Part IV. Parties in Whom the Right to Exercise Church Power is Vested
Chapter V. The Independent System of Church Polity as opposed to the Presbyterian
Section I. The Congregational Principle as opposed to Presbyterianism
“The system of Presbyterianism requires that every proper means be employed, in the way of explanation, persuasion, and instruction, to secure the concurrence of the members in the acts and proceedings of the rulers of the Christian society.” 

— The Church of Christ, James Bannerman, p. 824 

“To repress these very sharp arguments of the laity by force alone, and not to resolve them by giving reasons, is to expose the church and the pope to the ridicule of their enemies and to make Christians unhappy.” 

— Martin Luther’s 90th Thesis, October 31, 1517 

“The Anti-Publicity Action
… Now in a day when even the Word of God is so frequently ‘interpreted’ to mean its exact opposite, we need not be surprised that a mere standing rule of the General Assembly should meet a like fate, when it is ‘interpreted’ so as to defeat its purpose, the result is that any really free and effective discussion of measures proposed for adoption by the Presbyterian church is either definitely checked or at least committed to the discretion of an administrative officer. …
Just how far it is to be checked, and in what way, is left to the discretion of the stated clerk. We do not know how he will employ the arbitrary power which has been placed in his hands. He may do what I believe was suggested tentatively at the General Assembly—copyright the ‘Blue Book’—so as to be able to prevent the reports from being copied in any papers except those that are favored by the ecclesiastical machinery. It is almost unthinkable, indeed, that he should venture upon anything quite so outrageous and tyrannical as that. But even if he uses his power in some less tyrannical way, the granting of that power does involve an attack upon the very vitals of Presbyterian liberty.
Autocracy vs. Democracy
What we have in this action of the 1931 General Assembly, as over against the standing rule which it nullifies, is a conflict between two widely differing notions of the government of the Presbyterian church.
The notion which underlies the standing rule is a democratic notion. According to that notion, the church—so far as human instrumentalities are concerned—is governed by its entire membership; its presbyters, officers, commissioners to the General Assembly are servants of the people, and the people have a right to know exactly what its servants plan to do. According to the present action of the General Assembly, the real business of the church should be conducted in committee rooms or around board tables, and the people are to have very little real power. …
The spirit of the standing rule nullified by this action was a spirit of fairness and openness and liberty; it was the fine old spirit of the Reformed faith. The action nullifying the standing rule will, we fear, with however good intentions on the part of the stated clerk, encourage that spirit of concealment and ecclesiastical expediency and tyranny which is becoming increasingly dominant in the church.
Monopoly in Church Papers
This latter spirit was manifested also in another report that was made to the last General Assembly … That committee presented as part of the ‘ideal solution’ of the problem of publicity for church causes … The proposal means that if this policy is carried out, a monopoly of subsidized church papers is to be established in the Presbyterian church, such papers to publish what the official boards and agencies regard as ‘suitable material.’ …
What we have here is an attempt at monopoly in its most oppressive form. …
These are just the sort of papers that will serve the ends of the gentlemen now controlling the ecclesiastical machinery …
It could be shaken only by a true enlightenment of the rank and file, and to prevent that enlightenment an increasing efficiency is being attained by the ecclesiastical machinery.” 

— J. Gresham Machen, “The Truth about the Presbyterian Church,” Christianity Today, November 1931, December 1931, January 1932 

“Whoever conceals his transgressions will not prosper,
but he who confesses and forsakes them will obtain mercy.” 

— Proverbs 28:13 

“O, what a tangled web we weave,
When first we practise to deceive!” 

— Marmion: A Tale of Flodden Field, Sir Walter Scott, 1808

09/18/2020: In light of the Saint Andrew’s Session’s questionable activities, Benyola files another formal Complaint versus the Central Florida Presbytery against its action to unlawfully ordain yet another teaching elder at Saint Andrew’s, especially under the circumstances that Saint Andrew’s did not really follow through with the conditions imposed. This is proved on the basis of Scripture and the PCA Constitution. It’s not as if Benyola did not warn Presbytery, since he gave them Saint Andrew’s’ new bylaws before they marched forward with yet another ordination. Presbytery erred by ordaining two more ministers who are not PCA members, but his main concern is Presbytery ordaining Presbyterian ministers into calls with disciplinary authority into a church that does not have Presbyterian accountability. So, only the ordination to Saint Andrew’s is complained against. 

