If Wilson Was A Member of the PCA
A friend wrote me an insightful analysis of Wilson’s response to the PCA court:
“Wilson’s crime in the PCA is several-fold.
Technically, he would be a defendant if the PCA held his membership, so he’s no more fit to speak to orthodoxy than OJ is to justice in a murder trial.
Wilson’s demeanor is contumacious (contempt of court), a violation that chapter 34 of the BCO. The penalty is immediate deposal from the ministry and barring from the sacrament.
Wilson’s veiled threats and his insults are a form of jury tampering, which is more contumacy.
Wilson is advocating for Wilkins in an inappropriate way, which is likely to piss off the judges (I think he wants Wilkins declared guilty to expedite the send off). Normally, friends and ministers write letters to the court on behalf of the accused, interceding with appropriate language (though in a heresy context I’m not sure this is possible).
Wilson posed a false dilemma (trilemma?), which precluded the possibility of Wilkins’ guilt. However, I scanned Wilkins’ answers and noticed that he carefully avoided “baptismal regeneration,” which makes him a lying coward. He has all but taught the doctrine, not using the two words, with force from the pulpit, in defiance of the PCA’s standards. This will be the lynch pin of the prosecution against him.”
No comments yet.