Spiritual Crisis in OPC

[Scot]

I must admit that I haven't paid too much attention to the New Perspective/Federal Vision topic until just recently. I just started reading "Christianity and Neo-Liberalism: The Spiritual Crisis in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church and Beyond" by Paul M. Elliot. I'm a little more than half way through it and I must say that it's VERY disturbing.

Has anyone else read the book? If so, what is your opinion? I remember seeing it mentioned on here before. Comments?

 

[bookslover]

I must admit that I haven't paid too much attention to the New Perspective/Federal Vision topic until just recently. I just started reading "Christianity and Neo-Liberalism: The Spiritual Crisis in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church and Beyond" by Paul M. Elliot. I'm a little more than half way through it and I must say that it's VERY disturbing.

Has anyone else read the book? If so, what is your opinion? I remember seeing it mentioned on here before. Comments?

The OPC has taken a very firm position against the FV/NPP nonsense. Elliot is a rabble-rouser who more or less decided to start his own church/denomination because he disagrees with various things in the OPC. He's one of these my-way-or-the-highway types, from what I hear.

I've been in the OPC for 11 years and, while no denomination is perfect, the OPC is, on all points that truly matter, as conservative and orthodox as one could hope for. And, as I said, the denomination has taken a very strong stand against the FV/NPP.

I would read Eliot's book with several 50-pound bags of salt, if I were you.

 

[RamistThomist]

Ditto, he continues the assault against Van Til.

 

[Scot]

A Review of the book by Herman Hanko (PRC)

The author, himself a ruling elder in an Orthodox Presbyterian congregation (OPC), writes with passion and conviction concerning the doctrinal decline in his own denomination. Coming through all he writes is his sorrow that his church, with its rich heritage, is now, unless it repents, a neoliberal congregation. That is indeed a serious charge. The 400+ pages of the book are intended to prove the charge.

The spiritual father of the OPC was J. Gresham Machen, a professor in Princeton Seminary in Princeton, New Jersey, who left the Presbyterian Church in the USA because of liberalism present in the denomination and because of the failure of the denomination to deal with and discipline heretics. Machen, with a few others, started Westminster Theological Seminary in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania in the late twenties, and the OPC was formed in the early thirties. Elliott is fearful that the OPC is following the same downward slide that was present in the PCUSA and that forced the departure from the denomination of Machen and others. Their motive was to preserve the truth of Scripture and maintain the great heritage of Princeton Seminary and its professors: the Hodges, Archibald Alexander, Samuel Miller, and other great Presbyterian theologians. It appears to Elliott that something of the same history of separation will have to be repeated in the OPC if that great heritage is to be preserved.

For Machen and his followers the climax to apostasy in the PCUSA came with the “Auburn Affirmation.” The “Auburn Affirmation,” signed by almost 2000 ministers and ruling elders, denied fundamental doctrines of the faith of the Westminster Confessions — doctrines such as the virgin birth, the bodily resurrection of Christ, and the propitiatory sacrifice on the cross. When the church in its highest judicatory refused to condemn this statement of belief and to discipline those who had signed it, Machen and his followers were compelled by their conscience to leave the denomination.

The story of the decline of the OPC, says Elliott, is patterned after the apostasy in its parent denomination. Hence Elliott accuses the OPC of Neo-Liberalism, that is, the same liberalism as was evident in the parent church with certain, more modern, characteristics.

Elliott points the finger directly at Westminster Theological Seminary (Philadelphia) as being the main reason for the apostasy in the OPC. He charges the faculty of the Seminary not only with condoning false doctrine since the mid-seventies, but also with allowing the Seminary to teach an entire generation of ministers the serious errors with which he deals.

The blurb on the back cover reads in part:

Ironically, the principal cause of the decline and fall of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church is the false doctrine taught by the faculty of Westminster Seminary in Philadelphia, an institution that Machen had founded in 1929 to counter the Modernism of Princeton Seminary. The teaching of Westminster Seminary, uncorrected by its faculty, administration, benefactors, or the churches in which its graduates serve, is the cancer that has infected the whole denomination and spread far beyond it.

