--- In covenantedreformati onclub@yahoogrou ps.com, John Hackler <sparenoarrows@ ...> wrote:
> Mr. Suden,
> Thank you for clarifying.
> John Hackler Jr.
While for a lot of people, it might be redundant, further clarification would mention that Mr. NS is our brother that is responsible for Principium 1643, an apology at great length for the RPNA(GM)'s court. (It can also be found here as originally posted 7/8/07.) In defense of his chief proposition that it is not necessary for the officers of a presbytery to actually "brush shoulders" with the members of the church, he not only touts "mercy" as an essential quality of the court, he also takes an ad hominem poke or two at Edgar, which is why they are not quite best buddies at the moment. In my opinion, the crux of the argument though, as mentioned 11/8/06 or as recently as 2/12/08, if not in the 8/20/07 reply to P1643 More Non Sequiturs from Mr. NS, is whether or not, along with "mercy", the personal presence of the officers is necessary to the constitution of a court. Is that presence 'ben esse' and does it only concern the well being of the court - or is it 'esse', of its essence and without which a court cannot exist? The RPNA(GM) and Mr. NS obviously think it 'ben esse' and that officers may attend via the internet or telephone, while at least the undersigned thinks it 'esse'.
Regardless, two things can still be said even if the RPNA(GM) position is correct.
One, Mr. NS is not a lawful teaching elder and it is negligence on the part of the "lawful spiritual eldership" of the RPNA(GM) to assign, if not tacitly designate Mr. NS to instruct one and all, which they have not been willing themselves to do in response to the material questions and criticisms of the heart of their position (if it is not the throat of its error).
Two, even if the RPNA(GM) position is correct, the elders still have yet to construct a reasonable and valid argument for their court. Implicit faith, tacit consent and the superficial and erroneous arguments of the PPSA, some of which appeal to courts with a plurality of ministers, are hardly persuasive regardless if the Tattoo Paper has set the precedent for its confusion in reasoning.