Tuesday, May 30, 2017

RC Sproul Jr Ruled Ineligible For Drug Court

RC Sproul Jr
On May 30, 2017 RC Sproul Jr appeared before Judge Frances C. Gull in Allen County Indiana Drug Court to determine his eligibility for the Drug Court Treatment Program. Had he qualified and successfully completed all the requirements of the Drug Court Treatment Program he could have avoided a criminal trial altogether. He might have even qualified to have his criminal record expunged.

However, as we noted previously, Drug Court only applies to misdemeanor charges. Being charged with two felonies, on top of the two misdemeanors, was an instant disqualification. So in our view petitioning to have his case referred to Drug Court had the appearance of an act of desperation.

Not only had RC Sproul Jr decided to get drunk and then drive, he decided to do so after placing his two minor children with him into the car (none of that was news to us -- he's been doing all that for years). Driving drunk with two minors netted him two felony charges, and they are the kind of charges which any judge takes very seriously, including Drug Court judges. As we predicted would happen, the two felony charges disqualified RC Sproul Jr from having his case referred to Drug Court.

So what's next for RC Spoul Jr? A criminal jury trial is scheduled to convene on June 6, 2017. Just prior to that on June 2 will be a Status Hearing before the trial Judge Wendy Davis. In all likelihood RC Sproul Jr's trial will be delayed while his attorney, Patrick Justin Arata, puts in various motions and does some last minute scrambling to put on the best possible case. Perhaps Mr. Arata might also depose the arresting officer.

As bleak as things appear to be for RC Sproul Jr it's likely his attorney will try to work out a plea deal to avoid the criminal trial. To do that RC Sproul Jr will have to plead guilty to one or two lesser charges in exchange for the prosecutor dropping the felony charges. Ideally Mr. Arata might get the Prosecutor to drop the felony charges. However, we're doubtful Prosecutor Karen Richards will go for that kind of deal. The risk of a public backlash, to her as an elected official, is too great.

Drunk driving with kids in the car is the sort of case that has too much likelihood of receiving local press attention, all the more so when the drunk is a preacher. When it comes to putting the lives of children so egregiously in danger it takes very little to ignite public outrage. Whether it be young or old, left or right, liberal or conservative, religious or non-religious, everyone cares deeply about the welfare of children. Those who put the lives of children in mortal danger easily earn the ire of the public. No Prosecutor wants to suffer a public backlash for being perceived as having gone soft on someone whom the public would hold in the highest of contempt.

What's especially remarkable about this case, and therefore makes it even more newsworthy, is that RC Sproul Jr is a well-known and very public spokesman for the Pro-Life movement. He's even raised a lot of money for various pro-life causes. RC Sproul Jr has characterized abortion as a terrible form of violence and a "holocaust" against the pre-born. Yet at the same time he treats his own children with total disregard for their safety, as though their lives had no value.

Drunk driving is a very serious problem that results in many thousands of deaths annually on America's highways, and many more thousands serious injuries, often resulting in permanent disability. Ironically when a drunk winds up killing and maiming others, she or he quite often walks away with few if any injuries. The general consensus of anyone who has been affected by a drunk driver is that they deserve to be imprisoned for many years. That's certainly the consensus of MADD, the largest anti-drunk driving organization in the country.

Unfortunately, drunk driving is so commonplace that the courts in many counties are literally overwhelmed with DUI cases. To cope with the case load the system, quite often, gives first and even second-time DUI offenders a break -- they get no jail time, provided they didn't crash and injure anyone. Much of the public disagrees with this and views no jail time for drunk drivers as a grave injustice. In their view drunk drivers are carnage on wheels, and it's only a matter of time before they kill and maim. No one should have to die before they get locked up.

Any jury that RC Sproul Jr stands before is likely to be comprised of citizens who hold to such views. He's going to have a very tough sell.

Labels: , , ,

16 Comments:

At 9:16 PM, Blogger William H. Smith said...

This is no doubt the place to come if you like your Christianity Pharisaical, unmerciful, and self-righteous. Here the goal is to break the bruised reed and snuff out the smoldering flax. It is also the place where the author and his fans are so confident of their rightness they refuse to publish comments which confront their "God I thank thee that I am not like RC Jr." spirit. I have seen this kind of thing too many time in 45 years of ministry not to recognize it for what it is. God save us from this unattractive and un-winsome distortion of the Gospel.