((third) Complaint of Peter Benyola versus the Central Florida Presbytery) 

11/10/2020: At its 178th Stated Meeting, the Central Florida Presbytery hears an order of business which includes the formal Complaint, but not before calling an executive session to exclude anyone in the room who is not a member of the Court, including the Complainant himself, who requested a vacation day from work to attend the Presbytery meeting on a Tuesday for the hearing of his very own Complaint. Benyola finds this a questionable tactic because the actions of the Court being contested are public by nature — in fact, the illicit ordination at Saint Andrew’s was showcased via livestream for the whole wide world to see. Moreover, Benyola, as the 200-page Complainant, already knows all the details and specifications of error. Nonetheless, the Court chooses to conceal its proceedings. To their credit, two of Benyola’s ruling elders at St. Paul’s Presbyterian Church motion and second to permit the Complainant to remain in the room, which is the only visible indication of their support, ever. Yet, the saga, considerably holistically, yields an overall dearth of these elders’ support in Benyola’s endeavor to defend their own system. 

11/11/2020: Central Florida Presbytery reports to the Complainant that the Court has ruled it administratively in order — it definitely was timely filed, and the Court affirms the Complainant’s standing to complain, presumably assuming that Benyola then will escalate this Complaint, too, and expecting the SJC might overturn Presbytery’s faulty ruling, perhaps so Presbytery does not have to be “the heavy” that must release Saint Andrew’s to total independency. Presbytery sustains the Complaint in part and denies it in part. Having received irrefutable proof that Presbytery erred, the Court admits its faulty ruling, yet refuses to either overturn its own error or provide some other way to make amends. Presbytery includes several pages with supporting rationale for its longtime clerical liaison with Saint Andrew’s Chapel, denying any complicity in its formation. 

(Central Florida Presbytery Response to Complaint) 

Alleged violations (errors and/or delinquencies) by the Central Florida Presbytery 

Primary standards: Deuteronomy 10:16, II Chronicles 7:14, Psalms 11:3, 22:22, Proverbs 3:27, 20:25, 28:9, 31:8-9, Ecclesiastes 8:11, 10:18, Jeremiah 21:12, Lamentations 3:34-36, 5:14, Zechariah 8:16, Malachi 2:7, Matthew 3:8, 18:16-17, Luke 17:3-4, 19:14,27, Acts 20:27-28, I Corinthians 1:10-11, 13:6, II Corinthians 6:3-8, Ephesians 5:11, I Timothy 5:22-25 

Secondary standards: WCF 1.6,10; 20.4; 22.1-6; 30.3-4; 31.1-3; WLC Q.99.6-8, 130, 143-145; WSC Q.14, 76-78; BCO Preface I; 1-1; 3-3,-6; 4-1; 5-9; 7-3; 8-7 (cf. 4th PCA General Assembly, Judicial Case 2); 11-4; 13-5,-7; 14-7; 18-1,-2,-4,-5,-8; 19-2,-3.2,3,4,-7,-8,-12; 20-1,-2 

Tertiary standards: Central Florida Presbytery, PCA, Exam Committee Vision, Values, Central Florida Presbytery Standing Rules, Candidacy Policy 

11/12/2020: Presbytery referred to its Court records in its response to the Complaint which it refused to actually disclose, so Benyola again asks the Stated Clerk to produce the records that it tried to admit as evidence for its claims. The Clerk responds, “As I have indicated to you in the past, the Minutes are not open to others and especially the Minutes of the Executive Session.” 

