David Lynn

@StephenAdams26 @nc_reformed @ReformedArsenal The presbytery should then determine whether or not the accusations are credible, and if necessary proceed to a BCO 31-2 investigation to determine whether or not there is a strong presumption of guilt.

@StephenAdams26 @nc_reformed @ReformedArsenal The issue is that the BCO does not permit the session to conduct an investigation of a TE. If a TE is accused of a chargeable offense, the matter should be immediately referred to presbytery.

An important update from the SAC elders.

@irishpresby In other words, the restriction is de facto already there! Whether it is enforced or not is a different story, but I don’t see why a court would have act to restrict such teachings.

@irishpresby Why would a court have to impose such a restriction on an officer? The exception granted for a stated difference does not change the constitutionally binding theological standards of the PCA. A member could file a complaint for teachings in violation of the Westminster Standards.

Presbyteries should restrict ministers under their jurisdiction from publicly teaching their granted exceptions. #PCA General Assemblies in the past have upheld this view. “When a man is ordained with the allowance of exceptions to his full acceptance of the PCA standards, he thereby obtains 1) approval of his suitability to function within the ordained office, and 2) liberty to believe and live in some way not fully in accord with some portion of those standards. This allowance of exceptions, however, does not warrant his teaching or preaching of that matter so as to disturb the peace and purity of the church. The court of jurisdiction must determine in each situation whether such unwarranted actions have occurred.” M14GA, 1986, 14-52, 13, 125-26 “Presbyteries do have jurisdiction over TEs and have authority to restrict a minister from preaching views which the presbytery is convinced may be harmful to the spiritual welfare of the churches under its care.” M18GA, 1990, Appendix A, Attachment 1.B, 205 Others such as Guy Waters have written: “The church has an interest in and a right to determine whether or if exceptions may be taught in its bounds. Officers, furthermore, serve on the terms set by the church. They are instruments of the church as the church bears witness to the truth before the world. For these reasons, the church may require its officers to refrain from teaching their exceptions. When the church does so, it does no violence to the candidate’s liberty of conscience.” See Waters, Taking Exception. I have argued that PCA presbyteries ought to restrict teachings that violate our standards. pcapolity.com/2024/11/19/pre…

@ZGroff In his holy and perfect nature, Jesus did not have sinful desires. We, on the other hand, must mortify our sin by God’s grace, which includes our sinful desires. It’s sad to see it being argued that desires contrary to God’s word can be anything but sin.

@ZGroff I wonder if they are using Heb. 4:15 as the basis for this idea, that since Jesus was tempted, temptation itself is not sin. Obviously, the essential difference is our sinful nature vs the holy and sinless nature of the Lord Jesus.

Important developments from the Evangelical Presbyterian Church. I’m sad to see a limp-wristed response to so-called “Side B Gay Christianity” when what is needed is a strong rejection of this heinous error. I’m thankful for our NAPARC churches (ARP, RPCNA, PCA) that have held the line on this point.

@ZGroff Perhaps where I would push back against the EPC’s characterization is that Jesus did not have any fallen, sinful desires. We are different from Christ in this regard, and as such we are indeed to mortify our sin by God’s grace, which includes our sinful desires.

@mikekhandjian @ZacharyGarris Whoa, brother! That is not how this works. Think of the regulative principle - we don’t do whatever we want unless Scripture forbids it. No, Scripture positively directs how we do things in the PCA.

@ZacharyGarris I don't need on, any more than any other term. You need one to prohibit it.

In the PCUSA, the term “shepherdess” is sometimes used informally to refer to a female pastor. The PCA doesn’t allow female pastors or elders. So why are some PCA churches using a term for women that is associated with ordination?

@jrwhitehead @GeorgeSayour Not true at all. But the most proper avenue to address an issue involving sin is through the disciplinary process. Nobody has charged the MNA coordinator with sin in the courts of the church, so an elder accusing him of such sin in a speech on the floor is entirely out of order.

@GeorgeSayour Then you have a rule that no one can be fired for good reasons by the GA. The personalities and motive rules keep debate focused on the merits. But the merits here are the person, under this motion. If you’re right about personalities, that means no firing persons.

@CPresbyterian73 Since you’ve targeted a PCA elder who is married with children and called him a homosexual, what should he do if there’s no place for him in the church? I guess you’ll be able to avoid charges for your rhetoric by hiding behind your anonymous handle.

Remember when the #pcaga said they fixed this problem? Now these guys are talking down real men who preach the word. When is the PCA going to finally stand up? Homosexuals have no place in the church. They will destroy it.

@VivekGRamaswamy Nah. The pledge is an idolatrous pile of garbage written by a socialist.

Bring back the Pledge of Allegiance & the national anthem in the classroom - daily.

@elonmusk Excellent, but Trump only earns that title if he can end Daylight Savings Time.

Greatest President ever!

@PNWOzarker @BlakeReap @jeretics @presbyterianpew @sassiterian @fredgreco I don't think that position is a very charitable read on the theology or even the intelligence of the Westminster divines.

@BlakeReap @jeretics @presbyterianpew @sassiterian @fredgreco This was probably an off hand thing by Dorioni in my ethics class, but I remember him saying Westminster is so strict on the Sabbath that it would be a sin for a Christian to sleep on the Lord's day.

For those PCA TEs who do NOT take an exception w/ regards to the recreation clause of the fourth commandment in WLC: Do y'all have a nursery at church? How do you keep your toddlers from playing with toys on the Lord's Day?

@FrankCapraJr @brothernelson pcahistory.org/pca/digest/stu…

@brothernelson Could you link that report?

🚨PCA DEACONESS REPORT: FINDINGS🚨 I have recently concluded an investigation into the many churches in the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA) to determine whether any of them have female deacons (or “deaconesses” as they are commonly called) listed on their websites. I am now ready to release my initial findings. This data comes from readily available information on PCA church websites, taking these sites at face value, as this is how the churches have chosen to present themselves.

@FrankCapraJr This one at least clearly notes that they are "assistants to the current deacons." FWIW Jason Helopolous is well on the intentionally reformed/confessional side of the PCA.

Great Lakes Presbytery

@JeridEvan Absolutely, a presbytery or session could certainly require a background check without a constitutional mandate in the BCO. Preliminary Principle 2.

@JeridEvan @Jim7699 I can't tell if this is a serious proposal or not. 😬

@Moon_light2106 Correct me if I’m wrong, but I’m not even sure that a complaint is the proper avenue to adjudicate abuse. 34-3 seems to indicate that charges should be brought via another member of the presbytery.

Sixth, a complaint is only supposed to be filed against an "action" of the court (the Session), and there is a time limit to when it can be filed. Most cover-ups and mishandling of abuse is more properly inaction, not an official action taken.

When it comes to abuse and filing complaints there are many limitations in the PCA: First and foremost, under no circumstances can a member of a church directly file a complaint with the Presbytery. It must first be presented to, considered, and voted upon by the Session.