 
At 9:58 PM, Blogger RC 2.0 said...

Vicar Smith, thanks for stopping in. You say, "they refuse to publish comments which confront their "God I thank thee that I am not like RC Jr. spirit."

Now how exactly would you have determined this? Have you or anyone you know ever attempted to post a comment here before that we've ever failed to approve? In the future kindly refrain from bearing false witness and violating the 9th commandment.

The fact of the matter is it's quite rare that we don't approve a comment. We're quite open to criticism. For one thing it affords the opportunity of discourse, something we value and appreciate.

You wouldn't be the first to allege that we are our being "Pharisaical, unmerciful, and self-righteous." But just like all the others you fail to prove your point, and you've offered nothing new or the least bit enlightening that could help us see your point. You do bring a certain irony, however, especially in light of the fact that being "Pharisaical, unmerciful, and self-righteous" is exactly what we've been calling RC Jr out for for years. >Here's a recent example.

 
At 6:44 AM, Blogger William H. Smith said...

Yes, you failed to post a comment I made on your previous post. That comment was submitted anonymously, and it was not published. So, no, I did not break the 9th Commandment.

The truth is that a Blog which is wholly devoted to exposing and commenting on the sins and travails of one man is something akin the Blogs and Facebook posts I have seen which are wholly devoted to criticism of and opposition to the President. When you are anti-anyone all the time - when that is the reason a site exists - it is impossible to maintain balance and all but impossible not to report and comment with glee on the latest development. This bumps up against the 9th Commandment which requires that have care for the reputation of our neighbor and not to call attention his sins unless you personally have the obligation or necessity to do so.

I do not know R.C. Jr, have never heard him speak, read nothing more than an occasional Blog post of his, do not approve his earlier ministerial conduct (assuming the accuracy of the reports concerning his discipline), and disagree with him about a great many things. I have appreciated much of the ministry of his father.

But I do not, as you, conclude that he is not an erring Christian brother. I believe we are to use the judgment of charity. If he is a member of the visible church and has not renounced his faith, then we are obligated to regard him as a brother and to leave any judgment to the contrary to whatever ecclesiastical body for which he is a member. Jesus delivered the keys to the kingdom, not to individuals or Blogs or para-church groups, but to his church.

I believe that, if you have confronted him in person and with one or two others confronted him him, then the next and final step which you have authority to take is to tell it to the church and then to leave the judgment to the church - not create a Blog wholly devoted to exposing the sins of the erring Christian to the public.

I also believe that we are called to remember that we are sinners in need of mercy who extend mercy to other sinners - which includes compassion for the sinner regarding sufferings he has brought on himself. I have seen such situations and had to deal with them many times. A person messes up badly, is publicly exposed, and in a legally vulnerable position. The longer I live the more I see how much mercy I have received and need. In the case of those we are obligated to regard as Christians, we should never name them as Hosea named one of his children - No Mercy.

I could go on. I believe you are wrong about the salutary effects of imprisonment and about the compatibility of AA with the Christian faith, for instances. I also think of the effects of all this on his parents. (Yes, it's his fault his parents know this pain, but I also believe we should not add to their grief.)

I do see the "God, I thank thee that I am not like RC Jr" here. I Do not see mercy here. But, you are so convinced of the rightness of what you are doing that I do not think you will stop. As I wrote in the comment you did not publish, more and more I see what King David meant, when confronted with possibilities of discipline, said, "Let me not fall into the hand of man."

http://thechristiancurmudgeonmo.blogspot.com/search?q=hand+of+man

 
At 9:21 AM, Blogger RC 2.0 said...

Vicar Smith, if you mean this comment then you are mistaken. Or perhaps you mean this comment? There are no comments in well over a month which have not been approved and responded to. Kindly refrain from the false accusations.

You have been wrong about most of what you have said, and you continue being wrong. That's not to say you're not entitled to your opinions, which you are, just that you've done a poor job of making them and defending them. You ignore the fact that several others have raised the same exact arguments on this blog before, all of which we've replied to. They, like you, make their arguments with an air of authority, claiming their opinions are biblical, when in point of fact they are not.

However, you are correct about this blog being "wholly devoted to exposing and commenting on the sins and travails of one man." We make no apologies for that.

