 |
January 9, 1997. Greg Price to Richard Bacon. Dialogue
Date: Thu, 9 Jan 1997 21:44:15 -0700 (MST) From: Greg Price
To: Richard Bacon
Subject: Re: Request To Dialogue (fwd)
Dick,
We are finally getting settled in from our move and hope I will be able to reply to email messages more regularly.
On Thu, 19 Dec 1996, Richard Bacon wrote:
> At 08:17 PM 12/18/96 -0700, prcedm@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca wrote:
>
> >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.
It was not a case of conscience until March. When it became a case of conscience we wrote to you explaining our reasons for dissociation. The reason separation never came up in our email correspondence in December or February was because we were not considering it at that point in time.
>
> 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?
We never indicated that the situation in the RPC was *irremedial.* We stated we could not be apart of a *pretended* presbytery which had not been lawfully constituted and whose terms of communion were contrary to our own. We have always maintained that our dissociation from the RPC could be remedied if the constitutional issues and terms of comunion were resolved.
>
> >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?
We do not regard either the National Covenant (NC) or the Solemn League and Covenant (SL&C) as *the rule of faith and conscience.* We do regard these covenants as subordinate standards that are agreeable to the Word of God which is *the only infallible rule of faith and practice.* Thus, because these covenants (and all the standards emitted by the Westminster Assembly) are agreeable to the Word, approved by a lawful General Assembly, and specifically bind the ecclesiastical and national descendants of Scottish, English, and Irish Presbyterianism, we are bound to them.
Dick, was it necessary to subscribe the Westminster Confession of Faith?
Why was it necessary to subsribe the WCF but not the SL&C? Was it necessary for Rutherford, Gillespie, or Brown to swear these covenants?
To say that it is necessary to take these covenants (or the WCF), or to say that it is sinful not to take these covenants is not to make them our infallible rule of faith and practice, nor is it to deny sola scriptura (if such were the case we would condemn both the first and second reformation for the reformers insisted it was necessary (not for salvation, but for faithfulness to the precepts of God) to own faithful covenants and confessions. They are *a* rule of faith and practice (not *the* rule of faith and practice) because they are agreeable to and founded upon God's Word. Such was the position of our reformers:
*Register of the Council of 24
12 November 1537. It was reported that yesterday the people who had not yet made their oath to the reformation were asked to do so, street by street; whilst many came, many others did not do so. No one came from the German quarter. It was decided that they should be commanded to leave the city if they did not wish to swear to the reformation.
26 November 1537. Some people have been reported to have said that it was perjury to swear to a confession which had be dictated to them in writing. . . [Farel or Calvin] replied that if the contents of the written confession were studied carefully it would be seen that this was not so, but that it was a confession made according to God. Examples from holy Scripture (in Nehemia and Jeremiah) proved that the people should all be assembled to swear to keep faith with God and observe his commandments.* Cited in _The Reformation in Germany and Switzerland by Johnson and Scribner, p. 138.
*What ever wee are obliged to believe and professe as the saving truth of God, that we may lawfully sweare to professe, believe and practice, that the bond of faith may be sure: but wee are obliged to believe and professe the national confession of a sound church. . . . and we also sweare a National covenant, not as it is mans word, or because the Church or Doctors, at the Churches direction, have set it down in such and such words, such an order or method, but because it is Gods Word, so that we sweare to the sense, and meaning of the platforme of confession, as to the Word of God; now the Word of God, and sense and meaning of the Word is all one; Gods Law and the true meaning of the Law are not two different things. . . . Therefore it is all one whether a Church sweare a confession, in expresse words of Scripture; or a covenantin other words expounding the Scriptures true meaning and sense according to the language and proper idiom of the Nation and Church; for we sweare not words or a platforme as it is such, but the matter, sense, and meaning of the Scriptures of God set downe in that platforme. . . . To sweare to the true religion, the defence and maintenance thereof is a lawful oath; as to sweare to any thing that is lawfull and lay a new band on our soules to performe holy duties, where we sweare a breach, and finde by experience there hath beena a breach; is also a dutie of morall and perpetual equity . . . . * (_The Due Right Of Presbyteries, Rutherford, pp. 132-134).
*At the treaty of Uxbridge, the propositions for relgion (of which the confirming of the covenant is the first and chiefest) were acknowledged to be of such excellency and absolute necessity, as they were appointed to be treated of the first place. . . . But their offence which still refuse to take the covenant is not only sinful in itself, but a great dishonour to God, a great scandal to the church, and withal a disobedience to the lawful ordinance of authority* (Miscellany Questions, Chapter XVI, Gillespie, pp. 85,86,87).