In support of his contention, Elliott discusses especially three cases that reached the highest governing bodies of the church: the Shepherd Case, the Evolution Case, and the Kinnaird Case. His story of these three cases makes for fascinating but chilling reading. If this happened in the OPC, it can happen in any denomination.

In dealing with the case of Dr. Norman Shepherd, the author follows closely and leans heavily on the work of O. Palmer Robertson’s book, The Current Justification Controversy (Unicoi, TN: Trinity Foundation, 2003). The book was written in 1983, but was not published until 2003. It is a startling exposé of the entire Shepherd case, which began in the late seventies and continued for many years after. The teachings of Norman Shepherd, while he was professor of Systematics in WTS, are summarized by Elliott:

* Justification is by both faith and works.

* Baptism is necessary for salvation, and salvation takes place at baptism.

* Good works are necessary for an individual to maintain his state of justification.

* Justification is not a single judicial act of God at conversion based solely on the imputed righteousness of Christ and received by faith alone, but rather is a process culminating in the evaluation of the individual’s works at the Last Judgment.

* It is possible for a person to lose his justification (128).

Although many objections were brought against these teachings of Shepherd, the OPC was unable to discipline him at any level of the church courts. His supporters were powerful and influential men, both among the faculty of WTS and the church at large. His chief supporters were John Frame, Richard Gaffin, and Cornelius VanTil (130).

The story of the political maneuvering that was involved in gaining Shepherd’s exoneration is enough to make anyone concerned for the Headship of Christ in the church to weep. Shepherd was finally forced to resign from the faculty of WTS because of the bad publicity the Seminary was receiving, but his views were never officially condemned. The result was that serious errors were introduced into the churches, for Shepherd’s students filled many OPC pulpits and many pulpits in other denominations.

One element in Elliott’s description of the Shepherd case came as a surprise to me. Elliott claims that Shepherd and his supporters hold to the doctrine of baptismal regeneration.

In describing the views of Richard Gaffin, who was Shepherd’s most influential defender, Elliott writes:

…Gaffin asserts that baptism, not regeneration apart from works by the power of the Holy Spirit, is the point of transition from death to life (154, 155).

Another case that involved the same heresy was the so-called Kinnaird case. John O. Kinnaird was a ruling elder in an OPC congregation and a man of considerable standing in the denomination. He was charged with heresy by members of his own congregation, a heresy similar to the error of Norman Shepherd. This case also wound its way through the courts of the church. Those who charged Kinnaird with heresy were upheld in their charge by their presbytery, but Richard Gaffin, contrary to church rules, persuaded the presbytery to reconsider, and he succeeded in getting the presbytery to alter its original decision. The case went to the General Assembly, which upheld the final decision of the presbytery. Once again, the OPC was incapable of condemning heretics within the church, and Kinnaird was exonerated. In the course of the conflict Shepherd’s original views were somewhat developed and the errors involved in the teaching of justification by faith and works became clearer. These views soon became known as the Federal Vision, and Elliott deals at length with this serious error. By failing to condemn it, the OPC has drifted into what Elliott calls Neo-liberalism.

One very striking feature of Elliott’s analysis of both the Shepherd and Kinnaird cases is his failure to point to the fact that Shepherd himself admitted that he was compelled to take the position that he did because of his commitment to a conditional covenant. In other words, the error of justification by faith and works is a necessary consequence of holding to a conditional covenant. The name Federal Vision indicates the relation between justification by faith and works and the covenant, for the word “Federal” refers specifically to “Federal theology” or “Covenant theology.” Why should Elliott have omitted this important aspect of the whole controversy, an aspect of which he was surely aware?