Alleged violations (errors and/or delinquencies) by the Stated Clerk of Central Florida Presbytery 

Primary standards: Exodus 20:16, Deuteronomy 10:16, Psalm 107:1?-?2?,32?,?43, Proverbs 3:27, 22:22, Zechariah 8:16, Malachi 2:7, Acts 20:28, I Corinthians 13:6, II Corinthians 6:3-8, Ephesians 5:11, I Timothy 3:15 

Tertiary standards: Central Florida Presbytery Standing Rules Article III.3, Article IX 

11/19/2020: In the continued email exchange with the Presbytery Clerk, he again purported, 

“Peter, you do not ‘have a right to review its records’
BUT, as I am sure you have record, on Nov 7, 2019 in an email, I gave you an excerpt from the 80th Meeting Minutes of 1997, that is the full statement from the Minutes concerning Dr Sproul. You have all there is in the public record about Dr Sproul at that meeting. In that same email, I gave you information aout other TEs and about whether or not any special exemptions were asked or given any of them as far as the record shows …
Full unredacted minutes have material that has nothing to do with your Complaint. It is common to redact what is not applicable. Peter, again I say, your request for ‘full and unredacted’ carries with it the suggestion that an excerpt would be hidding something, and alleging untruthfullness on the part of the clerk.” 

The Record of the Case for the same Complaint, which later was compiled by the Presbytery Clerk himself and submitted to the Stated Clerk of the General Assembly, abundantly proves that there is, in fact, substantially more information relevant to the Complaint, that did not take place in any executive session, which the Clerk of Presbytery had reasserted in several instances did not exist. It is germane to point out here that the RPR Committee in past years disputed Central Florida’s records for not including executive session minutes: so it does not hold up for Central Florida to claim that it has the prerogative to redact any classification of minutes from a Record of the Case. 

(Excerpt of heavily redacted minutes from the 80th stated meeting, from the Record of the Case submitted by the Presbytery Stated Clerk in Standing Judicial Commission Case 2020-13) 

Alleged violations (errors and/or delinquencies) by the Stated Clerk of Central Florida Presbytery 

Primary standards: Exodus 20:16, Deuteronomy 10:16, Psalm 107:1-2,32,43, Proverbs 3:27, 22:22, 28:13, Zechariah 1:2-6, 8:16, Malachi 2:7, Matthew 3:8, Acts 20:27-28, I Corinthians 13:6, II Corinthians 6:3-8, Ephesians 5:11, I Timothy 3:15 

Secondary standards: WCF 20.4, WLC Q.130, 143-145; WSC Q.14, 76-78; BCO 13-11; 43-6; OMSJC 7.1,2.b.1,2,4 

Tertiary standards: RONR (12th ed.) 48:15-18; Central Florida Presbytery Standing Rules Article III.3, Article IX 

11/20/2020: In the continued email exchange with the Presbytery Clerk, he insisted that the matter be dropped: 

“Let us not labor the issue of unredacted minutes any longer. I have told you several times, I will answer any specific questions you have concerning the public record of Presbyery
Enough said on these matters!
May the Lord grant us grace and wisdom”

Why does the Stated Clerk of Presbytery appear so desperate to make the Complainant back off? 

Alleged violations (errors and/or delinquencies) by the Stated Clerk of Central Florida Presbytery 

Primary standards: Exodus 20:16, Deuteronomy 10:16, Psalm 107:1?-?2?,32?,?43, Proverbs 3:27, 22:22, 28:13, Zechariah 8:16, Malachi 2:7, Matthew 3:8, Acts 20:27-28, I Corinthians 13:6, II Corinthians 6:3-8, Ephesians 5:11, I Timothy 3:15 

Secondary standards: WCF 20.4, WLC Q.130, 143-145; WSC Q.14, 76-78; BCO 13-11; 43-6; OMSJC 7.1,2.b.1,2,4 

Tertiary standards: RONR (12th ed.) 48:15-18; Central Florida Presbytery Standing Rules Article III.3, Article IX 

11/22/2020: The Stated Clerk of Presbytery writes to Benyola, 

“Presbytery has not to released unredacted minutes as you insist be done. But, I state again, I have given you exact excerpts from the minutes concerning the questions you asked and stated that the excerpt is all the record contains concerning the issue. But, you alledge I am untruthful, even. though you stated you not have any evidencenthat I am untruthful. … I have answered your questions from the minutes exctly as the minutes state! For the record, I note that the records of the MHW committe that are currently at issue are from a meeting that occured TWENTY-THREE (23) years ago, involving different people (many of whom are deceased) and include a number of issues totally unrelated to the present complaint.” 

