Back to Steelite Controversy Correspondence

[December 18, 1996]. Richard Bacon to Greg Price. Dialogue.

To: Greg Price

From: Richard Bacon

Subject: Re: Request To Dialogue (fwd)

At 08:17 PM 12/18/96 -0700, Greg Price wrote:

>I am sorry to take so long to reply to your last post. We are in the

>process of moving (packing etc.). However, I will try to squeeze in a

>brief response. I do appreciate your correspondence and continue to pray

>that through these means, God will bring us to one mind. Brother, you are

>in our thoughts and prayers. God be with you.

No problem. Lots going on here as well.

>The problem we faced was one in which we had come to firm convictions that

>the terms of communion in the Reformation Presbyterian Church were

>contrary to the biblical and covenanted reformation as attained to in the

>Church

>of Scotland (1638-1649). We then realized the Reformation Presbyterian

>Church was not rightly constitituted by virtue of what I just mentioned as

>well as by virtue of not having formally taken vows as church officers.

>We yet believe we acted appropriately in dissociating ourselves and then

>calling the Reformation Presbyterian Church to repentance in light of the

>unconstituted establishment of the Reformation Presbyterian Church.

That was NOT the problem you wrote to us about in February (nor earlier still in December). You did not express that this was a case of conscience at that time and in fact as late as February continued to assure me that separation was NOT on your agenda.

In your opinion, the RPC was not rightly consitituted prior to March of 1995. So, please explain what irremedial position the the RPC had taken that prohibited your calling the presby to repentance prior to your departure?

>It is true that we sinfully agreed to accept the statement to which

>you refer above. We have repented of our sin and have asked the Reformation

>Presbyterian Church and the Puritan Reformed Church to forgive us for

>agreeing to what we now believe to have been perjury on our parts in

>disowning the SLC. What did you precisely understand the following

>statement

>to mean: *It is not necessary

>to take the covenant of the three kingdoms*? This seems to be one of

>the most significant issues that separates us. We (the session of

>Edmonton) understood that

>we were abjuring the Solemn League and Covenant as not obligating us (as

>did

>Bruce Robinson).

>Can you explicitly explain whether you believe the Solemn League and

>Covenant is

>perpetually binding upon posterity (and if you believe it is, what aspects

>of the covenant bind posterity?). Are only blood-line descendants bound?

>Are any nations today bound by the SLC? Are any churches so bound?

The very fact that you are using such terms as "sin and repentance" indicate that you regard the SL&C as the rule of faith and conscience.

"Not necessary" means that God alone is Lord of the conscience. I do not have Bruce Robinson's testimony as to *what* he understood. If he so understood it as you do, then why did he not leave the presbytery at the same time you did? Why has he not communicated to the presbytery?

>I couldn't agree with you more. However, our yeas cannot be yeas if our

>yeas lead us to sin. In such a case our yeas must become nays.

Exactly. You have made the SL&C the rule of faith and practice. By referring to the non-necessity of taking a particular covenant as a sin, you have made it the (or at least "a") rule of faith and practice.

(WLC 3)

What is the word of God?

The holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments are the Word of God, the only rule of faith and obedience.

(WSC 2)

What rule hath God given to direct us how we may glorify and enjoy him?

The Word of God, which is contained in the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, is the only rule to direct us how we may glorify and enjoy him.

>Our request for such a meeting as we proposed did not imply

>that nothing at all had happened. This meeting was intended to address

>exactly

>that issue: What has happened? Brother, how we handle disagreements in

>our

>marriage is one thing and whether or not we are married is another

>thing. What we are addressing is the matter that we could not discuss our

>*disagreements* while pretending as if we were married (when we believed

>we were not married).

I disagree with you. On the one hand we have a group claiming that it made UNLAWFUL vows (I do not refer here to rash vows, since such must be kept). Yet for you to be released from those vows, you have the burden to demonstrate that those vows were, in fact, unlawful. We do not believe that it is possible for two men to become lawfully married (or for one presently in the state of matrimony to vow to marry another, etc.); however, it is necessary for a couple who have lived as married to demonstrate that their vows were non-binding.

>You counted correctly. Math never was my favorite subject. I think I may

>have meant to say *these issues* rather than *three issues.* Oh well.

That makes sense.

>I must confess, I do not remember the discussion. If you do, please jog

>my memory. I believe that meeting was taped as well. Perhaps the tape

>would reveal what was said.

