What is the current situation?

[johnwillby]

Hi

I have benefited from the insights gained from listening to the various refutations (some better than others). I now feel a bit more able to talk intelligibly about the subject.

What I am curious about is where the situation now stands. Much of what I have listened to and read is a little dated now. Where do these men now stand with regard to the PCA etc?

Have they been disciplined? Have they been thrown out of the PCA etc? Or is there a move to sweep this under the carpet in the hope that if we ignore it perhaps it might go away?

I hope my asking this is not speaking out of turn.

 

[wsw201]

The PCA Standing Judicial Commission is in the process of reviewing the examination of Steve Wilkins by the Louisiana Presbytery. In addition, the PCA has set up a study committee to examine NPP/FV. There are no other actions being taken against any other TE in the PCA that I know of.

 

[Magma2]

The PCA Standing Judicial Commission is in the process of reviewing the examination of Steve Wilkins by the Louisiana Presbytery. In addition, the PCA has set up a study committee to examine NPP/FV. There are no other actions being taken against any other TE in the PCA that I know of.

I'm very curious about what, if anything, the SJC decided in the LA Pres/Wilkins situation, if they decided anything this past weekend? If Wilkins' exoneration is allowed to stand, even after this reexamination, how would this be different from the OPC GA overturning John Kinnaird's heresy conviction? I think there is a doctrinal equivalence in both these cases, but I guess the question remains whether the PCA courts will set a similar precedent. For what it's worth I fear they will, despite all the talk about how opposed members of the Commission are to both NPP & FV. I will be very happy to be wrong.

As for the PCA's study committee, since it's clear that the OPC report on the same topic has not driven any NPP/FV TEs, REs, or even Deacons from the OPC, I can't imagine the PCA report will do anything either. Just another origami tiger we can all look at an admire.

 

[liamg]

Hi sean,

I think it's a mistake to equivocate the two cases. There were some differences in not only the content of Kinnaird's teachings, but also in his willingness to submit to discipline and sessional involvement.

In regardds to the position paper, I don't think the paper was designed to drive anyone from the denomination (of so, shame on them), but rather to reaffirm what we believed. The desire was not to add to our requirements for belief, but to clarify them. Interestingly, this provides better opportunity to engage in presbyterian debate/discussion with FV advocates in a more winsome way, rather than simply driving one out from the fold. An important aspect to remember in all this is that there are people involved, and we must show concern for their souls which takes time and effort.

Liam

I'm very curious about what, if anything, the SJC decided in the LA Pres/Wilkins situation, if they decided anything this past weekend? If Wilkins' exoneration is allowed to stand, even after this reexamination, how would this be different from the OPC GA overturning John Kinnaird's heresy conviction? I think there is a doctrinal equivalence in both these cases, but I guess the question remains whether the PCA courts will set a similar precedent. For what it's worth I fear they will, despite all the talk about how opposed members of the Commission are to both NPP & FV. I will be very happy to be wrong.

As for the PCA's study committee, since it's clear that the OPC report on the same topic has not driven any NPP/FV TEs, REs, or even Deacons from the OPC, I can't imagine the PCA report will do anything either. Just another origami tiger we can all look at an admire.

 

[Magma2]

Hi sean,

I think it's a mistake to equivocate the two cases. There were some differences in not only the content of Kinnaird's teachings, but also in his willingness to submit to discipline and sessional involvement.

From what I can tell any differences in teaching are negligible and are more a matter of style than substance. There may be substantive differences as far as their schemes of justification are concerned, but I honestly don't see them. Perhaps you can provide some demonstration where these men differ concerning the way of salvation?

In regardds to the position paper, I don't think the paper was designed to drive anyone from the denomination (of so, shame on them), but rather to reaffirm what we believed. The desire was not to add to our requirements for belief, but to clarify them. Interestingly, this provides better opportunity to engage in presbyterian debate/discussion with FV advocates in a more winsome way, rather than simply driving one out from the fold.

What? The PCA doesn't already know where it stands concerning the doctrine of justification? There have been conferences, books, articles galore on both sides, so a denominational study report serves no real purpose, changes no minds, and arguably leads no one to repentance. Frankly, in my opinion they more often are used to provide cover and justification for those who would teach doctrines contrary to the system they publicly vowed to uphold. The PCA's report on the doctrine of creation comes to mind.

An important aspect to remember in all this is that there are people involved, and we must show concern for their souls which takes time and effort.

Which is why disciplinary actions against those real people who teach the false gospel of the FV & NPP is needed and not another winsome report by a study committee. Justification by mere belief alone is not some debatable point that is open for discussion.

I realize things move slowly (Andy Webb says the PCA moves at a "glacial pace") and everything must be done in order, but I can't help but think among many peace trumps purity which in my view is unconscionable given what's at stake in this controversy. Like I said, I hope and pray I'm wrong concerning the PCA, but I don't see why its going the way of the OPC is not a real possibility.

I can embrace a man as a brother in Christ who, say, might hold to a day/age view of creation, but a man who would teach a "gospel" premised on our works of obedience, even by faith, to a conditional covenant as a means to achieve our "final justification" is nothing more than a Judiazer. Frankly, I don't care one whit how admired or how many friends he might have at GA. I wouldn't care if he was my own natural father. If we really love these men then the action needed isn't winsome debate and gentle persuasion. Real people are suffering under the teaching of these men (and many right here in my own immediate community and within my own presbytery) and the souls of real people under the care of these (false) teachers are at stake.

 

[Romans922]

Any news from the SJC? Fred said it was supposed to start on March 1st.