PURITAN NEWS WEEKLY

www.puritans.net/news/

01/10/06

 

 

NO TRESASSING

 

By J. Parnell McCarter

 

 

On the r-f-w internet list there has been a discussion concerning the ownership of some church property in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. Both the FPCS and the APC claim ownership. Here are many of the entries in the discussion:

 

 

 

----- Original Message -----

From: "Jerrold H. Lewis" <jerlewis@telus.net>

To: <r-f-w@yahoogroups.com>

Sent: Friday, January 06, 2006 2:16 PM

Subject: Re: [r-f-w] Re: Scottish Free Churches

 

      Kevin Barrow wrote:
>
> >I personally do not condone appeals from ecclesiastical to civil
> >courts. And the two examples generally alleged in scripture to
> >support the doctrine, do not appear to support the idea either.
> >(Jer.26; Acts 25).
> >
> >Kevin Barrow
> >Lynden, WA
> > 
> >
> Kevin,
>
> I could not agree with you more. It is my hope that our own 16 year old
> property dispute here in Vancouver with the FPCoS will be resolved one
> way or the other in the not too distant future. It saddens me that the
> brothers would go to law against one another and ask the secular courts
> (however lawful they might be) to adjudicate in ecclesiastical matters.
> As far as I can see, it is sin on both our parts (APC/FPCoS), and part
> of the reason we have been cold in our testimony.
>
> 1Co 6:7  "Now therefore there is utterly a fault among you, because ye
> go to law one with another. Why do ye not rather take wrong? why do ye
> not rather suffer yourselves to be defrauded?"
>
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Jerrold Lewis
>
> --
> zxcvzxcvzxcvzxcvzxcvzxcvzxcv
> Rev. J. Lewis
> Pastor- APC Vancouver
> 604.530.4123
> 3772, 201 Street Langley

 

 

 

 

----- Original Message -----

From: <jparnellm@usxchange.net>

To: <r-f-w@yahoogroups.com>

Sent: Friday, January 06, 2006 4:00 PM

Subject: Re: [r-f-w] Re: Scottish Free Churches

 

      Quoting "Jerrold H. Lewis" <jerlewis@telus.net>:
>
> >
> > It is my hope that our own 16 year old
> > property dispute here in Vancouver with the FPCoS will be resolved one
> > way or the other in the not too distant future.
>
> Mr. Lewis, this should be an easy enough dispute to resolve by answering this
> simple question: who holds legal title to the property?
>
> If it is the APC, then the APC should have it and the FPCS should let matters
> be; if it is the FPCS, then the FPCS should have it without dispute from the
> APC.
>
> What is the case in Vancouver?
>
> Here is an interesting case in Edinburgh-
>
>
> http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:5fJcSkHM5UEJ:www.fpchurch.org.uk/Magazines/fpm/2004/pdf/July.pdf+Free+Presbyterian+Church+Scotland+title+property+APC&hl=en
> :
>
> "Ecumenism in Edinburgh - In view of the fact that the Associated Presbyterian
> Churches claim to be the
> true Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland under another name, we think it
> in order to point out just how absurd this claim is. In Edinburgh, for
> instance,
> the following intimations appear on the APC notice board:
> "Catch the Wave International Night in the Usher Hall on 12th June with
> the Doulos Crew and the Exile Band."
> "Joint Morning Service with Viewforth Church of Scotland on the 13th
> June. We then join them and Barclay Church of Scotland for a BBQ after the
> service at Vogrie Country Park. (That means that there will not be a Morning
> service in the APC congregation.) We hope to have an evening service at the
> usual time."
> Does anyone seriously believe that the Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland
> would engage in such ecumenical services and activities on any day of the
> week, far less on the Lord's Day? Sadly, the APC minister, who seems to
> think that these activities are honouring to God and will further the cause of
> Christ, continues to occupy the Edinburgh manse without permission, and
> in spite of the fact that the title deeds plainly show that the property belongs
> to the Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland. How he, or the Church to which he
> belongs, can justify this is quite simply beyond our understanding. JM"
>
> - Parnell McCarter
> Attender, ARC of GR
> Seek member in FPCS
> GR, MI
>

 

 

 

 

 

----- Original Message -----

From: "Jerrold H. Lewis" <jerlewis@telus.net>

To: <r-f-w@yahoogroups.com>

Sent: Friday, January 06, 2006 7:28 PM

Subject: Re: [r-f-w] Re: Scottish Free Churches

 

