February 13, 2006

Classis Pacific East - March 16, 2006
C/O Canadian Reformed Church of Vernon
5600 MacDonald Road
Vernon, B.C.
V1B 3L2

Esteemed Brothers:

With grave concern for the Truth and the integrity of God's Word, and on the basis of Article 31, C.O. we hereby appeal the response by the Consistory of the Canadian Reformed Church of Abbotsford to our attached letter dated October 4, 2005. This letter is in regard to the extension of a relationship of Ecclesiastical Fellowship with the Orthodox Presbyterian Church (OPC) as initially entered into by General Synod 2001, the Appeal to General Synod 2004 which was submitted by the Consistory of the Canadian Reformed church of Abbotsford, and the response by General Synod 2004 to this Appeal.

It is our position that the response by Consistory does not interact with a significant portion of the considerations and requests contained in our letter and the attached "Appeal to Consistory of the Canadian Reformed Church of Abbotsford." Therefore we appeal the response by Consistory as follows:

Observations and Material Referred to in this Appeal

1. We submitted our letter to Consistory dated October 4, 2005 to which we attached 3 appendices as follows:
a) "Appeal to General Synod 2004" as submitted by the Consistory of the Canadian Reformed Church of Abbotsford (Appendix A);
b) "Appeal to the Consistory of the Canadian Reformed Church of Abbotsford" regarding Article 86 of General Synod Chatham 2004 (Appendix B);
c) Article entitled "Joh. Jansen on admittance to Lord's Supper" translated by Rev. R.D. Anderson (Appendix C).

2. We also enclose Consistory's response to us dated February 4, 2006.

Considerations


1. A careful comparison of the Consistory response to our letter and to the "Appeal to Consistory" will determine that the following issues were not interacted with:

a) Consistory does not interact with concern (a) of our letter. Consistory does not compare the responses of Synod 2004 to the requests of the Consistory which were made to it (see "Appeal to General Synod 2004" and Considerations #1 through #9 of the "Appeal to Consistory"). In this way consistory ignores Request #9 of the "Appeal to Consistory."

b) Consistory does not interact properly with concern (b) of our letter. The central point behind Considerations #10 to #14 and Request #3 of the "Appeal to Consistory" is that Synods 2001 and 2004 did not show how previous synods erred in coming to the decisions that they made.

c) Consistory does not interact properly with concerns (c) and (d) of our letter. The central point behind Considerations #15 to #17 and Requests #4 and #5 of the "Appeal to Consistory" is that the Reformed Confessions are no longer the basis for admission to the Lord's Supper and no longer the basis for admission to membership in the church.

d) Consistory does not interact properly with concerns (e) and (f) of our letter. The central point behind Considerations #18 to #22 and Request #6 of the "Appeal to Consistory" is that Synod 2004 fails to maintain the "scriptural and confessional principles" found in Article 61 C.O. and Rule #4 of the Rules for Ecclesiastical Fellowship, thereby providing a basis for the unscriptural practice of an open Lord's Supper. Consistory also does not interact with the article attached in Appendix C to our letter.

e) Consistory does not interact properly with concern (g) of our letter. The central point behind Considerations #23 to #25 and Requests #7 and #8 of the "Appeal to Consistory" is that Synods 2001 and 2004, by entering into the present agreement, do in fact accept the present practices of the OPC.

f) Consistory does not interact with concern (h) of our letter. The central point behind Considerations #26 to #29 and Requests #7 and #8 of the "Appeal to Consistory" is to show that Synod 2004 made an inappropriate use of a Synod 1995 consideration in coming to a wrong conclusion.

2. Consistory does not interact with concern (i) of our letter. The central point behind Considerations #30 to #33 and Requests #9 and #10 is to show how we as appellants, if not the Consistory of Abbotsford, have extremely serious difficulties with the failure of Synod 2004 to interact with all of the requests which were brought to it by the Consistory's "Appeal to General Synod 2004." Under Article 31, C.O. we are unable to accept as settled and binding, a decision which is contrary to the Word of God or the Church Order.

3. In its response Consistory states (4th paragraph) "For consistory to enter into a lengthy response to your appeal does not seem to be the most fruitful use of our time and energy. Instead, we thought we would try to isolate the major points and give our reflections about them." This statement makes clear that consistory has no intention of revisiting the issues that were noted in the above 2 considerations.

4. Articles 22 and 27, C.O. summarize the duties of ministers and elders by stating that they "have supervision over Christ's church," and "are to take care that in the congregation all thing are done decently and in good order, and to tend the flock of Christ which is in their charge." They also "shall use the means of instruction, of refutation, of warning, and of admonition" to "ward off false doctrines and errors which could enter the congregation." The non-interactions by the Consistory of Abbotsford, as discussed in considerations 1 and 2 above, are evidence that the consistory has not fulfilled its pastoral duty to the members of the congregation as summarized in Articles 22 and 27 C.O.

5. Article 30, C.O. states that "A major assembly shall deal with those matters only which could not be finished in the minor assembly or which belong to its churches in common." Classis cannot deal with the content of the consistory response until Consistory has adequately dealt with it.

On the basis of the above we hereby request Classis to make the following determinations:

1. That the Consistory of the Canadian Reformed Church of Abbotsford was seriously deficient in its interaction with the material that we presented to it, in accordance with Articles 22 and 27 of the Church Order.

2. That the Consistory of the Canadian Reformed Church of Abbotsford should still complete its interaction with the material that we presented to it, in accordance with Articles 22, 27 and 30 of the Church Order.

We would appreciate your written response to the above considerations and requests. In the event that you do not agree with any of the above considerations and requests, we would appreciate receiving a detailed response based on Scripture, Confession and Church Order.

Brothers, we sincerely hope and pray that these very serious concerns will be resolved to the benefit of His Church. We wish you all the Lord's blessing upon your deliberations.

Yours in His service,

F.M. Flokstra M. Thalen

J. VanLaar J. Vantil

encls.