Benyola repeats to the Stated Clerk the only information that he had ever released to Benyola: 

“‘Minister and His Work Committee
Presbytery moved into executive session at 11:40 a.m. and returned from executive session at Noon adopting the actions of the executive session as the actions of the Presbytery, to wit; that TE R.C. Sproul be granted permission to extend his ministry outside the bounds of Presbytery to now include preaching and teaching at St. Andrews Chapel (a newly formed non-denominational church in the north Orlando area).’
This is the only verbatim quote — that is not paraphrased — that I have ever been sent.
This is what the 11/11/2020 response from the MHW committee to the 09/18/2020 Complaint states:
‘CFP’s minutes reflect approval granted to Dr. RC Sproul in 1997 to serve as ‘Senior Preaching Minister’ for an independent Reformed church (SAC) that was started in Sanford by a group of people from several denominational backgrounds. Dr. Sproul was already serving under the provision of BCO 8-7 with Ligonier Ministries and asked CFP to add this regular preaching duty to the ministry tasks already approved by Presbytery.
The minutes of the MHW Committee at the time provide a clear statement from Dr. Sproul denying direct involvement in starting SAC.’
The above quote which you sent to me last year does not have the ‘clear statement’ referred to here, that Dr. Sproul denied direct involvement in starting SAC. There might be a ‘clear statement’ in your records — be that as it may, if I cannot read it myself, then it is not evidence. I need to be able to read this statement as well as anything else that might have been recorded about Dr. Sproul’s involvement in the formation of that church, and also any objections that were made. You may decline to release such information if it is only in executive session, and that is fine, but it will not hold up as evidence in this case if it cannot be examined by all parties. And the clear statement on Saint Andrew’s website that R.C. Sproul was the founding pastor (which is basically common knowledge if you were to ask just about anyone) will have to remain the most historically accurate information available. Also, the letter that Saint Andrew’s Session mailed to their congregation in July of this year affirmed that Sproul was the founding pastor, which reinforces what the website says and what everyone basically already knows.
The only reason I am pressing this request for the minutes is because Presbytery has made a statement in the response to the Complaint that has yet to be corroborated because heretofore I have been denied access to the Presbytery records alluded to in that response.” 

The Stated Clerk of Presbytery still refuses to release the records that it tried to cite as “evidence.” 

(Excerpt of heavily redacted minutes from the 80th stated meeting, from the Record of the Case submitted by the Presbytery Stated Clerk in Standing Judicial Commission Case 2020-13) 

Alleged violations (errors and/or delinquencies) by the Stated Clerk of Central Florida Presbytery 

Primary standards: Exodus 20:16, Deuteronomy 10:16, Psalm 107:1-2,32,43, Proverbs 3:27, 22:22, 28:13, Zechariah 1:2-6, 8:16, Malachi 2:7, Matthew 3:8, Acts 20:28, I Corinthians 13:6, II Corinthians 6:3-8, Ephesians 5:11, I Timothy 3:15 

Secondary standards: WCF 20.4, WLC Q.130, 143-145; WSC Q.14, 76-78; BCO 13-11; 43-6; OMSJC 7.1,2.b.1,2,4 

Tertiary standards: RONR (12th ed.) 48:15-18; Central Florida Presbytery Standing Rules Article III.3, Article IX 

12/07/2020: Benyola carries his Complaint versus the Central Florida Presbytery with Appellate Brief to the highest Court, the General Assembly, which becomes SJC Judicial Case 2020-13. 

(Appellate Brief of the Complaint of Peter Benyola versus the Central Florida Presbytery) 

02/04/2021: The Stated Clerk (then Pro Tempore) of the General Assembly reports to Benyola that the PCA Standing Judicial Commission has dismissed the Complaint of September 2020, for no reason other than the SJC does not recognize his standing, as a Church member who is not a member or representative of Presbytery. The Complaint’s facts and merits remain unanswered. Apparently, it’s acceptable for Presbytery to repeatedly violate Scripture and the PCA Constitution with impunity; but when someone registers an orderly complaint about it, the SJC’s unwritten “precedent” supposedly must prevail. 

