Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

15539Re: Secret Society Paper Response

Expand Messages
  • Julian Gress
    Apr 1, 2007
      Dear Gus Gianello,

      As I read your post a number of questions came to mind, things on
      which I need further clarification before I can proceed to satisfy
      the questions and objections you raise.

      First, I am afraid I simply do not understand what you meant when
      you said, "Cult is applied to your church because of its 'cultish'
      approach to widows, and any who disagree with it. Whatever happened
      to the right of private judgment?" With respect to this statement,
      I desire to know these things:

      First, "cult is applied to your church because of…" By whom is it
      applied to my church for this reason? Does everyone who calls my
      church a "cult" call it so for this reason? Who are you talking
      about? Are you talking about only yourself, or others as well?

      Second, What exactly is our "cultish" approach to widows and those
      who disagree with us?

      Third, What do you mean by the term "widows"? I do not understand
      if you mean actual widows, or some other sense of the term. When I
      read in Scripture that we are to protect the widow and the orphan, I
      understand these to be specific instances of a general rule, to
      protect those who are especially vulnerable to oppression. For
      instance, no one should rob the rich or the poor, but to rob from
      the poor is far worse, since they are especially vulnerable to it.
      What exactly do you mean by using this word, and what are you saying?

      Fourth, After this you add, "And any who disagree with it." The
      natural sense of this seems to me, anyone who maintains that we are
      not a faithful church, as to our well-being, and, on those grounds,
      anyone who will not unite with us. But I cannot be certain, so I
      ask who exactly are you referring to?

      Fifth, when you say, "What ever happened to the right of private
      judgment?" What do you take that to be, "the right of private
      judgment"? And furthermore, how does it relate to your previous
      assertion concerning our "cultish" approach to widows and any who
      disagree with us?

      Sixth, I cannot tell in these words (taken as a whole) whether you
      are referring to members of the RPNA (GM), former-members of the
      RPNA (GM), people who are not members and never have been, or any
      two or all three of these categories. Who exactly do you mean to
      include here?

      Second, in your next statement you say, "And I assert that, the
      verse you quote, you only quote for your purposes and thereby mangle
      the true intent of the verse. Correct me if I am wrong in any of my
      assertions." Again, I must express my confusion in the following

      First, you say that I only quote it for "[my] purposes," and I
      desire to know what exactly my purposes are when I quote this
      verse. As far as I am aware I cited it in the same way as Walt did
      Romans 15:5-7, as it being a source of personal comfort and
      encouragement to me.

      Second, "and thereby mangle the true intent of the verse." Part of
      my confusion arises in that I do not understand what goes before
      it. For you say that because I use it for "[my] purposes,"
      I, "thereby mangle the true intent of the verse." You say, then,
      that because I used it for my own causes, I therefore mangled its
      true intent. And if that is the cause of my error, then I ask not
      only how I have used it for "[my] purposes," but how, by doing so, I
      have mangled its true intent.

      Third, but there arises another confusion in these words,
      particularly in the phrase, "the true intent" (of the verse). The
      word intent, I understand to mean a purpose or a goal, or the reason
      by which a choice is made, but afterwards you offer a very clear
      interpretation of its meaning, but not of its use or application
      (which, I take it would be the reason that God has included it in
      his word). So, I ask, do you mean to say, "The true meaning" of the
      verse, or its "true intent"?

      Fourth, after making all these assertions, you say, "Correct me if I
      am wrong in any of my assertions." I am of course, most willing to
      correct you in any of your wrong assertions, once I know what those
      assertions are.

      Fifth, but when you say this, I wonder why you have chosen to make
      these "assertions," and then ask for my correction. Are you making
      assertions, or are you asking questions? I humbly think that you
      can not do both, for a question implies ignorance, and a statement
      implies knowledge. And I take it that this imperative is no less a
      question, as if it were in the form of a question, for it still
      implies ignorance, as if you sensed that you needed or might need
      correction. Unless you mean it rhetorically, as if to say, "This is
      the way it is, and no other way is it, besides this. However, I am
      willing to submit to your superior knowledge if it is not this way
      (but it is)." In which case, I do not know if you actually expect
      me to correct your assertions, or simply to consider for my own
      sake, whether I can find anything wrong about them.

