Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Based on something I read on Facebook (I know, I know), the charges were dismissed because the book was written more than 2 years ago. According to OPC order, a charge cannot be brought against someone for an offense committed more than 2 years prior to the charge being filed.What does this mean?
- May 3, 2019 — The OPC Presbytery of the Southwest addressed charges filed against Dr. K. Scott Oliphint and ruled the evidence inadmissible citing OPC Book of Discipline III.7.b(4), which refers to “the apparent authenticity, admissibility, and relevancy of any documents, records, and recordings adduced in support of the charge and specifications.” Consequently, the presbytery did not proceed to trial.
But what about continued teaching of what some have thought questionable?Based on something I read on Facebook (I know, I know), the charges were dismissed because the book was written more than 2 years ago. According to OPC order, a charge cannot be brought against someone for an offense committed more than 2 years prior to the charge being filed.
Based on something I read on Facebook (I know, I know), the charges were dismissed because the book was written more than 2 years ago. According to OPC order, a charge cannot be brought against someone for an offense committed more than 2 years prior to the charge being filed.
That’s what I didn’t understand the charges to begin with. If he conceded royalties, I figured he agreed to rewrite the book. I hope the whole thing is over.If true, that is rather strange unless he for some reason also retracted or at least ceased teaching the relevant material. I'm certainly one for proper procedure, but given the public nature of the case it seems like it still needs to be dealt with to either vindicate Dr. Oliphant's teachings or sustain the charge against them. I can't imagine the controversy going away quietly if it is perceived that he got off on a technicality.
Perhaps there was indeed a retraction. As I recall, WTS purchased the remaining inventory of Dr. Oliphant's book and destroyed them pending a rewrite so if the book and its teachings in the objectionable form no longer have circulation, that may have prompted the presbytery's decision.
I can't imagine the controversy going away quietly...
I didn't see anything about 2 years at that section in the BOCO; so maybe this is just facebook speculation as you say, but that makes me ask, so if someone wrote a paper clearly calling into question some significant doctrine, he is not subject to charges if it is discovered 2.01 years later?Based on something I read on Facebook (I know, I know), the charges were dismissed because the book was written more than 2 years ago. According to OPC order, a charge cannot be brought against someone for an offense committed more than 2 years prior to the charge being filed.
But no mention that he once had a charge leveled against him should be stated, without in the next breath stating that the charge was dropped.
The Presbytery judicatory determined, presumably on good counsel, that this was not a case properly before it. So, regardless of anything that anyone thinks of one side or the other, I think its time to end the discussion of whether the subject of the complaint is under a cloud.
Based on something I read on Facebook (I know, I know), the charges were dismissed because the book was written more than 2 years ago. According to OPC order, a charge cannot be brought against someone for an offense committed more than 2 years prior to the charge being filed.
The Presbytery judicatory determined, presumably on good counsel, that this was not a case properly before it. So, regardless of anything that anyone thinks of one side or the other, I think its time to end the discussion of whether the subject of the complaint is under a cloud. The cloud of suspicion needs to dissipate, now; and the PB doesn't need to be a place where the vapors are lingering.
With respect to charge 1 and the preliminary investigation of BD III.7.b:
(1) the form of the charge was approved;
(2)the form and relevancy of the specifications were approved;
(3) the competency of the witnesses were approved;
(4) the apparent authenticity, admissibility, and relevancy of any documents, records, and recordings adduced in support of the charge and specifications were NOT approved.... and as such all four charges were done since those pieces of evidence were common to all four charges and were the foundational evidence of all four charges.... there was nothing left after this.
The most vocal reason given was that all the evidence cited was more than two years old. "No charge shall be admitted by the judicatory if it is filed more than two years after the commission of the alleged offense, unless it appears that unavoidable impediments have prevented an earlier filing of the charge. A charge shall be considered filed when it has been delivered to the clerk or the moderator of the judicatory" (BD III.2). While that is true, it was not the only reason men voted no on that last motion, thus it would not be accurate to say that it was only because the two year time limit had passed. Other men had their reasons beyond BD III.2.
Assuming that what you read on Facebook was correct, that seems like a rather strange basis to drop such a complaint. The fact that a book was written two years ago does not mean that the perceived offence only took place two years ago because the author continues to teach the doctrine complained about through his writings unless he has publicly retracted the views that were troublesome.
I suppose we won't know all that happened behind the scenes but when first hearing about the charges it did strike me as strange that it had taken so long for these charges to be made. The book came out, what, seven years ago was it? That's not to say that the charges were inappropriate. Just another wrinkle in the whole affair.
Really? Is it that long? I still stand by my initial comment that unless he has expressly retracted what he taught either in publications or lectures he should be construed as still teaching it. Thus, rendering the procedural point about the two-year statute of limitations null and void. Also, I do not believe it is in Dr Oliphint's best interest for him not to have a trial wherein he can either defend himself or renounce his views.
Sadly, this whole situation is going to further contribute to the impression that the Reformed churches do not really care about catholic doctrines theology proper, Trinitarianism, Christology, and so on. As a result, you can expect to see more people depart from our communions to either Eastern Orthodoxy or Rome.
We don't always get to decide what is handed to us.Let's be fair and accurate. It appears that the charge was not dropped, the case was dismissed after the evidence was deemed inadmissible. Or if the link at the top of the thread is inaccurate, let's have links to something better.
An adjudication on the merits would have done a better job of dissipating any cloud.
It seems to me this thread has served it's purpose. The case is over being dismissed.
Perhaps the moderators should close it. If someone wants to talk about Oliphint's views they may in a new thread. This has been stated many times in this thread.