(Minutes of the Forty-Eighth General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in America, p. 817) 

Alleged violations (errors and/or delinquencies) by the Standing Judicial Commission 

Primary standards: Psalm 11:3, II Chronicles 7:14, Proverbs 3:27, 28:13, 31:8-9, Jeremiah 21:12, Lamentations 3:34-36, 5:14, Zechariah 8:16, Malachi 2:7, Matthew 3:8, Acts 20:27-28, II Corinthians 6:3-8 

Secondary standards: WCF 1.10; 30.1; 31.1-3; WLC Q.99.6-8; WSC Q.14, 76-78; BCO Preface I, II.1-7; 1-1,-5; 3-2,-3,-5,-6; 11-4; 13-7; 14-6,a,b,c,g,k; RAO 15-5.b; 17-1.4; OMSJC 2.1; 16.1

The Fifth Principle: The Privilege of Appeal to the Assembly of Elders, and the Right of Government Exercised by Them in Their Corporate Character
“It would scarcely be necessary to say a word on the presence of the brethren in the assembly at Jerusalem, were it not that some parties have made this fact the foundation for special cavil. As they are mentioned separately from the apostles and elders, it seems to us clear that the “brethren” must have been the non-official members of the Church, or, as in modern times they would be called, the laity. That they were present at the meeting; that they concurred in the decision; and that the letter sent down to Antioch was written in their name, as well as in that of the apostles and elders, are, in our opinion, undeniable facts — patent on the face of the narrative.

But we have not all the facts of the case before us, except we observe:

1. that the original reference from Antioch was not to the brethren, but to the apostles and elders (Acts 15:2);
2. that it is not said that the brethren assembled to deliberate on the question, but that ‘the apostles and elders came together for to consider of this matter’ (Acts 15:6);
3. that we do not read of any of the brethren speaking on the subject submitted, but that they ‘kept silence’ while others spoke (Acts 15:12);
4. that the decrees are not said to be ordained of the brethren, but ‘of the apostles and elders which were at Jerusalem’ (Acts 16:4).

The unprejudiced inquirer will observe that the private members of the Church, here designated the ‘brethren,’ did not ordain the decrees, nor speak in the meeting, nor assemble to deliberate, nor was it to them that the appeal from Antioch was brought. He will, on the other hand, remark that they were present in the assembly, that they concurred in the finding, and that, as it was important to show that all the Christians of Jerusalem were unanimous on the subject, the letter embodying the decision was written in their name as well as in that of the apostles and elders.
From motives of courtesy, and for the purpose of Christian salutation, Silvanus and Timotheus are represented as uniting with Paul, in his First Epistle to the Thessalonians, but this does not imply that Silvanus and Timotheus were inspired men, much less that they were conjoined in the authorship of the letter. And, in the same way, the letter addressed to the Gentiles of Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia, was the letter of the apostles and elders – the name of the brethren being added to show, not that they took part in the composition, but that they concurred in the sentiments.
Persons, therefore, who desire to convince us that private Christians in the Apostolic Church were not only present as auditors at assemblies of Church rulers, but also shared in the deliberations, and acted as constituent members of ecclesiastical courts, would require to produce something much more explicit on the subject than the 15th chapter of Acts. To us it seems clear that the apostles and elders assembled, deliberated, and decreed; the brethren were present, listened, and concurred. The apostles and elders were, as we would say, members of court; the brethren were only auditors, who gave their assent to the decision of the rulers.
Our fifth principle, therefore, may be summed up in these terms — the privilege of appeal to the assembly of elders, and the right of government exercised by them in their corporate character.” 

— The Apostolic Church — Which Is It?, Thomas Witherow, 1855 

Subscription to the Westminster Confession, 1647-present
“1711. Soon after the Anglo-Scottish Treaty of Union (1707), a new formula was adopted. Various reasons have been suggested for its implementation, but the general consensus is that it was intended to strengthen the Kirk’s current commitments to the Confession so as to protect herself from any potential influx of episcopalians. [See I. Hamilton, The Erosion of Calvinist Orthodoxy (Edinburgh: Rutherford House, 1990), 4-5.]
Act 10 of the Assembly (1711) provided that ministers and probationers would make vows in response to questions, and then subscribe the Formula. The second question of the ordination vow is virtually that which is still employed today in the Free Church of Scotland: ‘Do you sincerely own and believe the whole doctrine contained in the Confession of Faith … to be founded upon the Word of God; and do you acknowledge the same as the confession of your faith?’” 