      Sixth, do accuse me of sin in these words?

      Third, I have some questions concerning the paragraph that
      begins, "You seem to have mislaid any comments…"

      First, when you said, "You seem to have mislaid any comments…" do
      you mean that I have mislaid these comments in the sense that the
      comments themselves are mislaid, or in other words, the statements
      themselves are false, or, however true they are or may be, I have
      used them in the wrong way, or applied them inaccurately, and
      hence "mislaid" them.

      Second, what exactly do you mean by the word "voluntary," both with
      respect to my comments about the "voluntary" nature of the church,
      and with respect to you calling the church a "voluntary" society?
      Third, what exactly are the things in which "like-believing people"
      must be "like-believing" in order to organize as a church?

      Fourth, what do you mean by the word "ostensibly"? How is the
      church made of those who meet together "ostensibly"? And how do you
      mean this word in the other places you use it in this paragraph?

      Fifth, with general regard to your statements about the nature of
      the church, do you hold to and believe The Form of Presbyterial
      Church Government?

      Sixth, when you say that a "cultish" church does this or that, do
      you mean that it is essential to the cultishness of a church that it
      does this or that, or that it is a common characteristic of cults,
      but not a necessary one, that they do this or that?

      Seventh, when you say that a "cultish" church tries to compel, what
      do you mean by "compel"? Is it compelling in general, or is it a
      form of compelling that is unjust in itself, or is it unjust insofar
      as the compelling is done in certain circumstances, or in such a
      manner, or does it altogether depend on what they are being
      compelled to do or believe, or how they are being compelled to do or
      believe it?

      Eighth, for when you mention "implicit faith," I do not know if you
      intend this as a general example of cults trying to "compel," or as
      the specific instance where they wrongfully "compel" others.

      Ninth, what do you understand, "implicit faith," to mean? I am
      unable from the context in which you use it to understand how you
      use it.

      Tenth, does it matter at all who they try to compel, members or non-
      members, or former-members?

      Eleventh, what do you mean by "compelling or coercing association by
      threats or ostensibly judicial actions," a sentence so vague that I
      cannot understand the meaning of it.

      Fourthly, with regard to all that you have said concerning
      excommunication, I ask the following questions:

      First, what are the conditions that must be met in order for
      excommunication to be lawful and just?

      Second, when you say, "I see NOTHING in the NT that
      says, `Excommunicate…'" why do you say that you see nothing in the
      New Testament? Do you deny that both the Old and New Testaments are
      the Word of God, the only rule of faith and practice?

      Third, you say that my "church" has rushed to excommunication. What
      do you mean when you put our church in quotation brackets? Are you
      implying that we are no church at all? And how do your previous
      comments, such as when you said that the term "cult" is applied to
      my church at the beginning of your post, how do these comments
      square with what you say about my "so-called" church?

      Fourth, again, you say, "Correct me if I am wrong," and the same
      question still applies as before, are you uncertain of what you
      say? And having heard this same thing twice, I ask generally, how
      certain are you of the facts of the case?

      As you acknowledge in your final paragraph, we are not to be rash in
      matters of great weight, therefore before I respond to your
      questions and objections, I would like to make sure that I fully
      understand them, so that I do not reply like a babbling fool, and
      you say, "No, that's not what I meant." As the Scripture says, "The
      heart of the righteous studieth to answer: but the mouth of the
      wicked poureth out evil things," and, "He that answereth a matter
      before he heareth it, it is folly and shame unto him" (Proverbs
      15:28, 18:13).

