One of the most interesting statements in the PCA's preliminary decision rendered by the panel of its Standing Judicial Commission is the following:

By appealing to Scripture… to justify positions that are out of accord with our Standards, an individual, or group, is in effect… amending the Constitution, not by judicial act, but by personal interpretation. If someone believes that the Standards have incorrectly or inadequately stated what Scripture says about a particular topic, then instead of ignoring what our Standards state and justifying their positions by personal interpretations of Scripture which are not consistent with the Standards, they should propose amendments to the Standards to clarify or expand the Standards, since our Constitution holds them out to be “standard expositions of the teachings of Scripture.”

A couple thoughts in response to this. First, this calls into question the validity of the tactic used by Federal Visionists and others who insist that they are not contradicting what the Standards say by their suspicious expositions of Scripture, but only going beyond the Standards and saying more (this is done, we are told, so as to reflect more accurately what the Bible actually teaches).

My question at this point goes something like this: If the Westminster Standards teach that union with Christ is a saving and therefore non-losable benefit, but if I decide to “go-beyond-the-Sandards-but-not-contradict-them” by teaching my congregation that they may lose their union with Christ, how have I not fallen under the condemnation of the SJC’s judgment above?

via De Regnis Duobus: Cult, Culture, and the Christian’s Dual Citizenship: Further Reflection on the Judgment of the SJC Panel.

Let me try to constructively interact with this.

Last I knew, the PCA’s Book of Church Order was a standard in the denomination.  This would especially be significant for the “great principles which have governed the formation of the plan.”

So let me ask some questions:

1. We read that “Our blessed Saviour [sic], for the edification of the visible Church, which is His body, has appointed officers not only to preach the Gospel and administer the Sacraments, but also to exercise discipline for the preservation both of truth and duty.”  Is that true?
2. If we tried to remove this statement that the visible Church is the body of Christ, would we be able to deal with First Corinthians 12?
3. Is this not about the visible church with visible officers and visible congregations:
   

   For just as the body is one and has many members, and all the members of the body, though many, are one body, so it is with Christ. For in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body—Jews or Greeks, slaves or free—and all were made to drink of one Spirit.

   For the body does not consist of one member but of many. If the foot should say, “Because I am not a hand, I do not belong to the body,” that would not make it any less a part of the body. And if the ear should say, “Because I am not an eye, I do not belong to the body,” that would not make it any less a part of the body. If the whole body were an eye, where would be the sense of hearing? If the whole body were an ear, where would be the sense of smell? But as it is, God arranged the members in the body, each one of them, as he chose. If all were a single member, where would the body be? As it is, there are many parts, yet one body.

   The eye cannot say to the hand, “I have no need of you,” nor again the head to the feet, “I have no need of you.” On the contrary, the parts of the body that seem to be weaker are indispensable, and on those parts of the body that we think less honorable we bestow the greater honor, and our unpresentable parts are treated with greater modesty, which our more presentable parts do not require. But God has so composed the body, giving greater honor to the part that lacked it, that there may be no division in the body, but that the members may have the same care for one another. If one member suffers, all suffer together; if one member is honored, all rejoice together.

   Now you are the body of Christ and individually members of it. And God has appointed in the church first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then miracles, then gifts of healing, helping, administrating, and various kinds of tongues. Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Do all work miracles? Do all possess gifts of healing? Do all speak with tongues? Do all interpret? But earnestly desire the higher gifts.

4. Is membership in the body of Christ, the visible Church, always saving–i.e. will it invariably bring members to eschatological glory? [In case anyone doubts: this is a rhetorical question and I believe the answer is no]
5. Is First Corinthians 12 not the basis throughout the Reformed tradition for the doctrine of the ministry and the Reformed understanding of the visible Church?
6. Are there “common operations of the Spirit”?
7. When a pastor leaves the faith does this mean that no one in his care before that time ever received Spiritual ministry?
8. Could Judas have worked miracles without receiving the blessing of Christ and his appointment to do so, and the power of the Holy Spirit?
9. If someone is greatly helped by their pastor or by fellow professing Christian, who later apostatizes, does that mean this person was never helped and ministered to by the body of Christ in that event?
10. If the visible Church is the body of Christ how exactly does one say that there is no sense in which the members are united to Christ by the Spirit, working commonly (“common operations”) in those who are elect to eternal life and those who are not?
11. Is “the free [i.e. sincere] offer of the Gospel” explicitly taught in the Westminster Standards?
12. Is “common grace” explicitly taught in the Westminster Standards?
13. Has there ever been a problem with Covenant Seminary or any other Reformed seminary in NAPARC teaching “the free offer of the Gospel” or “common grace”?
14. Are there parts of Presbyterian doctrinal standards that one is forbidden to theologize about (like, say, the visible Church as the body of Christ)?
15. Is it responsible for a committee to define Presbyterian doctrine by selectively quoting from the doctrinal standards and ignoring anything that their targets are discussing?
16. How does an advocate of R2K, who has to look himself in the mirror, condemn teaching that is not explicitly (or implicitly, for that matter!) articulated in the Westminster Standards?  How can any student who graduated happily from Westminster West, and expects non-literal views of six-day-creation to be tolerated, possibly pretend that “go-beyond-the-Sandards-but-not-contradict-them” (if that was ever done) is wrong?  Why is it alright to actuall go beyond the Standards and contradict them (six day creation, at least, again) whenever one’s Westminster West heroes says so?

That will do for now.