Quite simple really. Necessity implies some rule other than Scripture which binds the conscience. If you wish to take the SL&C (which I assume you have done), no bother to me. However, the term "necessity" implies precisely the position that y'all have now taken -- which I believe to be directly contrary to the doctrine of *sola Scriptura.*

>No, I never suggested that you had stubbornly refused to discuss these

>issues of conscience with us. However, neither did you agree to meet with

>us

>as

>we proposed so as to discuss these matters. Furthermore, we did not

>receive

>any offical response to

>our concerns which were addressed to the Reformation Presbyterian Church

>(except to note in the minutes that our Overture was not in the right form.

>We agree that under

>circumstances that would allow us to remain in a rightly

>constituted presbytery, we should take the steps outlined above. But that is

>the very assumption that has not been proven (Was it rightly

>constituted?). As

>we continued to indicate by

>means of email communication to the presbytery, we wanted to talk. We

>just could not do so while considering ourselves members of a

>presbytery that was not rightly constituted.

Your accusation that I did not agree to meet with you is simply not true.

We had a meeting of Presbytery scheduled to meet in Feb. of 1995 [sic 1996]. We were all willing to postpone that meeting until April in order to give your session time to prepare its case and to prosecute an overture. That does NOT demonstrate an unwillingness to talk, brother -- quite the opposite in my opinion. Again, if in February of 1995 [sic 1996] you believed that Presbytery was not rightly constituted, you could have brought that information, proved your case, called us to repentance, and so on. I cannot see from any of your argumentation thus far (including that which was sent to the Presbytery in March 1995 [sic 1996] and which you did not then follow up), that the Presbytery has done anything of an irremedial nature.

>> (2) It was a compromise of the position previously taken by the kirk of

>> Scotland with respect to uniformity of religion.

>

>I would add, it was an abominable abjuration of the covenanted

>reformation.

Yes, that is a more inflammatory way of saying the same thing.

>I am sorry if the question was too vague. Perhaps this may communicate my

>concern more clearly: Do we have a duty to dissociate ourselves from all

>ecclesiastical descendants of the Revolution Settlement Church of Scotland

>(i.e. all those churches that disown or disregard the attainments of the

>second reformation in their constitutions)?

See, that depends entirely on how you view "attainments." What is one person's "attainment" is another's "traditions of men." As far as the moral and perpetual obligations of the SL&C, I find them fully spelled out in the documents produced by the Assembly, including the Confession, Catechisms, Form of Presbyterial Church Government, and Directory for the Publick Worship of God, etc. And I adhere completely to those moral and perpetual obligations (attainments, if you prefer).

>> (4) What has that to do with us or with anything that took place prior to

>> your letter of disassociation?

>

>With all due respect brother, it has everything to do with our letter of

>dissociation. For the Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland has adopted in

>substance the original constitution of the Free Church of Scotland which

>adopted in substance the original constitution of the Revolution

>Settlement Church of Scotland. In other words, there is a direct line of

>ecclesiastical descent from the Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland to

>the Revolution Settlement Church of Scotland. I have already described

>the constitution of the Revolution Settlement Church of Scotland to be an

>abominable abjuration of the attainments of the second reformation (cf.

>Plain Reasons For Presbyterians Dissenting by Clarkson). Since one of

>those points of sinful and wilful abjuration was the neglectful silence

>concerning the previous burning and burying of the sacred covenants of

>Scotland and thus the necessary implication that *it was not necessary to

>take

>the covenant of the three kingdoms*, and since this was the language

>adopted toward the SLC at the first meeting in Atlanta, and since the

>Reformation Presbyterian Church subsequently adopted the standards of the

>Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland, it is directly to the point of our

>concern as to what you presently believe concerning the Free Presbyterian

>Church

>of Scotland (which church has not yet set the record straight concerning

>her own

>sinful abjuration of the attainments of the second reformation).

But you have not spelled out, other than your desire to take a 17th century vow for three (count 'em) kingdoms precisely WHAT is the abjuration of and what the attainment is. Are you seriously suggesting that not aligning ourselves with a 17th century document is sinful (that seems to be what I've read thus far in both your overture and your posts)? If so, then you have made that 17th century document the rule of faith and practice. Necessity is not laid upon me to hold the traditions of men -- else God shares the throne of my conscience with mortals.

>> (5) It is an immoral constitution. I think the second part of your question

>> was intended to ask a moral question, but I cannot tell what it is.

>

>Since you believe the U.S. Constitution is immoral, ought a Christian to

>hold an office which would require him to take an oath of allegiance to

>the constitution (and further, ought a Christian to vote for any one that

>will be required to take an oath of allegiance to the constitution)?

Of course not. One may not promise to sin. Why are you just now getting around to asking these questions?

