2/7/07
On the r-f-w list
of yahoogroups.com there has recently been discussion about an article that appeared
in the magazine of the Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland concerning the
Orthodox Presbyterian Church. Below are
sample discussion posts, some of which have been excerpted:
--- In
r-f-w@yahoogroups.com, "Brian M. Hanley" <brianmhanley@...>
wrote:
>
> I read the
FPC's magazine online and the August issue was just posted on their
website. The magazine has an article
entitled; 'Doctrinal Crisis in the OPC' - Here's a quote if you interested.
>
> "The report strongly affirms the
orthodox position and opposes the
> New
Perspective, but the upholders of orthodoxy are not hopeful that it will
> do any good.
They point to the following defects: (1) The report does not
> condemn the
New Perspective as heresy. It is not enough merely to declare
> that it is
“error” when it is a false gospel destroying men’s souls. (2) The
> report turns
a blind eye to the existence of this heresy in the OPC. All its
> criticisms
are directed at those outwith the OPC. (3) It is not enough to
> denounce
error, even in strong terms, if one will not proceed eventually to
> the
discipline of those who are guilty. Heretics are generally not nervous
> types, to be
silenced with expressions of disapproval, and they do not usually
> leave of their
own accord. The Assembly has made it plain that those who
> preach the
New Perspective have nothing to fear."
> -------------------------------------
> The Free
Presbyterian Magazine
> Vol 111
August 2006 No 8 , Page 253
Ø http://www.fpchurch.org.uk/Magazines/fpm/2006/August.pdf
Sample Post #2
--- In r-f-w@yahoogroups.com, "Don
Campbell" <presbyreformed@...> wrote:
>
…
>
> Rubbish like this FPC article just goes
to show you that a made-up
> mind is harder to change than a flat
tire on interstate 95 in morning
> rush hour. Like I've said here and other places before, it wouldn't
> matter one iota if the OPC GA quoted
the Westminster Standards on
> justification verbatim and promised to
crucify all heretics on
> justification, the OPC would still be
excoriated in forums like this.
>
…
> What I don't understand is how you can
use so much energy to attack
> the OPC and yet you don't lift a finger
to attack the liberal church
> of the PCUSA, or any other liberal
denomination that is genuinely
> harming the name of Christ. Shame on all of you who engage in this
>
fratricide. Wake up and engage the
enemy. Don't you see him laughing
> at you? Stop sniping at the OPC and take up the right hand of
> fellowship with us. We're not the enemy. The enemy is all around us.
>
Look elsewhere.
>
Sample Post #3
--- In r-f-w@yahoogroups.com,
"puritanone" <joseph.mccarter@...> wrote:
…
> Trivial issues? Quoting the FPC article: "Apart from
the necessity
> of discipline, the crisis also
illustrates the
> scriptural truth that there are
ultimately only two ways of
> salvation: faith and
> works. The New Perspective begins as a
re-juggling of the Protestant
> doctrine
> of justification by faith but it soon
resembles the Roman doctrine
> of a just-ification
> essentially by works. Already some of
its proponents are teaching
> a form of baptismal regeneration. The
real choice is between
> Protestantism
> and Romanism, and every variant turns
out to be Romanism in disguise.
> There is only one gospel and one way to
heaven, and that is the way
> which
> was revealed so plainly to Luther: to trust
solely in the
> righteousness of
> Christ."
>
…
Sample Post #4
--- In r-f-w@yahoogroups.com, "Glenn
Ferrell" <jglennferrell@...> wrote:
…
> Unless they involve one's own session
or presbytery, one often becomes aware of disciplinary cases only when they
reach the General Assembly on appeal or appear in the media, after someone is
suspended from office or excommunicated.
Even at the General Assembly level, it is difficult to judge what is
happening in the entire denomination.
When it sits as a court to hear complaints or appeals, the GA must also
make decisions regarding procedure and due process, which may not be tied to
the merits of the original charges. The
GA may overturn a conviction, not because the original charges were not valid,
but because due process was not protected or the charges insufficiently proven.