      Your servant in the Lord,
      Julian R. Gress

      --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, "Gus Gianello"
      <dr.gus.gianello@...> wrote:
      > Mr. Gress,
      > Cult is applied to your church because of its "cultish" approach
      to widows, and any who disagree with it. What ever happened to the
      right of private judgement?
      > And I assert that, the verse you quote, you only quote for your
      purposes and thereby mangle the true intent of the verse. Correct
      me if I am wrong in any of my assertions.
      > The word used for "consent" is
      > shekem.
      > Keil & Delitzch have this to say concerning this passage---
      > -------------------------------------------------------------------
      > Consequently ×"פך אל must be explained according to 1Sa_10:9,
      since the circumstance that we have ×"פך ל in this passage does
      not make any material difference in the meaning. The construction in
      both passages is a pregnant one. God turns to the nations a pure
      lip, by purifying their sinful lips, i.e., He converts them, that
      they may be able to call upon Him with pure lips. Lip does not stand
      for language, but is mentioned as the organ of speech, by which a
      man expresses the thoughts of his heart, so that purity of the lips
      involves or presupposes the purification of the heart. The lips are
      defiled by the names of the idols whom they have invoked (cf.
      Hos_2:19; Psa_16:4). The fruit of the purification is this, that
      henceforth they call upon the name of Jehovah, and serve Him. קרא
      ×`שׁם יי, when used of men, always signifies to call solemnly
      or heartily upon the name of Jehovah. To serve shekhem 'echâd,
      with one shoulder, is to serve together or with unanimity. The
      metaphor is taken from bearers who carry a burden with even
      shoulders; cf. Jer_32:39.
      > -------------------------------------------------------------------
      > Jeremiah 32: 39 says
      > 39 And I will give them one heart and one way, that they may fear
      Me forever, for their good and for the good of their sons after
      > As an associated citation so that we may better understand the
      metaphoric use of the word.
      > You seem to have mislaid any comments about the voluntary nature
      of the Church. The church is a voluntary society of like-believing
      people, who organize together ostensibly to present Christ to the
      world. A "cultish" church tries to compel. Roman catholicism is a
      cult of implicit faith in the Pope as infallible (ex cathedra),
      representative of the magisterium. MANY ostensibly Protestant
      churches are cults of implicit faith in either the leaders, in
      science, etc. Therefore they feel justified in compelling or
      coercing association by threats and ostensibly judicial actions.
      > ONLY in Scripture can we have implicit faith. In all the back-and-
      forth that I have seen nobody has asked the obvious question:
      > What evidence of obduracy deserving being cast into the outer
      darkness and being declared an apostate is given as reason for
      excommunicating people? Were they fornicators? Were they
      adulterers? It is very strange indeed that all this overblown
      hyperbole and swelling words of dependence on "Presbyterian polity"
      NEVER quotes the example of the apostle Paul who in letter after
      letter after letter, shows that he deals with obstinancy in this
      extreme manner ONLY after every other recourse has failed and only
      when there is clear evidence and legitimate proceedure to compel
      excommunication. Christian love DICTATES that we be compelled to
      excommunicate by evidence unsullied, trial unmarred, appeals
      unheeded, and when circumstance and incidentals deny the possibility
      for remedy; and always for the salvation of the erring parties and
      for their ultimate reconciliation. I see NOTHING in the NT that
      says "excommunicate the moment somebody disagrees, refuses to take
      an oath or has a problem with what you are doing." THAT is worthy
      of a cult. And a cult YOU ARE, and a cultist you yourself are, if
      you can justify these extremes.
      > Where is the proof of their heresy?
      > Where is the proof of their blasphemy?
      > Where is the proof of their scandalous sin, deserving of immediate
      excommunication, without process? What they were doing was it equal
      or surpassing in rebellion to God, that they need to be treated as
      partners in incest? (1 Cor. 5)
      > Why did not your elders do what the wise apostle did when he
      disagreed with Barnabas? Separate, go their separate ways, without
      recrimination or censure? Are you now telling me that "Covenanter"