>Thus, if I understand correctly the above biblical citation and response,

>you do believe that church officers may take subscription vows for

>other church officers without their consent or approval, or without such

>being understood by those witnessing the vows. Again I ask you

>to cite any presbyterian book of church order to that effect. You later

>imply that you agree that Mr. Barrow did not take vows for me. So what is

>the point of your argument here? Biblical covenants or vows that bound

>suceeding generations, were understood by those who were

>present that such was the case.

And I so understood the promises I made on July 22, 1995. I made those promises for me. Mr. Seekamp, as the duly appointed representative of the First Presbyterian Church of Rowlett, made them for the church. Any subsequently elected officers of FPCR must adhere to the same subscription.

>This is precisely my point, this was not the case as it relates to me (i.e

>even assuming for the sake of argument that Mr. Barrow took a

>legitimate vow by which he himself is bound, no one understood that Mr.

>Barrow was taking a vow on my behalf of Mr. Price).

I agree that your status was not being represented by Mr. Barrow. I do, however, understand that he was there for the Edmonton church qua church.

>Dick, I intend no disrespect, but I must ask: Why have you had access to

>this video tape while others have been denied access to this video tape?

>I understand Bruce Robinson asked David Seekamp if he could view this tape

>and was denied access to it.

I have no knowledge of others being denied access to anything. The videos are mine. They are not and never have been regarded as an official document or property of the presbytery. Since Mr. Seekamp does not have access himself I'm not sure how he could "deny" access to another.

>My point in directing you to the Free

>Presbyterian Book of Church Order was to demonstrate that minutes (even

>approved minutes) may be subsequently corrected if they are found to be

>in error. Moreover, since there is no higher court to

>which to appeal in such a matter, the presbytery itself may subsequently

>correct its own minutes if they are in error. To maintain a contrary

>position is to say that error that is formally approved, is error that

>can never be corrected until there is a higher court. Is that your

>understanding of approved minutes?

Not at all. Nor has anything I have said implied such. What I *have* stated is that there is an onus probandi that falls to those who believe that approved minutes are incorrect.

>Dick, the nature of the motion (it appears to me as I read the minutes)

>was simply to approve the subscription statement

>as one by which officers would subsequently be admitted into the

>presbytery. If it were clearly understood by all to be the case that they

>were formally taking vows then it is unclear to me why it was necessary to

>add the notation that this motion constituted vows on the part of all who

>voted. Thus, this is the reason why we have appealed to a tape of the

>meeting to

>determine whether that notation was made clear. For without that

>notation, I would not understand that the motion was any more than a

>motion to approve of the wording of the subscription statement. Whether

>our session approved of the subscription statement at that time is not

>really relevant to the issue. Even if we maintain we did approve of the

>wording of the statement and that our approval was so indicated by Mr.

>Barrow's vote,

>the issue of whether vows were consciously taken still remains.

OK, we disagree on this point; but please allow me to assume your pov for the sake of some agreement. If it is the case that Mr. Barrow did believe the subscription statement was the one by which officers would *subsequently* be admitted to the presbytery, why did he vote for it?

Was he willing *at some future unspecified date* to subscribe it? If so, then how might he or any other conscionable reader have understood the term "covenant" as used in the document? If he later changed his mind, and believed that it was an unlawful requirement that would *at some future unspecified date* become necessary for officers to subscribe, then why was it necessary to withdraw *prior* to that future date coming about, when there was still opportunity to call the presbytery to repentance?

>I cannot possilbly understand how if that were understood

>by all, how the majority of officers who were present at that meeting deny

>that such

>formal vows were consciously taken. Again I request you

>to provide me with either a copy of that tape or a transcript of the

>tape that would help clarify this whole matter. Thanks Dick.

Well, I cannot understand how people who have behaved in the manner that has been done will stand before the judgment seat of Christ and expect to be exonerated. But obviously you disagree with me on that.

You say that you are asking "again." Please produce a copy of your first or subsequent request.

As I have stated to you in previous posts, I am fully willing to "dialog" as a private believer. Further, that is all either of us has done. I would say the same thing is true of any correspondance you may have had with Messrs. Robinson and Seekamp, or Dr. Crick. None of these things has come before Presbytery for resolution.

You do not think you have done anything wrong. I think the session of Edmonton PRC has behaved itself badly. I think you have been hasty and rash. Further, I think some of the statements that you made to me prior to the March 1995 [sic 1996] disassociation were misleading at best.

What else would you like to "dialog" about? I think I've answered your five questions, but if I have been unclear about any of it, let me know and I'll try to clarify my positions.

[Dick Bacon]