claim "victim" status to boot.

What both amuses and annoys me has been the accusation of "witch hunt" that's frequently been made regarding the PCA's attempt to rein in the errors of the FV. Only in America could people say that with a straight face, clearly having never had any experience of the honest-to-goodness "witch hunts" that are taking place in other areas of the world.

Pr. Wilkins has been permitted to switch smoothly from the PCA to the CREC, and the AAPC with him, retaining their property and avoiding any further possibility of trial? THIS is an example of a "witch hunt"?

Oy vey.

Exactly! I know you presbys want to do EVERYthing "decently and in order." But, yikes! As fallen people go, this was pretty amazingly clean.

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.

It seems to me that the goals of church discipline are either repentance or excommunication, and even with the latter, you still hope they eventually repent.

Given that the goal of the SJC was clarification or enforcement of its view that Pastor Wilkins was out of accord with Reformed standards, what do you brethren feel their disposition of the LaP will be now that Wilkins has effectively excommunicated himself from the LaP?

Originally Posted by SemperFideles

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!

If my recollection serves me correctly the Particular Baptists had an association. In their midsts arose men who picked up unsound doctrine and they were confronted by Elders of multiple congregations and then disassociated from their midst if they didn't repent. I read about this recently from a book I picked up from Dr. Kear.

If you were in the ARBCA I think you would be in a situation where you would be challenged and disassociated if you were found doctrinally unfit. But the first place to start with would be from your local congregation. Your Elders would be the first line of defense against heresy and the congregation would be responsible also. It is dealt with a little more quickly in my opinion.

It really helps being a confessional church.

Originally Posted by HaigLaw

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.

It seems to me that the goals of church discipline are either repentance or excommunication, and even with the latter, you still hope they eventually repent.

Given that the goal of the SJC was clarification or enforcement of its view that Pastor Wilkins was out of accord with Reformed standards, what do you brethren feel their disposition of the LaP will be now that Wilkins has effectively excommunicated himself from the LaP?

Not sure but I would guess that they would look to ajudicate the issues that the LAP pled not guilty on, which if I remember right is the one regarding the process they went through in the examination of Steve Wilkins.

IMHO one of the good things that has come out of all this mess is the clarification of how an examination is suppose to be handled. I know for a fact that in the PCA Presbytery that I use to be apart of, the way the LAP examined Wilkins was the way everyone was examined! And I would hazzard to guess that a number of Presbyteries, much less Sessions, would have (and have done!) held exams the same way LAP did theirs.

FWIW, I would hope that the SJC, GA or somebody would put together a "how to" manual on examinations, versus folks having to connect the dots in the BCO, RAO or SJC manual (or just visit Bob Mattes blog!! ).

Originally Posted by HaigLaw

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.

It seems to me that the goals of church discipline are either repentance or excommunication, and even with the latter, you still hope they eventually repent.

Given that the goal of the SJC was clarification or enforcement of its view that Pastor Wilkins was out of accord with Reformed standards, what do you brethren feel their disposition of the LaP will be now that Wilkins has effectively excommunicated himself from the LaP?

I doubt much will change. Mark Duncan will still be an FV guy, but the Jim Jones crowd will still oppose them. It is a divided presbytery. Wilkins leaving will probably not do much to alter that, except that the good guys will now have an easier time with the voting.

[quote=DMcFadden;350012]

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).

I know of a few books... Maybe a pboard here or there...

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.

I certainly respect your open mind on these things. It is a good journey to be on, wherever you net out on these issues.

They move quick don't they:

Augustine Presbytery - Confederation of Reformed Evangelical Churches

Look down at the State of LA.

Originally Posted by Romans922

They move quick don't they:

Augustine Presbytery - Confederation of Reformed Evangelical Churches

Look down at the State of LA.

No fooling! They must've started building their life raft some time ago and had it waiting.

Originally Posted by greenbaggins

I doubt much will change. Mark Duncan will still be an FV guy, but the Jim Jones crowd will still oppose them. It is a divided presbytery. Wilkins leaving will probably not do much to alter that, except that the good guys will now have an easier time with the voting.

What I meant was -- what is the SJC gonna do next with our LaP plea of not guilty to count 1 and guilty to count 2?