      Reformed Presbyterian principles mean that if I become convinced the
      pastor/elder/session is wrong then I must repent or be
      excommunicated? Is that my ONLY choice. Can we not go our separate
      ways? THAT is a cult.
      > When an acquaintance of mine became a member of an OPC church I
      thought it a bad idea. Because he was not convinced of infant
      baptism. (And it also indicated how orthodox the OPC church was that
      they would allow such a person to become a member) When after
      struggling with it over a year he decided that he COULD NOT be
      convinced and wanted to leave the church, the pastor told him he
      would be excommunicated. See, we dont succor wounded sheep---we
      slaughter them. When an elder friend contacted me asking my opinion
      of this course of action, I told him it was outrageous and worthy of
      a cult. That ONLY cults excommunicate people who sincerely cannot
      agree with them. Thank God that the elder listened, and allowed him
      to leave in peace. I know ALL about cultic excommunication. When I
      was a Charismatic and a member of a Faith Movement church, I WAS
      > Excommunication as Jay E. Adams warns should be used reluctantly,
      and any time a "church(?)" rushes to it, as it seems there is
      evidence that your "church" has done---correct me if I am wrong,
      that church, those members and those elders are to be viewed with
      suspicion. Any one who says "you fool" (Mat 5) quickly and not
      reluctantly, being not dragged to the situation, and having not
      constantly and repeatedly appealed, exhorted, admonished, cried over
      the impenitent, deserves to be called a cultist. And that church
      deserves to be called a CULT.
      > Respectfully,
      > Gus Gianello
      > -----Original Message-----
      > From: covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com
      [mailto:covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com]On Behalf Of
      Julian Gress
      > Sent: Sunday, April 01, 2007 2:43 PM
      > To: covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com
      > Subject: [Covenanted Reformation] Re: Secret Society Paper
      > Well said, brother.
      > I have been finishing up the Old Testament recently, and found a
      > great verse, Zephaniah 3:9, "For then will I turn to the people
      > pure language, that they may all call upon the name of the Lord,
      > serve him with one consent." This verse encourages me because in
      > the Lord promises to make his church united in doctrine,
      > government, and discipline, such that we may all serve the one
      > as one body through one spirit.
      > I for one do not understand what some brethren mean they call
      > RPNA (GM) a "cult." I once heard with reference to the "one true
      > church syndrome," but this objection has been thoroughly dealt
      > before.
      > First, "true" as to the essence of the church, or as to the
      > or structure of the church, true as being or as to well-being?
      > accusation is entirely out of order unless this detail is
      > Second, every church under heaven proclaims that it is the one
      > church, by maintaining separation from other churches.
      > Third, there is and can only be one true church as to well-
      being, so
      > that there is no absurdity in professing one's own church to be
      > church (for imagine one professing his church not to be the one
      > church, faithful and well-established). Either a church is
      > in doctrine, worship, government, discipline, or it is not. If
      > first, then it is obliged to unite with other churches of the
      > and if it does not do this, it is no longer a faithful church.
      > if the second is true, then it is no true church as to well-
      > So if there are a number of true churches as to well-being, then
      > they will faithfully into one true church. And they will
      > separation from ill or diseased churches (I mean unfaithful
      > which do not add to the number of healthy churches. Hence there
      > and can be only one true church.
      > So if the word "cult," is applied to us as meaning that we
      > to be the only true church, then the objection has lost its
      > savor, and is no objection at all, for it points toward no sin
      in or
      > among us.
      > Perhaps someone on this forum means something different by it? I
      > will gladly hear whatever arguments you have to put forth
      against us
      > being a "cult" and sincerely endeavor to satisfy your questions
      > objections, as I am able.
      > On a separate note, I am aware that several faithful members of
      > RPNA (GM) have left this forum because of the condemnation our
      > church has received. To avoid all confusion, I merely want to
