Siouxlands Presbytery Report on the Internet and on the Nature of Presbytery Info

Status
Not open for further replies.

greenbaggins

Administrator
Staff member
I have posted our Presbytery's report over at GB. Admins and mods might take note that some of the principles enunciated there could be helpful on the PB as well.
 

lynnie

Puritan Board Graduate
Lane, I don't mean to sound cynical, but cutting through all the long words and quotes......

Is this saying that in the future, if a PCA elder says something that is exactly word for word in context what the FV says, and they sign a statement put out by the FV affirming error, that it is now a violation of the 9th command to write online that they are FV, because even though they speak with exact FV words and sign onto FV statements, they might not really be FV?

So, uh, from now on you can sound like a heretic and sign papers by heretics, but it is never OK online for others to post about how somebody said something heretical or signed something heretical, because deep down in their heart what they really meant was orthodox?

I was always under the impresssion that public teaching was open for debate in public, and Matt 18 is not required for such.

Am I overreacting as to what precipitated this report?

Something seems real wrong here, and I am not exactly sure what, but it sounds like a win for the FV. Not to say that a lot of the general concerns are not correct and well presented, but coming from your Presbytery, I wonder what is going on. I know you personally are solid as a rock so I'm sort of confused. Do you have a problem with the fact that people took statements that are identical to FV statements, and posted that somebody is FV, instead of allowing that deep down in their heart maybe they didn't mean it the way they said it? If that is slander, from now on how can we talk about what anybody said at any time, if deep down they might not really mean what their words clearly imply they mean? You may as well shut this place down and burn every theology book you own.....
 

TimV

Puritanboard Botanist
I thought it good. I just wondered about the form and language style dealing with Internet posting. There seemed a bit of pop psychology mixed in there. One could also wish that certain other parts of the confession were dealt with minutely when it comes to that particular Presbytery.

Also very nice how in general church business of that sort should done publicly.
 

greenbaggins

Administrator
Staff member
Lane, I don't mean to sound cynical, but cutting through all the long words and quotes......

Is this saying that in the future, if a PCA elder says something that is exactly word for word in context what the FV says, and they sign a statement put out by the FV affirming error, that it is now a violation of the 9th command to write online that they are FV, because even though they speak with exact FV words and sign onto FV statements, they might not really be FV?

So, uh, from now on you can sound like a heretic and sign papers by heretics, but it is never OK online for others to post about how somebody said something heretical or signed something heretical, because deep down in their heart what they really meant was orthodox?

I was always under the impresssion that public teaching was open for debate in public, and Matt 18 is not required for such.

Am I overreacting as to what precipitated this report?

Something seems real wrong here, and I am not exactly sure what, but it sounds like a win for the FV. Not to say that a lot of the general concerns are not correct and well presented, but coming from your Presbytery, I wonder what is going on. I know you personally are solid as a rock so I'm sort of confused. Do you have a problem with the fact that people took statements that are identical to FV statements, and posted that somebody is FV, instead of allowing that deep down in their heart maybe they didn't mean it the way they said it? If that is slander, from now on how can we talk about what anybody said at any time, if deep down they might not really mean what their words clearly imply they mean? You may as well shut this place down and burn every theology book you own.....
The report is very careful to guard people's conscience to prevent it from being violated. This report was received, not adopted, anyway. It is not designed to shut anyone up (I was one of the writers of this report. The guidelines in section 2 were from me). Section 3 was basically written by Brian Carpenter, with a few additions and editings. The whole point of section 3 is to seek to define what is public and what is not, what is confidential and what is not. Public opinion matters. I actually view this report as a victory for FV critics.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top