In order to maintain a position that justification is by faith and works, it was necessary to redefine justification. Gaffin, for example, defined justification as a lifelong process and an infusion of righteousness, thus, a work barely distinguishable from sanctification. This view of justification was not new. It was held by the Roman Catholic church for centuries prior to the Reformation and was the view of justification from which Luther had to free himself before he could set forth his doctrine of justification by faith alone.

Kinnaird frequently defined justification as taking place only at the end of time, when all stand before the judgment seat of Christ and are judged for their works. In discussing Kinnaird’s view, Elliott says,

In the evidence that the committee had examined, Kinnaird had stated that God’s “not guilty” verdict is based not only on the imputed righteousness of Christ at conversion but also on His forensic, analytical judgment of the individual’s personal righteousness on the Last Day. This is by definition, justification by faith-plus-works [italics original, 224].

…the committee supported Kinnaird’s misinterpretation of Romans 2:13 as saying that personal righteousness through law-keeping is required in order to stand in the Last Judgment (224).

There are other causes for the doctrinal decline into neo-Liberalism present in the OPC, according to the author.

One major reason is the replacement of Systematic Theology with Biblical Theology. In his excellent critique of Biblical Theology, the author writes:

…The modern Biblical Theology movement does not take the Bible “as it comes” nor does it adhere faithfully to these five principles [principles just previously listed that are the basis of all biblical interpretation, HH]. As a result, it builds from Scripture an artificial system, actually multiple systems. One of the the principal dangers of the Biblical Theology movement is that it focuses on the study of “theologies” in the plural — a “theology of Moses” — a “theology of David” — of Isaiah — of Matthew — of Paul — of James — and so on. Thus we have, in the writings of Richard Gaffin, N. T. Wright, and the Federal Visionist, studies of the “theology of Paul” in semi-isolation from the rest of Scripture. This is a reflection of religious academia’s embracing the postmodern concept of “truth” as a product of the individual functioning within a “historical community of interpretation.” This leads quite naturally to the false notion that Paul’s “truth” can be different from that of James or Matthew or John, or even Jesus.

A companion danger of the modern Biblical Theology movement is that it relegates the doctrine of the Holy Spirit’s primary and comprehensive authorship of all of Scripture, through His supernatural inspiration of the words themselves, to secondary status. Though proponents of the movement deny it, their handling of Scripture constantly demonstrates that human rather than divine authorship has become their primary focus, and that they primarily view the Biblical writers as functioning within a “historical community of interpretation” (163, 164).

Another consequence of biblical theology has been the assertion that revelation is only event; that is, that God reveals Himself only in the events of sacred history. The interpretation of these events by the biblical writers was the fruit of their own reflection on the events in the light of their times, and we have the same calling today to interpret revelation events in the light of our times (166).

Although the two cases of Shepherd and Kinnaird receive the bulk of attention, Elliott finds a deeper reason for the apostasy in the OPC. That deeper reason is a faulty doctrine of Scripture.

This faulty doctrine of Scripture came to clear manifestation in connection with the dispute in the OPC over the truth of creation. Some within the OPC were teaching various forms of theistic evolution. Specific cases came before the church’s assemblies. But in every case the church failed to condemn the heresies and those who taught them.

What is of particular interest to us is the fact that a “new” view of Hermeneutics was adopted by the church. It was called a “Hermeneutics of Trust.” This constitutes another kind of Hermeneutics, which can be added to the long list of those views developed by higher critics: Sitz im Leben, Form Criticism, Historical Criticism, Eschatological Hermeneutics — to name but a few. Now we have also Hermeneutics of Trust.

The term first came up in a committee report that was entrusted with the responsibility of advising the church on the creation vs. evolution debate. Concerning this report, the author writes (the emphases are all his):

There was no acknowledgement of the fact that only one interpretation can possibly be right.