      Mr. McCarter,
>
> You will find no quarrel with me over property.  Nor will I defend the
> vanishing idea that the APC is the true FPoC (I wish we were). While I
> hold to her doctrines to the letter (KJV, 1650 Psalter, no instruments,
> Sabbath keeping, no Xmass or holidays, Communion Seasons, Pope is the
> Antichrist, etc), her uncharitable wittiness, vitriolic attitude, and
> contentious sectarianism leaves much to be desired. Both groups have
> their shortcomings, and will probably suffer the same fate of extinction
> (denominationally) if the Lord does not do a work in /us/ soon. Although
> I agree 100% with the FPoC in doctrine, I could never rejoin her for the
> simple reason that I would be told to cut all fraternal ties with the
> FCC, PRC, RPCoS, FRCNA, and HRC brethren  that share our home in
> fellowship, and pulpits in preaching. The Lord has opened my eyes to the
> Communion of the Saints.
>
> Kind regards,
>
> J. Lewis
>
> zxcvzxcvzxcvzxcvzxcvzxcvzxcv
> Rev. J. Lewis
> Pastor- APC Vancouver
> 604.530.4123
> 3772, 201 Street Langley

 

 

 

----- Original Message -----

From: "Parnell McCarter" <jparnellm@usxchange.net>

To: <r-f-w@yahoogroups.com>

Sent: Saturday, January 07, 2006 7:42 AM

Subject: Re: [r-f-w] Re: Scottish Free Churches

 

     
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jerrold H. Lewis" <jerlewis@telus.net>
>
> > Mr. McCarter,
> >
> > You will find no quarrel with me over property...
>
> Then, Mr. Lewis, why in a previous post did you write: "It is my hope that
> our own 16 year old property dispute here in Vancouver with the FPCoS will
> be resolved one way or the other in the not too distant future"?  You said
> **our** own dispute.
>
> These are very simple questions to answer:
>
> 1. Who holds title to the property in Vancouver according to the legal
> document?
>
> 2.  Who is currently occupying and using the property in Vancouver?
>
> If the answer to the above 2 questions is the same, then I see no reason for
> disagreement.  I only see reason for disagreement if someone is using
> property that has not title to the property, nor the titleholder's
> permission to use the property.
>
> In all honesty, I do not know for sure the answer to either of the 2
> questions above.  But I do know this, that if someone is using property
> without title or titleholder's permission, that person is a trespasser.  If
> I am stepping on FPCS toes here, then so be it; if I am stepping on APC
> toes, then so be it.
>
> - Parnell McCarter
> Seek member in FPCS
> Attender, ARC of GR
> GR, MI

 

 

 

----- Original Message -----

From: "Parnell McCarter" <jparnellm@usxchange.net>

To: <r-f-w@yahoogroups.com>

Sent: Saturday, January 07, 2006 7:48 AM

Subject: Re: [r-f-w] Re: Scottish Free Churches

 

      Mr. Lewis, it seems you are saying that you are using the property.  You
> have also said : "Nor will I defend the
> >vanishing idea that the APC is the true FPoC..."  Does the title of the
> Vancouver property say : "FPCS"?  If so, and you do not claim to be FPCS,
> then what is your justification for using property without the titleholder's
> permission?  Is their any other private property you use in this way?
>
> - Parnell McCarter
>
>
>

 

 

 

 

----- Original Message -----

From: "Jerrold H. Lewis" <jerlewis@telus.net>

To: <r-f-w@yahoogroups.com>

Sent: Saturday, January 07, 2006 12:28 PM

Subject: Re: [r-f-w] Re: Scottish Free Churches

 

      Mr. McCarter,
>
> Both groups are using the property. Both sides have spent tens of
> thousands of dollars on legal fees on a case that is still not settled
> in the Supreme Court of British Columbia. Both sides have the building
> insured but we pay all the heating/electrical utilities (have been since
> 1989). Seems to me that makes us lawful contributors. The FPCoS has not
> once asked us to stop paying the 600-700 dollar/month utility bill, nor
> tried to pay it.
>
> I could argue, and I feel quite convincingly, that we in Canada ARE the
> true FPCoS. We have not altered our doctrine or practice in _*any way
> *_and truly represent the /experimental Calvinism /of 1893 in doctrine,
> worship, and practice. Add to this that we also have all the remaining
> members of the original FPCoS, that the Church was built by /our
> membership/ with their tithe, and not an ounce of financing from
> Scotland- /ever/. I could argue this, and if I felt that it was
> Scriptural, I would.
>
> The title deed, I believe, is in the possession of the FPCoS. But the
> question remains /are we/ the true FPCoS here in Vancouver? Or is the
> single remaining trustee? Title deed /belongs/ to whoever can make the
> best case no matter who holds it in their possession. That is what the
> dispute is over. If you are talking about /physical possession/ then the
> FP's have it. But my car, in the possession of a thief, does not make it
> his. Do I think the FP's fail on the two articles of the WCF that the
> Deed of Separation was formulated upon?  yes I do. The FPCoS is a
> gnat-straining sectarian Church that while clinging to a once grand
> history, has left her spiritual roots, who now "pay tithe of mint and
> anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law,
> judgment, mercy, and faith..."
>
> Having said that, I do not want to fight anymore. Between the PRCE/RPNA,
> and the FPCoS, all the fight'n in me has been sucked from my veins.  I'd
> rather expend my energy preaching the gospel of peace to a world in sin
> than fight with my brothers over the scraps of the table.
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Jerrold Lewis
> Pastor
> APC-Vancouver

