Back to Steelite Controversy Correspondence

October 19, 1996. Greg Price to Richard Bacon. Re: Request to Dialogue.

Date: Sat, 19 Oct 1996 11:18:08 -0600 (MDT) From: Greg Price

To: Richard Bacon

Subject: Re: Request To Dialogue

On Sat, 19 Oct 1996, Richard Bacon wrote:

> Greg,

>

> At 05:42 PM 10/18/96 -0600, prcedm@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca wrote:

> >

> >Dear Dick,

> >

> >Members of our session have communicated with other members of The

> >Reformation Presbyterian Church in the past several months. However, we

> >have not corresponded directly with you or your session. I would like to

> >know if you would be interested in engaging in a dialogue with me

> >concerning any matters related to our dissociation, or matters related to

> >our convictions concerning church or state? As we have expressed in

> >writing and in verbal communication, so I emphasize again: We do desire

> >to be reconciled together as one body again. However, the

> >conscientious reasons for our necessary dissociation must first be

> >addressed. If you are interested, you may begin by stating your question,

> >observation, conviction etc. I hope to hear from you soon.

>

> Presbytery have always stood ready to listen to you. Please remember that

> the "dialog" was not cut-off at this end, but at yours. Obviously, what

> you are asking me is a personal question, but the question needs to be

> taken up presbyterially since it is Presbytery with whom you have to do,

> and not simply me (or the session of FPCR).

Dick,

Thank you for responding to my post. Brother, I disagree that the dialogue was cut off on our end. We have spoken with and written members of Reformation Presbyterian Church individually. But we have not received correspondence from members of The Reformation Presbyterian Church which we did not first initiate. Furthermore, we have addressed several communications to The Reformation Presbyterian Church as a whole, and have not yet received communication or dialogue concerning reasons for our decision to dissociate. In answer to specific questions we addressed to the clerk, we have received correspondence. Other individual members of The Reformation Presbyterian Church have been willing to dialogue with us about matters related to the formation of and dissociation from The Reformation Presbyterian Church. Here we are expressing our willingness to address all of the issues that concern our dissociation, and yet we are unable to do so in any other forum than before the courts of The Reformation Presbyterian Church. Brother, here we reach an impasse. For you maintain that we must recognize your jurisdiction and compear before your courts which is to in effect to declare our dissociation to be sinful. We maintain that we cannot recognize your courts until we have settled certain issues that led to our dissociation. Thus, we cannot discuss our dissociation apart from the matters of truth and conscience that led to our dissociation. If I might paraphrase the problem: You want us to make null and void our dissociation and begin by admitting our sin in that matter by compearing before your courts; whereas we want to begin by discussing in an informal forum the reasons which led to our dissociation. Dick, we can no more concede to this request, than our protesting forefathers would acquiesce to the demands of the resolutioner Assemblies to compear before their *pretended* courts. If you maintain the only way to resolve these issues is first to appear before you and confess our sin, then we will never get to the matters that led to our dissociation.

> My personal advice (and that is all it is) would be for you to approach

> the Presbytery in the manner in which it should have been approached in

> the first place. You cannot, IMO, have it "both ways." On the one hand

> you wish to overture presbytery and at the same meeting of presbytery

> we were presented with a letter claiming that presbytery had no jurisdiction

> with respect to the Edmonton PRC.

Yes, we did decline the jurisdiction of The Reformation Presbyterian Church. But we did so for reasons--reasons which we have stated in writing. Reasons for which we have yet not received any answer--except to acknowledge our sin in doing so by compearing before your courts.

> My recollection (I do not have minutes before me) is that the last

> meeting of presbytery returned Edmonton PRC's previous documents (being

> an overture and a letter of dissociation) with the request that they

> be resubmitted in accordance with standard presbyterian practice. That

> was intended to be a very CLEAR signal of presbytery's willingness to

> listen.

Yes, we read of the motion that was made in the minutes of your last meeting. However, we have not received any official communication as to what that motion means.

> IMO, what should first be addressed is the MANNER in which the Edmonton

> PRC chose to dissociate itself. When we are agreed as to what are the

> proper procedures in jus divinum presbyterian government, then I think the

> issues you raised are both interesting and addressable. You see, we

> have NEVER refused to listen. What we have refused to do is agree

> without ever hearing the arguments on floor of presbytery. I must admit

> that I have continued to regard the manner in which the session of the

> Edmonton PRC approached this whole matter to be either extremely

> uninformed or else simply unfair in expecting people to agree without

> having heard a clear and succinct argument put forth in its favor. If

> you truly have a case of conscience, that is fine -- but cases of

> conscience, as our standards clearly teach, are to be resolved by the

> government of the church acting in presbyterial fashion:

>

> WCF XXXI:3

> It belongeth to synods and councils ministerially to determine

> controversies of faith, **and cases of conscience;** to set down rules

> and directions for the better ordering of the publick worship of God,

> and government of his church; to receive complaints in cases of mal-

> administration, and authoritatively to determine the same: which

> decrees and determinations, if consonant to the word of God, are to

> be received with reverence and submission, not only for their agreement

> with the word, but also for the power whereby they are made, as being

> an ordinance of God, appointed thereunto in his word.

> [Hypertext (c)1995 Blue Banner Ministries. Used by permission.]

Dear brother, it comes to this again: We cannot get to the MATTER of why we dissociated until we first consider the MANNER in which we dissociated.

But is not the Manner of dissociation dependent upon the Matter of dissociation. If we had just cause for immediate dissociation, would that not effect the way in which we dissociated? What I am saying is simply this: How would you ever be able to conclude whether our MANNER was biblical, unless we first discussed the MATTER?

> Please understand, however, when I say that the only way I would be willing

> to vote that the Edmonton PRC has standing before presbytery would be if

> the Edmonton PRC were willing to commit to abide by any biblical ruling

> of presbytery. Otherwise there is not really a jus divinum association;

> merely a group of independent churches meeting together for an exchange

> of ideas. I do not believe that is what we are.

This is one of the important issues that need to be discussed, namely that of jus divium association. It specifically relates to our separation.

But we cannot discuss it because we must first confess our willingness to be ruled by a decision made by The Reformation Presbyterian Church.

> I would also like to see a willingness on the part of someone in the

> Edmonton PRC to address the matter that took place between Chris Coldwell

> of the FPCR and Reg Barrow of the Edmonton PRC last December - February.

> At the time you told me that Reg and Chris should work it out between

> themselves, while Reg was telling Chris that his session was intending to

> work it out with presbytery.

I would be willing to help in any way that I can, but you see brother, the matters over which Reg and Chris disagree are a microcosm of our areas of disagreement. *Can two walk together, except they be agreed?* Their inability to resolve their problems is related to our inability to resolve our problems. Brother, I invite you to sit with us around the table to seek by God's grace to resolve our differences.

Respectfully,

Greg L. Price

> Dick Bacon

> dbacon@airmail.net

> Pastor, First Presbyterian Church of Rowlett, TX

> http://web2.airmail.net/bluebanr

>

> There is no such thing as preaching Christ and Him crucified, unless

> we preach what now days is called Calvinism. It is a nickname to

> call it Calvinism; Calvinism is the Gospel.

> Charles Spurgeon - "The Early Days"