— “Owning the Confession: Subscription in the Scottish Presbyterian Tradition,” J. Ligon Duncan III, The Practice of Confessional Subscription, ed. David Hall, pp. 116-117 

“I _do hereby declare, that I do sincerely own and believe the whole doctrine contained in the Confession of Faith approved by the General Assemblies of this National Church, and ratified by law in the year 1690, and frequently confirmed by divers Acts of Parliament since that time, to be the truths of God; and I do own the same as the confession of my faith: As likewise, I do own the purity of worship presently authorised and practised in this Church, and also the Presbyterian government and discipline now so happily established therein; which doctrine, worship and Church government, I am persuaded, are founded upon the Word of God, and agreeable thereto: And I do promise, that, through the grace of God, I shall firmly and constantly adhere to the same, and to the utmost of my power, shall in my station assert, maintain and defend the said doctrine, worship, and submit to the said discipline and government, and never endeavour, directly nor indirectly, the prejudice or subversion of the same: And I do promise, that I shall follow no divisive course from the present establishment in this Church: Renouncing all doctrines, tenets, and opinions whatsoever, contrary to or inconsistent with the said doctrine, worship, discipline, or government of this Church.” 

— cited in J. Cooper, Confessions of Faith and Formulas of Subscription, p. 66 

Observations and Conclusion
“It is perhaps now self-evident, even on the basis of this all-too-brief review of the highlights of the practice of subscription in the Scottish tradition, why this is so vital a thing to be studied for those who are interested in seeing a settlement of this issue in conservative American Presbyterianism. The lessons and road-signs of the past are here ignored at our own peril. In light of these historical markers, the following preliminary observations and conclusions are offered: some relating to the Scottish legacy, some concerning the current American Presbyterian dilemma. …
It is evident from the Scottish practice, that subscription is not the answer if one is seeking to create theological unity out of diversity. Rather it is an instrument of enforcement and preservation of existing orthodoxy and consensus. Any who see ‘strict subscription’ as a panacea for the conservative Presbyterian Churches in America, hence, have the cart before the horse. First there must be a consensus to guard, before one discusses how best to guard it. …
There is good evidence from Scottish Church history to show that loss of confessional authority (in either the act of approval or formula of subscription) does not increase freedom, but rather it diminishes it. Having been freed from meaningful adherence to an established formulation, one finds oneself captive to the tyranny of a fifty-percent plus one majority of any General Assembly—all the worse for its changeability. Though relaxation of approval acts or subscription formulas may increase the liberty of those within a particular communion who are out of accord with certain specifics of the confession (and hence initially allow for a greater range of theological diversity), at the same time such a procedure has a tendency to restrict (and exclude from the process) those remaining in the communion who adhere to former and more ‘narrow’ views (from the standpoint of the majority); indeed eventually excluding them from the privilege of liberty of conscience. …
As to the core of doctrine in the Confession, it is clear that classic federal theology is so much a part of the warp and woof of the Westminsterian system, that removal of any component of its covenant theology would bankrupt the very idea of a ‘Westminsterian system of theology’ of any meaning. Therefore, those who have expressed reservations about the Confession’s covenantal system (in both the nineteenth and twentieth centuries) are not so much questioning particular doctrines of the Confession as they are the very heart of its theological system. …
Finally, until we cease to be satisfied with mere assent or acquiescence to whatever theological system or confession we propone, and begin to demand a personal embrace, belief, and owning of that confession on the part of all candidates and officers, we will not be safe from the waves of theological sea-change still breaking upon the shores of the Church today.” 

— “Owning the Confession: Subscription in the Scottish Presbyterian Tradition,” J. Ligon Duncan III, The Practice of Confessional Subscription, ed. David Hall, pp. 122, 124-126