Note carefully the principle of Biblical interpretation that this official committee of the OPC has endorsed: Men of the church can all be said to embrace the same “doctrine,” even if they differ radically on the meaning of its words, even if they differ radically on the principles and methods of interpretation used to arrive at the meaning of those words, and even if they arrive at conclusions that are mutually exclusive. Furthermore, no one has the right to say that the position he holds is the truth, to the exclusion of all others. Men holding widely varying views about the meaning of the words of Scripture — as we have seen throughout this book, even diametrically opposing views — can all fit under the same “big tent” as long as they can recite the words of the Confession together.

The OPC Report calls this radical departure from sound principles of interpretation a “hermeneutic of trust” (245).

The result of this “hermeneutic of trust” is that any view of creation is acceptable in the church as faithful to Scripture and the Westminster Confessions.

Now it is obvious that behind such a view of Scripture lies some more fundamental and basic assumptions. I have already mentioned one of them: That is that the revelation of God is in the events of Scripture, but not in the interpretation of those events. The interpretation of those events is conditioned by the man who made them: Moses, Samuel, Isaiah, Malachi, etc. Their interpretation was, in fact, determined in large measure by the time in which they lived, the culture in which they were brought up, the world views current in their day, and the influences that shaped and formed their perspective on all things.

I use the word “perspective” deliberately, because this view of Scripture is called “perspectivalism.” In every age since the Scriptures were penned, many in the church have come to Scripture to study and interpret the “events” recorded in Scripture. But they have come to Scripture with their own perspective, which includes all the elements that conditioned the writers of Scripture to interpret Scripture the way they did. So in every age each interpreter in the church must interpret the events recorded in Scripture from his own “perspective,” determined by his own personality, culture, etc.

In addition to that, each person has a perspective unique to himself. Thus no single individual can possibly have a complete and accurate interpretation of Scripture alone. The truth is gained only through a community of scholars who come with many perspectives and who, as a community, discover truth. However, the truth “discovered” in any given age is only the truth for that time. In future generations, other scholars will have to discover the truth for a new generation. Thus truth is robbed of its objectivity and becomes a relative matter.

An example is found in the very debate over creation and evolution. While the doctrine of creation in six days by the Word of God may have been the “perspective” of the biblical writers, today scholars have to deal with science, which has discovered that the creation is very old. And so the perspective one has as he approaches the “event” of creation is formed by the discoveries of science. And, because not all interpreters of Scripture have a complete understanding of all that is involved, a multitude of perspectives will give truth for our age. Five hundred years from now, that truth, examined from different perspectives, will perhaps have to be altered significantly.

A hermeneutic of trust means, therefore, that within the church all interpreters of Scripture must trust other exegetes. They must trust that each interpreter is genuinely interested in discovering truth, that all have a measure of truth in their own unique perspective — even though one perspective may flatly contradict another, and that through the efforts of all, truth for our time is discovered. In fact, the committee that proposed this approach (though the approach is far older than the OPC, as Elliott points out on pages 245, 246) claims that this new hermeneutic is responsible for the peace that the OPC has enjoyed.

The OPC has experienced doctrinal controversies through its history, and some of them have been serious enough to prompt individuals and churches to leave. But none of them escalated into a confessional crisis. The OPC … has cultivated a community of interpretation that has sustained confessional integrity among its ministerial membership without imposing over-exacting standards of confessional subscription … (247, where Elliott quotes from the report of the committee on evolutionism).

The author quotes the report further where it “credits Westminster Theological Seminary with a vital role in maintaining this artificial unity.”

The most important factor in establishing and maintaining this community of interpretation has been the function of Westminster Theological Seminary in Philadelphia as the OPC’s de facto denominational seminary. In training the vast majority of the early ministerial membership of the OPC, Westminster Seminary did not devote excessive attention to the days of creation nor to the Westminster Standards. But what WTS accomplished that averted a creation or confessional crisis was inducting Orthodox Presbyterian ministerial candidates into a culture of interpretation. The effect was to cultivate a hermeneutic of trust within the church, as ministers had confidence in the training of their colleagues, even if they differed in their views. Westminster performed that function ably… (248).

That came from the committee itself.