Your "tell it to the church" argument was long ago pursued. Sproul was defrocked from the ministry for just cause. That should have been the end of it; but he refused to acknowledge the judgment: "Most importantly, their actions manifest that they lack the qualification for the ministry (1Timothy 3:1-7). It would be unwise to allow these men to continue to hold an office for which they are not qualified."

Sproul's refusal to acknowledge that judgment of the Presbytery that ordained him in the first place created a scandal in which he deliberately pitted his supporters, including his own father, against the RPCGA. The church at large had been told. But factions of "the church" refused the church's judgment.

You may be of the opinion that we started a blog war. We did not. RC Sproul Jr started the blog war, with the resultant scandal, over ten years ago on his Highlands Study Center (now Highlands Ministries) web site. We'll never know if anyone ever confronted Sproul for instigating a blog war because, unlike this blog, he didn't permit comments.

Sproul is a renegade and those who have actively supported him have, therefore, aided and abetted a renegade. They, like Sproul, need to repent. His supporters also need to repent of foolishly and ignorantly supporting his abuses of alcohol. They though they were doing him a favor. Now he's likely headed for prison. How was that doing him any favors?

As to your interpretation of "tell it to the church" we encourage you to read Contumacy Is The New Black. There are direct applications to RC Sproul Jr, not just in how he tyrannized members of his St. Peter Presbyterian Church, but also the aftermath of his defrocking. Don't neglect to also read Steve Scott's comment. Steve raises some very important points as to how clergymen, such as yourself, interpret "tell it to the church" as meaning "tell it to the elders." As far as elders are concerned once that's been done, and once they've made a decision, that's the end of it, and the so-called "laity" have no further recourse.

We disagree; not about telling the elders, but in believing that if the elders fail to act justly, or if they do act justly but the disciplined party (such as RC Sproul Jr) becomes a renegade, that that's the end of it and there's nothing more that can be done.

Elders do not have the last word, particularly where they have shown themselves to be ineffective, or apathetic, or incompetent, or duplicitous, or eager to silence all opposition.

 
At 11:02 AM, Blogger William H. Smith said...

First, why do you refer to me as Vicar Smith? Are you seeking the right way to address an Episcopal clergyman? Then, address me as Mr. Smith or Fr. Smith, or Fr. Bill, or, if you like, just Bill. But perhaps you have a point to make by addressing me as Vicar Smith. "Vicar Smith" smirk maybe?

You need to stop accusing me of lying. I submitted a comment. It was not published. Perhaps something went wrong in the process. But I made no false accusation against you.

Sproul is presently under an ecclesiastical authority. It is for that body to make judgments concerning him. God did not call you to do it. Sometimes church bodies make decisions we like; sometimes decisions we don't like. In any case we leave the judgment of a person to the ecclesiastical body of which he/she is a member. Sorry you don't like like it, but this is the way the King of the Church set it up.

The more I read this Blog and the comments the more sure I am that you that you have set yourself in the judgment seat. You do not respect ecclesiastical authority unless it does what you think it does. You have a "mean on" about R.C. Sproul, Jr. and it appears to consume you to the extent that you have convinced yourself that whatever you do to focus on and expose one man you hate is right, that you are serving Christ and the kingdom of God. But you are not. You are serving your own personal animus toward RC Jr. and covering it with a cloak of righteousness. Your crusade is not righteous, not edifying, not honoring of the church of Jesus, and does not advance the kingdom. Further you have not come to terms with "First go and learn mercy."

I do not know what God will do, but perhaps you will yourself one day be in the need of mercy, and then you will see how important mercy is. You will find yourself in need of merc. I hope that does not happen to you, but I hope by some lesser means you will learn mercy towards sinners, but seeing yourself as as a sinner who needs mercy and thus showing mercy to others.

What you have done with regard to RC Jr is to usurp the authority of the church. In a sense, in the case of RC Jr, you have made yourself the Pope who has final authority in matters regarding RC Jr. It in an obsessive spirit you reveal. You believe you are on a crusade for righteousness and that you have this assignment from God. Well, of course you don't, but you cannot see what is so obvious. I do hope you will come to your spiritual senses and find some other healthy way to use your zeal for the good of Christ's church.




 
At 6:47 PM, Blogger RC 2.0 said...

“Vicar Smith” was meant as no insult, quite the opposite. We’re more than happy to call you by what ever appellation you prefer, with the exception of “Father” — Matt 23:9 (but let’s please not head down that rabbit trail).