 

 

 

----- Original Message -----

From: "Parnell McCarter" <jparnellm@usxchange.net>

To: <r-f-w@yahoogroups.com>

Sent: Saturday, January 07, 2006 3:59 PM

Subject: Re: [r-f-w] Re: Scottish Free Churches

 

      ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jerrold H. Lewis" <jerlewis@telus.net>
>
> > I could argue, and I feel quite convincingly, that we in Canada ARE the
> > true FPCoS.
>
> Jerrold H. Lewis wrote:
>
> >Mr. McCarter,
> >
> >You will find no quarrel with me over property.  Nor will I defend the
> >vanishing idea that the APC is the true FPoC (I wish we were).
>
>
> Interesting quotes above from the *same* person.
>
> - Parnell McCarter
> Seek member in the FPCS
> Attender, ARC of GR
> GR, MI
>
> P.S.  Well, now we all know who holds title to the property in Vancouver
> according to the deed of title:  the FPCS.  So now the question is: who is
> the true FPCS?  Mr. Lewis seems to be a little confused on the matter, given
> the 2 quotes above, posted on this list within a few day period.
>

 

 

Quoting Matthew Vogan <mavogan@yahoo.co.uk>:

 

> Dear Mr Lewis and List

> I can understand the comparison that you may be making between the

> conservatism of your congregation and the rest of the denomination that you

> belong to. I don't think, however, that that conservatism would entitle a

> congregation of the APC however to be seen as the true FPCS. As you

> mentioned "I'm not talking about the speculation of what one man would or

> would not do. I'm talking about _constitutional viability_ and

> _faithfulness_." Constitutional viability is very important in relation to

> your claim that you "in Canada ARE the true FPCoS".

>

> You referred previously to the APC Deed of Separation. This Deed states

> that the documents said to form their constitution, including the WCF are

> accepted only "insofar as each and every one of the documents is consistent

> with the Holy Scripture". This is a patent qualification and modifying

> clause pemitting individuals a declaratory Act to decide how far or to what

> extent each and every one of the documents is consistent with the Holy

> Scripture. On this basis I suppose any minister in the country could

> subscribe the subordinate standards - it opens things up wider than the

> Declaratory Act of 1892. It is not only inconsistent with the Resolution on

> Creed Subsrcription declaration in the formula to be subscribed by

> Probationers, Ministers, Elders and Deacons "that I do sincerely own and

> believe the whole doctrine contained in the Confession of Faith, approven by

> former General Assemblies of this Church to be the truths of God; and I do

> own the same as the confession of my faith".

> Either the whole of the standards are biblical or the Church should

> determine which parts are not and eliminate them accordingly. I can't see how

> this can other than an alteration of the constitution of the FP Church. The

> claim of the APC to be the true FPCS must be judged against this and so must

> any part that belongs to it.

>

> Irenically and in the interests of truth

> Yours Matthew

> FPCS Inverness

>

>

>

>

> "Jerrold H. Lewis" <jerlewis@telus.net> wrote:

> One has to do with the APC Scotland and the other the APC Canada. No

> confusion if you look at it in that light.

>

> Kind regards,

>

> Jerrold Lewis

> Pastor

> APC, Vancouver

> www.apcvan.com

>

>

>

> Parnell McCarter wrote:

>

> >----- Original Message -----

> >From: "Jerrold H. Lewis" <jerlewis@telus.net>

> >

> >

> >

> >>I could argue, and I feel quite convincingly, that we in Canada ARE the

> >>true FPCoS.

> >>

> >>

> >

> >Jerrold H. Lewis wrote:

> >

> >

> >

> >>Mr. McCarter,

> >>

> >>You will find no quarrel with me over property. Nor will I defend the

> >>vanishing idea that the APC is the true FPoC (I wish we were).

> >>

> >>

> >

> >

> >Interesting quotes above from the *same* person.

> >

> >- Parnell McCarter

> >Seek member in the FPCS

> >Attender, ARC of GR

> >GR, MI

> >

> >P.S. Well, now we all know who holds title to the property in Vancouver

> >according to the deed of title: the FPCS. So now the question is: who is

> >the true FPCS? Mr. Lewis seems to be a little confused on the matter,

> given

> >the 2 quotes above, posted on this list within a few day period.

      >