A hermeneutics of trust is a hermeneutics in which Bible interpretation is every man for himself and all have the truth, not matter what they teach.

Elliott lays the blame at the feet of Vern Poythress (formerly professor of Hermeneutics in WTS) and John Frame (formerly professor of Theology in WTS). It is my judgment, although Elliott does not mention this, that Cornelius VanTil must also shoulder part of the blame, if not most of it. His view was a “theology of paradox,” according to which one could hold to contradictory statements (such as “God loves all men and wills to save them” and “God loves only His elect and wills to save them”) and maintain both as truth. Further, VanTil argued, on the basis of knowledge by analogy, that the knowledge that God has in Himself of Himself and His works is essentially different from the knowledge we have of God and His works, because our knowledge is only “analogous” to God’s knowledge. This view of VanTil is the parent that produces the child of a hermeneutic of trust and perspectivalism.

Elliott is correct in his analysis of the sad situation in the OPC. He fails, however, to mention that the controversy over creation vs. evolution is of old standing. Charles Hodge already, while in Princeton, left the door open to a re-interpretation of Genesis 1, and J. Gresham Machen refused to condemn various theories of evolution being taught in the church on the grounds that the matter was not a subject for theology, but only for science. Not only a man, but also a church, reaps what it sows.

What is so sad about the whole story of the decline of the OPC is that these gross errors were approved by the church, either by official decisions of the highest judicatories, or by the silence of good men. There is no reason to rejoice over the fall of the OPC; there is only cause for weeping. There are many solid and faithful people of God in that denomination. But whatever may be the reason, good men refused to stand up and oppose obvious false doctrine. Now it is too late.

The interest of Elliott’s book is in large measure the lesson that what happened and is happening in the OPC could happen in any denomination, including our own when good men, either out of cowardice, indifference or ignorance refuse to oppose false doctrine.

May God enable us to be faithful and give us courage to defend His truth.

Protestant Reformed Theological Journal: April 2006

 

[tewilder]

From Protestant Reformed spokesman such as Herman Hanko you are going get very tendentious critiques of the Federal Vision, just as you get from OPC loyalists.

The OPC received a report with a lot of finger pointing at the PCA, and minimization of the problems in their own denomination and of the role of Westminster seminary and OPC in creating some of the underpinnings of the Federal Vision. Then they put the report on the shelf, and as far as I can tell did nothing about the Federal Vision problem in the OPC.

Similarly the PRC men will do a lot of finger pointing at other groups, but they will never acknowledge that the Federal Vision lifts its argument and rhetoric against the Covenant of Works from Hermann Hoeksema's Reformed Dogmatics, complete with citations.

 

[wsw201]

Dan,

If you are concerned about the OPC and what happened in the past, I would recommend reading some of the source material for yourself. For instance Robertson notes in his book on the Norm Shepherd contraversey that some important material was not provided to the OPC from WTS. Plus Shepherd made it through his trial by only a few votes and the OPC was looking to re-try him when he bolted to the CRC.

As far as Kinnaird is concerned, a lot of folks were very upset over the outcome. He can be re-tried if someone wants to bring a charge. In fact since Mr. Elliott is an RE why doesn't he refile charges against Mr. Kinnaird?

For Elliott to blame WTS for all the ills in the OPC is a stretch. When the OPC first started the primary source for TE's was WTS. That is now no longer the case. TE's are coming from WSC, Greenville, MARS, RTS and other reformed Seminaries. So whatever influence WTS has had in the past, is no longer the case.

 

[AV1611]

Similarly the PRC men will do a lot of finger pointing at other groups, but they will never acknowledge that the Federal Vision lifts its argument and rhetoric against the Covenant of Works from Hermann Hoeksema's Reformed Dogmatics, complete with citations.

See article 1 of this.

 

[tewilder]

Similarly the PRC men will do a lot of finger pointing at other groups, but they will never acknowledge that the Federal Vision lifts its argument and rhetoric against the Covenant of Works from Hermann Hoeksema's Reformed Dogmatics, complete with citations.