As to your original anonymous comment, why don’t you just go ahead and post it again; or if you don’t have it anymore feel free to post whatever you can remember of it. No need to keep beating a dead horse. We haven’t accused you of “lying.” We’ve accused you of bearing false witness. Lying is a deliberate and often malicious act. Bearing false witness could, however, be done unintentionally, such as through ignorance of the facts. That’s clearly what we believe you have done, and that is evidenced by our response, “then you are mistaken.” So please stop being so touchy. Can we please move on now?

“Sproul is presently under an ecclesiastical authority.” Once again you’re speaking with an air of enlightened authority, which strikes at us peculiar, especially given your second comment in which you offer a disclaimer of your almost complete ignorance of anything Sproul Jr. Do you have any genuine knowledge of anything related to him? If not then it might be wise for you to refrain from speaking as though you do.

RC Sproul Jr is NOT under, and has not submitted himself to, what we or likely even you would consider a legitimate ecclesiastical body with any actual authority over him. The CPC accepted his demittal in Dec 2016. He is under nobody’s authority. We’ve already stated that RC Sproul Jr is a renegade. What few times he’s actually ever placed himself under authority has been a sham to lend him an air of legitimacy. When it came time to having to actually submit in any way to that authority, or when he has been disciplined by them (such as the case of his defrocking by the RPCGA) he has rebelled, retaliated through slander, and then played the victim. Then he runs to daddy for a bailout which daddy is only too happy to provide.

As to your calls for mercy, what example have you set? You burst on the scene with both guns blazing, smearing us with your accusations, judgments and condemnations, not knowing the first thing about us, what we’ve been through, such the spiritual and emotional abuse we’ve been subjected to by RC Sproul Jr. You’re very selective in your calls for “mercy” and who rates it. No surprise there. Sproul is a clergyman (or at least a former one) and we’re only “laity.”

There’s an established pattern that we’ve been subjected to here many times prior:
1. Clergyman makes broad and unsupportable claims about RC Sproul, Jr, rooted in speculation and not fact.
2. Clergyman refuses to stand corrected about his ignorant assumptions.
3. Clergyman slanders us with accusations of being unmerciful, uncompassionate, judgmental, hateful, unforgiving, bitter, blah, blah, judging our motives without having any way of knowing our motives.
4. Clergyman sets a horrible example by hypocritically showing us nothing in the way of mercy, compassion, kindness, etc., that he demands we show Sproul Jr.
5. Clergyman assumes the role of Matthew 18 Police and twists scripture by effectively claiming that “tell it to the church” means “tell it to the elders and only the elders.”
6. Clergyman is later discovered to be of the same or similar ilk as RC Sproul Jr, i.e. unaccountable in any genuine way, a spiritual bully, tyrant, wolf in sheep’s clothing, sexual deviant, pedophile cover-up conspirator, etc. In addition to RC Sproul Jr some good examples of this are Doug Wilson, Doug Phillips, etc.

Now we’re not going to just assume, Mr. Smith, that you’re in that camp merely because your M.O., insofar as we can perceive it so far, is exactly the same as theirs. But experience has taught us that we have good cause to be skeptical of you. If you’re not in that camp you might want to back up, regroup, and try again.

 
At 11:01 AM, Blogger William H. Smith said...

You say:"“Vicar Smith” was meant as no insult, quite the opposite. We’re more than happy to call you by what ever appellation you prefer, with the exception of “Father” — Matt 23:9 (but let’s please not head down that rabbit trail)."

I say: You might note that the Apostle Paul was Timothy's father in the faith and that it is the practice of Presbyterians to address church courts with "Fathers and brethren." My personal practice is to encourage parishioners to call me just "Bill" but there is no Biblical prohibition against address as pastor as "Father." This is a rabbit trail we need to go down in order to put to rest your misuse of Mt. 23:9.

I say: No need on my part to try to reconstruct the unposted comment.

You say: "We haven’t accused you of “lying.” We’ve accused you of bearing false witness. Lying is a deliberate and often malicious act. Bearing false witness could, however, be done unintentionally, such as through ignorance of the facts. That’s clearly what we believe you have done, and that is evidenced by our response, “then you are mistaken.”