>
> One may be charged only for acts
committed or statements made. A person
may hold certain views; but if they do not publicly teach or publish them,
there is little basis for a trial. Even
after questionable statements are made, the proper course would be to ask the
person to clarify what he meant. If
these still appear out of accord with the Standards, it would be proper to ask
him to recant those statements. If one
is repentant and corrected, there is little reason to proceed. In some instances, a court of jurisdiction
may instruct the person not to make those statement or teach them again. Only if they repeat the offense is there a
basis for charges. If charges are made,
they must be in the proper court of jurisdiction, in proper form, with provable
specifications. Then, due process must
be allowed, a trial held and opportunities for appeal exhausted.
>
> None of the elders on my session are
advocating Federal Vision views. If
there are any in my presbytery, their view, statements and teachings have not
become sufficiently public to me to bring charges. If and when I find someone publicly denying central doctrines of
the Standards, I will act accordingly.
>
> It is not for the FPC to disparage the
OPC for their following historic Presbyterian procedures and their own
constitution in the disciplinary process. If they know of officers in the OPC
teaching error on these issues, they should respectfully communicate their
concerns to the appropriate courts of the church.
>
Sample Post #5
--- In r-f-w@yahoogroups.com,
"puritanone" <joseph.mccarter@...> wrote:
>
…
> Mr. Schwertley at
>
http://www.reformedonline.com/view/reformedonline/The%20Current%
> 20Crisis%20in%20the%20OPC%20and%20PCA.htm
rightly points out:
>
> "The OPC has not dealt with James
B. Jordan (a church member), Prof.
> Richard Gaffin, Thomas Tyson, Tom
Trouwborst and the many others who
> are poisoning the sheep with their
teaching...When dealing with
> false teaching—especially damnable
heresy—it is not enough to make
> positive statements in favor of true
doctrine and then set out
> general warnings against the false.
There must be sanctions that
> back up such statements. The
unwillingness thus far, over a period
> of almost four years, to discipline
teachers in their own ranks who
> publicly advocate gross heresy is
unconscionable. At the very
> beginning of the controversy, when
people were struggling to figure
> out what exactly these men were saying,
one could make an argument
> that some time (a month or two) is
needed to properly assess the
> situation. But, this heresy has been
analyzed and exposed for over
> three and a half years. What are the
OPC and PCA waiting for? When
> will they repent of their sinful,
blatant negligence?"
…
>
> For years now some prominent men in the
OPC have gone undisciplined
> though participating in the
promulgation of various heresies
> associated with the Federal Vision, etc-
and that publicly. It is
> very much the place of the FPCS
magazine (and ministers, where
> appropriate) to warn their sheep of
what is going on in other
> Presbyterian denominations where this
sort of thing is occurring.
> And it is appropriate that the world
know why it is necessary that
> the FPCS not unite with the OPC.
>
> Sound the alarm in Zion.
>
Sample Post #6
--- In r-f-w@yahoogroups.com,
"peterreynoldsbookseller" <peter@...> wrote:
>
> I would point out that this article was
written by a particular
> minister, Douglas Somerset, one of the
assistant editors of the
> magazine, and I rather doubt if many in
the FPC would know what the
> OPC's current situation is. I am not
saying that nobody but Dr Somerset
> would have such awareness, or that they
would not agree with Dr
> Somerset if they did look at the
situation. Just that it probably
> can't be taken as an official church
pronouncement!
>
> And the point about procedure in a
previous post is something FPs
> would, I'm sure, recognise if pointed
out to them, as cases can get
> thrown about from Church court to
Church court and back again over a
> period of years within the FPC because
of incorrect procedure, and the
> incorrect procedure may be that of the court
rather than of the person
Ø initiating the case.
Sample Post #7
--- In r-f-w@yahoogroups.com,
"matthewwinzer" <mwinzer@...> wrote:
>
…
>
> On the controversy itself, I believe it
would be difficult for
> churches with a Scottish visible church
understanding to properly
> appreciate the dynamics of the North
American situation. Discretion
> might suggest that churches of the Free
Church tradition should act in
> the capacity of a wiser older brother
offering advice where pertinent
> rather than a nosy bystander ready to
criticise the least failing.
>
Sample Post #8
--- In r-f-w@yahoogroups.com,
"puritanone" <joseph.mccarter@...> wrote:
…
> The sheep need constantly to be
informed and warned, lest they
> forget.