See article 1 of this.

Engelsma claims that the FV does not use Hoeksema's arguments, but they do of course. Almost to the point of plagiarism.

Also see how Federal Visiony is Hoeksema's notion of the nature of a covenant. All relational and Trinitarian and rather than a conditional agreement.

 

[AV1611]

Engelsma claims that the FV does not use Hoeksema's arguments, but they do of course.

Be careful, the FVers have taken a certain aspect of Hoeksema's theology and run with it. This is not the fault of Hoeksema anymore than the fact that some Calvinists take Calvin's views to an extreme is the fault of Calvin.

 

[tewilder]

Engelsma claims that the FV does not use Hoeksema's arguments, but they do of course.

Be careful, the FVers have taken a certain aspect of Hoeksema's theology and run with it. This is not the fault of Hoeksema anymore than the fact that some Calvinists take Calvin's views to an extreme is the fault of Calvin.

Except that when Danhof says something in 1919, and Ralph Smith independently comes up with it 80 years later (and this is over an above Jordan lifting Hoeksema's anti Covenant of Works argument and Rhetoric), you have to ask, Why the similarity in thinking?

 

[JohnV]

Dan,

As far as Kinnaird is concerned, a lot of folks were very upset over the outcome. He can be re-tried if someone wants to bring a charge. In fact since Mr. Elliott is an RE why doesn't he refile charges against Mr. Kinnaird?

Wayne:

Is Elliott in Kinnaird's Presbytery? Is he in the same congregation? How does that work? Who may bring charges against another within the OPC? Is it possible that an RE may bring charges against another officer in the OPC without necessarily being in his congregation or Presbytery? If you had something against Wilkins, let's say, and you were an RE in a different Presbytery, could you bring a charge against him?

May someone be recharged for the same thing a second time?

 

[ADKing]

Dan,

As far as Kinnaird is concerned, a lot of folks were very upset over the outcome. He can be re-tried if someone wants to bring a charge. In fact since Mr. Elliott is an RE why doesn't he refile charges against Mr. Kinnaird?

Wayne:

Is Elliott in Kinnaird's Presbytery? Is he in the same congregation? How does that work? Who may bring charges against another within the OPC? Is it possible that an RE may bring charges against another officer in the OPC without necessarily being in his congregation or Presbytery? If you had something against Wilkins, let's say, and you were an RE in a different Presbytery, could you bring a charge against him?

May someone be recharged for the same thing a second time?

Someone in the OPC can correct me if I am wrong, but I do not believe an individual who is cleared by the General Assembly can be re-charged over the same offences.

Keep in mind too that Elliott is no longer in the OPC but has since that GA ruling, left and helped form the Evangelical Reformed Presbyterian Church.

 

[JohnV]

Those were two separate questions, Adam. The first one had to do with jurisdiction, and the second with recharging. If Paul Elliott isn't in the OPC, then he can't bring forward charges. But supposing he's in the next Presbytery in the OPC; may he then bring charges? Or must he be at least in the same Presbytery? And if it relates to what happens in the congregation, must he be a member of that same congregation?

Now, that's the one way of looking at this. The other way is, as I take it, Elliott's approach: what responsibility does the GA have if it knows something is happening? For example, if a minister is teaching FV in another congregation, do the Presbyters have to wait for someone to make a complaint? Or could they act without one? What if a Presbyter in another Presbytery, acting as part of the entire body, learns that this is going on: may he bring charges, based upon all the Presbyteries being equally under the oversight of the GA? Are GA's responsible for the doctrine, for what is taught, in each congregation of the denomination?

 

[ADKing]

Those were two separate questions, Adam. The first one had to do with jurisdiction, and the second with recharging. If Paul Elliott isn't in the OPC, then he can't bring forward charges. But supposing he's in the next Presbytery in the OPC; may he then bring charges? Or must he be at least in the same Presbytery? And if it relates to what happens in the congregation, must he be a member of that same congregation?