I say: The 9th Commandment against false witness is a commandment against lying against another person in various contexts. It does not forbid sincere mistaken statements. It remains that by accusing me of "bearing false witness" you have accused me of lying. I deny bearing false witness against you.

You say:
“Sproul is presently under an ecclesiastical authority.” Once again you’re speaking with an air of enlightened authority, which strikes at us peculiar, especially given your second comment in which you offer a disclaimer of your almost complete ignorance of anything Sproul Jr. Do you have any genuine knowledge of anything related to him? If not then it might be wise for you to refrain from speaking as though you do.

RC Sproul Jr is NOT under, and has not submitted himself to, what we or likely even you would consider a legitimate ecclesiastical body with any actual authority over him. The CPC accepted his demittal in Dec 2016. He is under nobody’s authority. We’ve already stated that RC Sproul Jr is a renegade,

I say: "I make the reasonable assumption that R.C. Sproul is under ecclesiastical authority from the statement of the Ligonier Board:We believe he will be well cared for by his church during this time of transition, and we pray for him in his future endeavors.' "His church" are the important words. Also it would be unusual for any Reformed denomination to accept a request to demit from a minister without in some way retaining his membership in the visible church, usually by assigning him to membership as layman in a local church. The only time that would not be the case would be if the person were excommunicated in which case he would be considered an unbeliever outside the visible church.

I say: No, I do not think of you as "just laity" in any way that implies an inferiority. I do believe that there are distinctions of responsibility between those who are ordained to the ministry of Word and Sacrament (TEs) or ministry of order (REs) and those who are not ordained. That is by Christ's appointment. It is similar to the equality of husband and wife with the husband called to leadership of the home.

 
At 11:32 AM, Blogger William H. Smith said...

I say: Your "observed pattern" and your not quite applying it to me (that is you give yourself room for plausible deniability) because you did did not quite quite accuse me of being "unaccountable in any genuine way, a spiritual bully, tyrant, wolf in sheep’s clothing, sexual deviant, pedophile cover-up conspirator, etc." You can then say, "Now I never said Smith was a ...". But what you imply is clear. That is reprehensible. It is slanderous. It is bearing false witness against me.

You say: "1. Clergyman makes broad and unsupportable claims about RC Sproul, Jr, rooted in speculation and not fact."

I say: Nope.

You say:"2. Clergyman refuses to stand corrected about his ignorant assumptions."

I say: Nope.

You say:"3.Clergyman slanders us with accusations of being unmerciful, uncompassionate, judgmental, hateful, unforgiving, bitter, blah, blah, judging our motives without having any way of knowing our motives."

I say: What and how you write leads me to reasonable observations conclusions about you.

You say: "4.Clergyman sets a horrible example by hypocritically showing us nothing in the way of mercy, compassion, kindness, etc., that he demands we show Sproul Jr."

I say: If you were in trouble because of your sins or providential ordering of your life I would respond to you with mercy. I would in the case of your being brought before a church court, if I were a member of that court, plead for mercy to be shown you." What I have written, however, is a response to content and manner of your writing.

You say: "5. Clergyman assumes the role of Matthew 18 Police and twists scripture by effectively claiming that “tell it to the church” means “tell it to the elders and only the elders.”

I say: What is the church? In the Bible it is not just any group of gathered Christians, or all the Christians in the world, or the readers of a Blog. The church is gathered under Christ's authority administered through men whom he calls to office. The church has a body of doctrine, a form of worship, preaches the Word and administers the Sacraments, has an order of government. It is a concrete, visible organism and organization on the earth. To whom do members concerned about the conduct of any member, whether officer or member? To those to whom Christ has given the keys of the kingdom. To those who have the authority given by Christ to oversee, investigate, discipline. Here you reveal a week ecclesiology - an unbiblical understanding of the church and its government as ordained by Christ.

You say: what I have already quoted as number 6. If you and I were members of the same church body I would ask the officers to inquire as to whether by what you wrote you have slandered me.

Now here is a pattern I observe:

1. A person(s) have a legitimate concern about a particular problem or person.

2. The person focuses more and more on that problem or person to the point that it tends to become a passion, even an obsession and creates a "grid" through which he sees situations and persons.

3. That person begins to see his/her mission in life, or a large part of his/her mission, to expose, criticize, oppose the problem or person. Sometimes this becomes so strong that the person(s) she himself/herself as a voice crying in the wilderness, speaking the truth to an indifferent, deluded, or hardened audience. This can in time morph into a Messianic complex.