>
> And though some may wish that the FPCS
were merely a Scottish
> church, the reality is that it is
not. It has congregations in
> every continent of the world, save
Antarctica and South America.
> That includes people in North
America. And part of being in North
> America involves a responsibility to
address the North American
> Christian scene. Mr. Schwertley appropriately has spoken up,
and it
> is important that men like Mr. Somerset
and the FP Magazine do as
> well.
They have a duty to inform people like me why I should not
> join with the OPC.
>
> Furthermore, as this email list itself
witnesses, we live in a very
> inter-connected world. Heresies and issues travel across the world
> very fast now.
>
…
> Mr. Trouwborst is an OPC minister,
pastor of Calvary Orthodox
> Presbyterian Church, Schenectady, New
York. Here is some info on
> him at
>
http://www.banneroftruth.org/pages/articles/article_detail.php?601 :
>
> "The talks given at the 2002
Auburn Avenue Pastors' Conference
> (AAPC) at the Auburn Avenue Presbyterian
Church in Monroe,
> Louisiana, raising questions about the
orthodox Reformed doctrines
> of justification by faith alone, the
covenants, election,
> perseverance, and the sacraments, have
become well known
> subsequently throughout the Reformed
community. The book we are
> reviewing here consists of the papers
given on these and other
> related subjects, delivered at a
specially called colloquium (hosted
> by the editor, Dr. F. Calvin Beisner)
in Southern Florida during
> August 2003. The papers were exchanged
and discussed, by seven of
> the Auburn Avenue Theology/Federal
Vision proponents and by seven of
> its critics. The former are John
Barach, Peter J. Leithart, Rick
> Lusk, Steve M. Schlissel, Tom
Trouwborst, Steve Wilkins, and Douglas
> Wilson. The critics of the Federal
Vision are Christopher A.
> Hutchinson, George W. Knight, III,
Richard D. Phillips, Joseph A.
> Pipa, Jr., Carl D. Robbins, Morton H.
Smith; and R. Fowler White."
>
> Mr. Trouwborst is a noted *proponent*
of the Federal Vision, having
> publicly written in its defense.
>
> Some other defenders of Norman
Shepherdism (including Dr. Richard
> Gaffin), Federal Vision, etc. have been
more "careful" in the way
> they go about it. These speak with more forked lips, even as
many
> did in the old Free Church before the
Declaratory Act. One day they
> subscribe to this, while the next day
they are subtly tearing down
> the very thing they subscribed to on
another day.
>
> I think Mr. Schwertley was justified in
what he wrote at
>
http://www.reformedonline.com/view/reformedonline/The%20Current%
>
20Crisis%20in%20the%20OPC%20and%20PCA.htm , based upon what I have
> read in various sources.
>
>
Sample Post #9
--- In r-f-w@yahoogroups.com,
Matthew Vogan <mavogan@...> wrote:
>
> Dear Friends
>
> I've no
desire to prolong this discussion as such. I thought, however, I would make a
few brief remarks for what they are worth. It seems to me that there is not a lot
of difference between the comments made in Dr Somerset's brief article and the
review of Schwertley's book by Gavin Beers in the FCC magazine for December
2006 as below. Neither represents a Church court pronouncment on the matter. Both simply highlight the debate, highlight
a particular perspective that particular commentators have adopted in relation
to it and comment on it. I'm sure that if anyone has been able to identify
factual inaccuracies in his brief article, Dr Somerset would be glad to hear from
them. His contact details will be found in the details of the Aberdeen
congregation section on www.fpchurch.org.uk .
>
> In Scottish
Churches we have a process for discipline which goes back at least 300 yrs and
we refer to when a fama clamosa (widespread rumour) or open scandal surrounds
certain men involcing serious scandal or manifest heresy, in this case there is no need of a specific
accuser and the presbyteries which have the oversight of such men are under an
obligation to take action for their own vindication so that the fama is
quietened and at least to establish the innocence of the innocent or
otherwise. I don't think that this
provision is in the OPC Book of Discipline but I may be wrong.
>
> I hope that
folk understand that "nosy bystanders" or not, some of us are
genuinely concerned at the rise of this doctrinal error and that despite our
differences with the OPC we are alarmed if it will not address whether this
error is being held and propagated within its bounds. Would it be better if we
didn't care less and just turned a blind eye?
>