Now, that's the one way of looking at this. The other way is, as I take it, Elliott's approach: what responsibility does the GA have if it knows something is happening? For example, if a minister is teaching FV in another congregation, do the Presbyters have to wait for someone to make a complaint? Or could they act without one? What if a Presbyter in another Presbytery, acting as part of the entire body, learns that this is going on: may he bring charges, based upon all the Presbyteries being equally under the oversight of the GA? Are GA's responsible for the doctrine, for what is taught, in each congregation of the denomination?

Normally the General Assembly of a denomination is not the court of original juristiction and so does not originate judicial proceedings against individuals. However, I will defer to someone with a better kowledge of the particular ins and outs of OPC church order. In terms of your other scenario, a minster teaching FV doctrine, I would say that no, a presbytery does not have to wait for a complaint to come from the congregation. If they have evidence of this they may proceed with charges as the court of orginal juristiction.

 

[wsw201]

Dan,

As far as Kinnaird is concerned, a lot of folks were very upset over the outcome. He can be re-tried if someone wants to bring a charge. In fact since Mr. Elliott is an RE why doesn't he refile charges against Mr. Kinnaird?

Wayne:

Is Elliott in Kinnaird's Presbytery? Is he in the same congregation? How does that work? Who may bring charges against another within the OPC? Is it possible that an RE may bring charges against another officer in the OPC without necessarily being in his congregation or Presbytery? If you had something against Wilkins, let's say, and you were an RE in a different Presbytery, could you bring a charge against him?

May someone be recharged for the same thing a second time?

Based on my reading of the OPC BCO, anyone can bring a charge, but it does take two witnesses to bring a charge against an Elder. It does not appear that the charge needs to be made by a member of the denomination, especially if the offense was of a public nature. The only thing that would need to be done is to file the charge with the court of original jurisdiction. For an RE or communing member that would be the Session. For a TE that would be the Presbytery.

Regarding Kinnaird, Its been a while since I looked at anything regarding that case. From my recollection, the Session's and the Presbytery's verdict were over turned based on procedure not based on the actual charge itself. But like I said, its been a long time since I have looked at this case and I may be wrong. The last time I looked at anything about Kinnaird was on John Robbins site. Could Kinnaird be charged a gain? you bet. You just might have to take a different approach than in the first case.

 

[wsw201]

As an aside, some have noted that Mr. Kinnaird is still advocating positions that are contrary to the Standards on various blogs or message boards. Since these forums are open to the public,ie; can be read by anyone, Mr. Kinnaird can be charged again by any two people who have read them.

I have not kept up with Mr. Kinnaird so I don't know if he is an active Session Elder and I haven't read any of his public statements since his trial. But once an ordained Elder always an ordained Elder and his subscription vows still hold. So if Mr. Elliott or any one else who wants to can file charges against him with his Session.

 

[JohnV]

Based on my reading of the OPC BCO, anyone can bring a charge, but it does take two witnesses to bring a charge against an Elder. It does not appear that the charge needs to be made by a member of the denomination, especially if the offense was of a public nature. The only thing that would need to be done is to file the charge with the court of original jurisdiction. For an RE or communing member that would be the Session. For a TE that would be the Presbytery.

Regarding Kinnaird, Its been a while since I looked at anything regarding that case. From my recollection, the Session's and the Presbytery's verdict were over turned based on procedure not based on the actual charge itself. But like I said, its been a long time since I have looked at this case and I may be wrong. The last time I looked at anything about Kinnaird was on John Robbins site. Could Kinnaird be charged a gain? you bet. You just might have to take a different approach than in the first case.

Wayne:

It seems to me that you are right. Just as we in person ought to take seriously any charge anyone brings against us concerning our faith, so the church must also take seriously any slur against the church brought about by the possible misdeeds of one of her own representatives, no matter where the charge comes from. But propriety still rules, and the original jurisdiction must be upheld.