Originally Posted by jaybird0827

Originally Posted by Romans922

They move quick don't they:

Augustine Presbytery - Confederation of Reformed Evangelical Churches

Look down at the State of LA.

No fooling! They must've started building their life raft some time ago and had it waiting.

The AAPC site is also updated.

With how all this matter was so much in the open, what does this say about the CREC? But then with all the "Presby" micro-demonimantions around there is bound to be one that would accept some confessional departure or another.

John,

Ever hear of the Cumberland Presbyterian Denomination? Completely Arminian. There's a Presbyterian denomination for any theological position. It's rather sad.

Please pardon my ignorance on some of the issues involved, because frankly this gets more confusing by the day. This reminds me of a never-ending soap opera. Why was the SJC interested in trying Steve Wilkins when there are FV churches in LA Presbytery, MO Presbytery, and other congregations scattered across the PCA? I believe it is a shame that a man can be allowed to leave a denomination in good standing if he is being tried for suspicion of violating the standards.

He left before he was tried, I believe, preserving his status.

Originally Posted by Zenas

John,

Ever hear of the Cumberland Presbyterian Denomination? Completely Arminian. There's a Presbyterian denomination for any theological position. It's rather sad.

Yes their headquarters is here in Memphis off of Union Ave., with their seminary at Union and E. Parkway.

Yep, they're nutty. I thinky my fiance' visited one once, I think she may be physically afraid of them.

Wilkins has now published his explanation for leaving the PCA:

http://www.auburnavenue.org/document...eRationale.pdf

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. . . .

It may be true that folks look to court cases in this way, but is it right? I am under the impression that court cases are for specific situations dealing with particular individuals and do not offer "definitive positions" as such. They offer a ruling on individuals. Court cases don't set precedents. We have our primary (Bible), secondary (Westminster CF, L & SC), and tertiary (BCO) standards, but court cases and even denominational reports don't provide a fourth level. Right? At least, this is my impression of how the OPC does it -- some denominations may be different, such as those who add "Testimonies" to the Confession. (This post is not meant to say Ay or Nay to a trial, I'm just wanting to understand the force of them correctly.)

Originally Posted by StaunchPresbyterian

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. . . .

It may be true that folks look to court cases in this way, but is it right? I am under the impression that court cases are for specific situations dealing with particular individuals and do not offer "definitive positions" as such. They offer a ruling on individuals. Court cases don't set precedents. We have our primary (Bible), secondary (Westminster CF, L & SC), and tertiary (BCO) standards, but court cases and even denominational reports don't provide a fourth level. Right? At least, this is my impression of how the OPC does it -- some denominations may be different, such as those who add "Testimonies" to the Confession. (This post is not meant to say Ay or Nay to a trial, I'm just wanting to understand the force of them correctly.)

Casey,

Trials do provide a help to all of the Standards. COurt cases are not a standard in themselves - but rather guidance in how to interpret the various Standards (Bible/WCF/BCO). If there is a question for example, about what constitutes "notice" in a given provision of the BCO, or what is meant by "every effort" in a text, a case can provide guidance that "notice" is satisfied by a phone conversation or email, but not a voice mail (for example).

If my recollection serves me correctly the Particular Baptists had an association. In their midsts arose men who picked up unsound doctrine and they were confronted by Elders of multiple congregations and then disassociated from their midst if they didn't repent. I read about this recently from a book I picked up from Dr. Kear.

If you were in the ARBCA I think you would be in a situation where you would be challenged and disassociated if you were found doctrinally unfit. But the first place to start with would be from your local congregation. Your Elders would be the first line of defense against heresy and the congregation would be responsible also. It is dealt with a little more quickly in my opinion.

It really helps being a confessional church.

Brother, in your opinion do you believe these Baptist associations are worthwhile?

I mean, after all, no action or judgment is ever reached on the "erring" party. To put it plainly, what difference does it make if one group of Baptists decides not to associate with another Baptist or group?

I am just trying to understand the benefits that come from these sorts of associations. I have not considered it much but they seem to be like Presbyteries without authority and/or power. Maybe this should be a topic for a new thread.

Blessings, brother.

Here is the statement by Wilkins on the rationale for their withdrawal from the PCA.