I saw this on the Warfield list so thought I'd post it here as a FYI. Some unrelated details snipped.
Fri Oct 27, 2006 10:59 pm
--- In [email protected], "Andrew J. Webb" wrote:
Well since the responses I have received indicated that letting
people know what happened at the SJC meeting I was requested to
attend was ok, here then is my report. I would request that Bill Lyle
or any other members of the list who know about the meeting, correct
me at any points where I am in error.
On Thursday, October 19th, I flew down to Atlanta to represent
Central Carolina Presbytery before the full SJC which was considering
the memorial the Presbytery sent asking that the SJC look into
Louisiana Presbytery's decision to exonerate TE Steve Wilkins of
Auburn Avenue PCA. Our memorial, which I will include in the next
post, pointed out that TE Wilkins is publicly teaching, preaching,
and publishing doctrine that contradicts the teaching of the
Westminster Standards regarding election, the visible/invisible
church, the perseverance of the saints, assurance, and baptism and
that the decision to exonerate went against LA Presbytery's own
published statements.
The SJC determined that our memorial was in order, and that LA
Presbytery had erred both in the methodology of their investigation
and in their decision to exonerate TE Wilkins. The SJC then voted to
redress the situation, instructing LA Presbytery to reinvestigate
using the new guidelines they were given by February or if they felt
they could not to surrender original jurisdiction to the SJC via a
reference. It's worth noting that even the representative sent by LA
presbytery to defend their decision to exonerate TE Wilkins stated
that since the decision to exonerate, he had read some public
statements by TE Wilkins that contradicted the answers he had given
to the investigating committee, and that he was no longer entirely
comfortable with the decision LA Presbytery had come to. LA
Presbytery's representative before the Presbytery handled himself
with the utmost candor and integrity and did an excellent job in a
tough situation.
I was not called upon to answer any questions before the SJC.
Now as far as my personal opinion is concerned, I believe that this
bodes well for the PCA. While we may have individual Professors, TEs,
REs, and Members who have embraced and are teaching the Federal
Vision in the same way that Remonstrants from within the Dutch
Reformed Church embraced and taught Arminianism, I do not believe
that institutionally there is any sympathy for the movement within
the PCA. While the PCA may move at a somewhat glacial pace and will
probably never produce anything nearly as definitive as the Synod of
Dort, I have renewed hope that the movement's outspoken proponents
will eventually be forced with a decision to recant or join with a
denomination that either openly endorses the Federal Vision ....
Your Servant in Christ,
Andy [Webb]