4. Those who challenge this person(s) is blind to the truth, tolerant of immorality or heresy, and opposed to righteousness. Your experience (and the grid you have developed) make it possible to "know one when you see one."

Now I will give you some examples of this. Check out: Barbara Roberts and Cry for Justice. Check out the Wartburg Watch.




 
At 1:43 PM, Blogger RC 2.0 said...

Mr. Smith, you've responded only to insignificant points we made while ignoring the significant. We're not taking the bait by lending credence to minutiae with a response to minutiae. You're entitled to your Episcopal doctrines, and we'll not denigrate you for them. We're just not interested.

However, we'll at least give you the benefit of correcting your ignorance about Presbyterian denominations (or at least a good number of them). This is just another example of where you have spoken with an air of authority when you're ignorant of the subject matter.

It's not at all unusual that a Presbyterian elder is a member only of his presbytery and not his own local church. The relationship with his church is nebulously termed "a communing fellowship with the congregation." The OPC is an example of this, and it's our understanding that is the case with the CPC.

To Presbyterian church members who've given it some thought it's self-evident why such arrangements devolved that way -- refusal of elders to be held accountable to their local congregations. If the pastor abuses his authority the only recourse a congregation may have is to take it up with the presbytery, a body of elders quite often predisposed to protecting their own and then only lastly the congregation. It wasn't always this way though.

It's for good reason that so many Presbyterian church members have grown disillusioned with late 20th and early 21st century Presbyterianism. Presbyterian church denoms are on the decline everywhere and, we would submit, at least some of it is due to members coming to the realization that any claims of "Presbyterian accountability" are often a sham. Some of the worst ecclesiastical abuses in recent years have been in Presbyterian churches, and the case of RC Sproul Jr and St. Peter Presbyterian Church is just an example of that. The entire presbyterian system of checks and balances has been subverted by elders to create a good old boys club that undermines accountability.

You say you've made a "reasonable assumption" about Sproul Jr based upon a statement from Ligonier's board? Assumptions are only "reasonable" when they're informed, which your assumptions are not. So please be informed: Who heads up the Ligonier Ministries board of directors? RC and Vesta Sproul (RC Jr's dad and mom), and before he resigned even RC Sproul Jr himself was a board member. The Ligonier board has a long history of deception and self-dealing, particularly where it concerns family, such as RC Sproul Jr and Tim Dick (former President and CEO). Nepotism is long been a powerful driver within Ligonier Ministries and has caused Ligonier much trouble, even scandal.

RC Sproul Jr has been well groomed in how to give the appearance of accountability (to lend credibility to his ministry) while at the same time circumventing accountability. His own father is his example, a man who "parks his ordination" with the PCA but pastors an independent non-denominational church in Sanford, Florida. RC Sproul Sr is the founder of St. Andrews Chapel and has for many years resisted all pleas by the PCA and by his own congregation to join the PCA or any other denomination. Most people assume that RC Sproul Sr is a Presbyterian, but we would argue that by his actions he's just been gaming the system and made a mockery of presbyterianism. His son has followed in his father's footsteps...

 
At 1:44 PM, Blogger RC 2.0 said...

(cont.)
In Sproul Jr's case he was at one time ordained by the RPCGA, a denom that appears to care very deeply about the accountability of its elders and church members. RPCGA elders are members of both their presbytery and their local church body, giving dual accountability. In our view anything less is a sham on presbyterianism. However, there was a strange discovery that came out when formal charges were preferred to Presbytery against RC Jr by then current and former members of St. Peter church; RC Jr had manufactured his own church membership vows that he had St. Peter members take in lieu of those specified in the RPCGA's BCO. Thus he effectively made St. Peter members only members of St. Peter and not the Presbytery. St. Peter church and its members had never become part of the RPCGA. Very cunning of RC Jr. Like his father he could claim to pastor a "presbyterian" church while effectively keeping it an independent church.

RC Sproul Jr, however, had taken vows to the RPCGA and been ordained at a Teaching Elder/Pastor by them. He'd placed himself under their authority, so there is no question as to the legitimacy of his subsequent defrocking. He however had never become a member of St. Peter church.