*It is a moral duty to abjure all the points of Popery, which was done in the national covenant; and it is a moral duty to endeavour our own reformation and the reformation of the church, which was sworn to in both covenants; it is a moral duty, to endeavour the reformation of England and Ireland, in doctrine, worship, discipline and government, which was sworn to in the league and covenant; it is a moral duty to purge out all unlawful officers out of God's house, and to endeavour the extirpation of heresy and schism, and whatsoever is contrary to sound doctrine, which was sworn to there also; it is a moral duty to do what God had commanded toward superiors, inferiors and equals, which, by the league and covenant, all were bound unto; and, therefore, the covenants are strongly obliging, being more absolute than other covenants, because they bind et vi materiae et vi sanctionis,--both by reason of the matter and by reason of the oath, and so are perpetual, Jer. l.5. . . .* (_ An Apologetical Relation, Brown, p. 173).
*Yet it is a sin to refuse an oath touching any thing that is good and just imposed by lawful authority* (WCF, 22:3).
Dick, all of the authorities cited above indicate that it is *necessary* to take a lawful covenant and not to do so is sin.
>
> >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.
Did the reformers contradict themselves in the necessity of taking lawful covenants, oaths, and vows? According to your view they must contradict their own standards, for WCF 22:3 affirms that it is a sin not take a lawful oath.
>
> >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.
I took no vows. No one took vows for me. Furthermore, approving the wording of a subscription statement and formally taking subscription vows are two different matters altogether. Moreover, even if (for the sake of argument) vows were taken, they cannot bind if they require us *to do any thing forbidden in the word of God, or what would hinder any duty therein commanded* (WCF 22:7). Since it was stated in the supposed formation of the RPC that it is *not necessary* to take the covenant of the three kingdoms, it would be necessary to disavow such an unlawfulvow for the reasons cited above.
>
> >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.*
If we have violated sola Scriptura by making the SL&C a necessity, so have the Westminster divines. For they made it such a necessity that not to take it meant enduring the censures of both the church and state.
>
> >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. 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 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 and which you did not then follow up), that the
> Presbytery has done anything of an irremedial nature.
You were unwilling to meet with us in any setting except one in which we would have to recognize your jurisdiction. We were willing to come to a meeting when you held your presbytery. We only asked that such a meeting with us not be held while you met in some *official* capacity.
>
> >> (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).
Then why was it necessary at the time of the second reformation to take the SL&C at all? If it did not add any thing by way of moral or perpetual obligation why was it the first and chief document emitted by the Assembly? If it was a moral obligation for them to take the SL&C, why is it not a moral obligation for us to take it? Do you consider the SL&C an attainment or a tradition of men?
>
> >> (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.
Who are the *posterity* bound by the SL&C (articles I & V)? Furthermore, *all his majesties dominions* are comprehended as descendants upon whom obligations fall (that includes Canada and the U.S.). Do you really think the passage of time releases posterity from its obligation to lawful covenants (*Are you seriously suggesting that not aligning ourselves with a 17th century covenant is sinful?*). Yes, the covenants are of moral and perpetual obligation upon *posterity.* We are both national and ecclesiastical posterity to those who swore the SL&C.
>
> >> (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.
The only problem is that it was not made clear that constitutional vows were being made.
>
> >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.
Yes, he represented the Edmonton Chruch,but he did not know he was taking a vow.
>
> >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.
Would you please send me a copy of the video of that meeting (July 1995)?
I will gladly reimburse you for your expenses.
>
> >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.
I would think that the testimony of a ruling elder and the moderator to the effect that no recollection of vows being taken would be sufficient to warrant further corroboration from other sources or other witnesses such as video tapes.
>
> >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?
At that point in time, he did approve of the wording of the subscription statement. That is why he voted for it. I have already addressed why it was necessary to withdraw from the presbytery in the manner we did.
>
> >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.
I do believe I had previously requested a copy of the tape (I do not have the time presently to look back at the email messages), but even if you are correct, I request that you send me a copy of the tape (at my expense of course).
>
> 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.
With Mr. Robinson's and Dr. Crick's dissociation from the RPC, do you believe there is yet a presbytery?
>
> 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 disassociation were misleading at best.
None of my statements were misleading at the time they were written. They represented my views. It was in the month of March that we realized we must dissociate in order to be faithful to the Lord.
>
> 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.
Could you cite any divine of the first or second reformation that holds your view that if a confession or covenant is considered *necessary* to take, that by that fact it replaces the Word of God and denies sola Scriptura?
>
> please visit our *NEW* website (URL below)
>
> Dick Bacon
> dbacon@airmail.net
> Pastor, First Presbyterian Church of Rowlett, TX
> http://www.fpcr.org/bluebanr/
>
> Dan. 2:44 And in the days of these kings shall the God
> of heaven set up a kingdom, which shall never be
> destroyed: and the kingdom shall not be left to other
> people, [but] it shall break in pieces and consume all
> these kingdoms, and it shall stand for ever.
| Page Created 08/17/1997 | Page Last Updated: 07/04/99 08:38:01 PM |