Even before his defrocking he solicited his pal Doug Wilson and the CREC to have his ecclesiastical laundry cleaned. Upon Sproul being defrocked Wilson commissioned the "St. Peter Presbyterian Church Commission" and ultimately issued a report in which he determined RC Sproul Jr "shall be considered ordained within the CREC accordingly." Sproul and St. Peter church became members of the CREC's Augustine Presbytery. However, the CREC doesn't require its elders to be members of their own local church bodies, so Sproul's membership status in St. Peter remained as it had before -- nebulous. He remained in the CREC only a few short years before seeking ordination as an "Evangelist" in the CPC.

Having late last year demitted his CPC credentials RC Sproul Jr is under no authority and with no accountability. RC Sproul JR isn't a member of anything or accountable anywhere.

 
At 8:02 PM, Blogger William H. Smith said...

I am afraid it is you who is mistaken about Presbyterian government. I was a Presbyterian minister for 42 years. I served as a Moderator of several Presbyteries, was on many Presbytery committees and commissions, and on several GA committees or commissions. I was considered competent in the Book of Church Order.

A Presbyterian minister is not a member of his local church but of his Presbytery. Perhaps you are aware of exceptions. I am not. But when a Presbyterian minister demits his office as a minister or he is removed from office by his Presbytery, he does not go into nothingness. He is now an ordinary member and is assigned membership in a congregation by the Presbytery. That is ordinary Presbyterian practice.

If the CREC declared him to be a minister, then he was a minister. If as a minister, he moved to the CPC, he was then a minister of the CPC. If he demitted, unless the CPC has an extraordinary form of Presbyterian government, then they did something with him, something more than say, "You are no longer a minister, having been released at your own request from your ordination vows."

Based on the words "his church" I reasonably assumed that he was a private member at St. Peter's and they would see to his needs. Perhaps you know that he is not a member of St. Peter's. Do you? Perhaps you have been told by the CPC that he is not a member of any church. Have you?

 
At 8:06 PM, Blogger William H. Smith said...

What happened to the second part of my response to you - which I posted separately because of the limit of words in a single post? Did you delete it? Read it before you deleted it? It was by far the more weighty of the two posts.

 
At 8:12 PM, Blogger William H. Smith said...

I think your response in which you sought to instruct me regarding Presbyterianism reveals both your ignorance and arrogance. And the the more you write the more you reveal not only ignorance and arrogance by a venomous spirit.

I am curious about this. Under what ecclesiastical authority are you? To what church are you accountable?

 
At 8:12 PM, Blogger William H. Smith said...

I think your response in which you sought to instruct me regarding Presbyterianism reveals both your ignorance and arrogance. And the the more you write the more you reveal not only ignorance and arrogance by a venomous spirit.

I am curious about this. Under what ecclesiastical authority are you? To what church are you accountable?

 
At 8:21 PM, Blogger William H. Smith said...

I think your response in which you sought to instruct me regarding Presbyterianism reveals both your ignorance and arrogance. And the the more you write the more you reveal not only ignorance and arrogance by a venomous spirit.

I am curious about this. Under what ecclesiastical authority are you? To what church are you accountable?

 
At 10:47 PM, Blogger RC 2.0 said...

Mr. Smith, thanks for stating your opinion on what comports with Presbyterianism. We agree with you, insofar as it concerns what should be normal Presbyterianism. Where you go completely off the rails is in assuming that the normal somehow applies in any way to RC Sproul Jr, the CREC, the CPC, or even RC Sproul Sr. Your logic isn't just flawed, it's illogical; but that's what happens when you base your logic on so many unfounded assumptions. We've attempted to dissuade you of your assumptions but you seem to be suffering from some form of cognitive dissonance. As such it would be fruitless to pursue matters further with you.

If in your view "the more you write the more you reveal not only ignorance and arrogance by a venomous spirit" we'll leave off saying anything more to you. Kindly refrain from posting anything further here.

In the future when you post comments to other moderated blogs you should exercise some patience to the moderator by waiting for your comments to be approved. In our case it's more than obvious this is a moderated blog because when you post a comment it specifically states under "Leave your comment" "Comments are moderated and will appear when they are approved." Accusing a moderator of refusing to post a comment, as you have done several times, rather than waiting patiently for comment approval, is bad etiquette. Posting the same comment multiple times is equally bad etiquette. Good etiquette is a good thing, but it's especially important for a clergyman.

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home