      > out that I do not see any obligation to leave this forum in
      order to
      > be faithful to the covenanted testimony we as a church hold, and
      > this is my reason: in this forum, there is no necessary
      > to recognize one opinion or another, because it is granted by
      > nature of this forum that there may be disagreements. Of course,
      > do not intend to have familiar fellowship with any who have been
      > excommunicated from the RPNA (GM), or to violate any of my other
      > given duties. But unless someone points out a reason otherwise,
      > something that I have missed, or unless there is a change in
      > constitution of this forum that necessitates me to violate my
      > of membership in the RPNA (GM), I do not see any necessary
      reason to
      > leave.
      > Your brother and servant in the Lord,
      > Julian R. Gress (RPNA-GM)
      > --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, Walt Bre
      > <humbled.learner@> wrote:
      > >
      > > Dear brethren,
      > >
      > > I know that I promised not to post again on here, and
      > > for going back on my promise I'm sorry. If you would
      > > grant me liberty to post only one document, I wanted
      > > to attach only part of the "Sins Committed By "The
      > > Effort" and Steps to Repentance" Issued by the Session
      > > of the RPNA (GM), March 22, 2007.
      > >
      > > There is also a supporting document called "Effort
      > > Emails (RPNA--GM)" that I am not including in this
      > > message to protect the names of those involved. I'm
      > > sure that people would like to read those supporting
      > > emails that are the primary reason for the Session
      > > Paper above, but I would ask you to contact Pastor
      > > Greg Price at (covpastor@) if interested in
      > > the document.
      > >
      > > I saw Whit's comment this morning supporting the ideas
      > > promoted by Chris and others in the Presbyterian
      > > movement that not only are we an unfaithful church,
      > > but that we would border on the edge of the Morman
      > > Church, the Roman Catholic Ave Maria Worshippers,
      > >
      > > In interesting definition I found will most definitely
      > > scare away many people from EVER and NEVER consider
      > > even reading our Terms of Communion, and subsequent
      > > Session and Presbytery Decisions that our Church has
      > > issued since around 1996. The definition says:
      > >
      > > "Cults are groups that often exploit members
      > > psychologically and/or financially, typically by
      > > making members comply with leadership's demands
      > > through certain types of psychological manipulation,
      > > popularly called mind control, and through the
      > > inculcation of deep-seated anxious dependency on the
      > > group and its leaders.
      > >
      > > "A cult is a group or movement exhibiting a great or
      > > excessive devotion or dedication to some person, idea
      > > or thing and employing unethically manipulative
      > > techniques of persuasion and control (e.g. isolation
      > > from former friends and family, debilitation, use of
      > > special methods to heighten suggestibility and
      > > subservience, powerful group pressures, information
      > > management, suspension of individuality or critical
      > > judgement, promotion of total dependency on the group
      > > and fear of [consequences of] leaving it, etc)
      > > designed to advance the goals of the group's leaders
      > > to the actual or possible detriment of members, their
      > > families, or the community."
      > >
      > > Based upon the above definition, after our Elders have
      > > learned about the Secret Society within our own
      > > Church, I can see how not only those of us who are
      > > left inside the RPNA (GM), but those especially who
      > > were members inside the RPNA (GM) as part of this
      > > Secret Society, will be viewed likewise.
      > >
      > > After I read the documents of this Secret Society, I
      > > can understand what these guys were trying to do and I
      > > do not believe they intended to create the problems
      > > that ultimately led many away from our church (this is
      > > my own opinion). Surely, some have already admitted
      > > that they have never felt better since leaving our
      > > church, but others I'm sure may look back on The
      > > Effort and the means they used with sorrow.
      > >
      > > As I study these documents, and all the documents that
      > > make up the basis for nearly 30 excommunications, I am
      > > firmly convinced now that my brothers and sisters have
      > > misunderstood the doctrine of true Presbyterian
      > > jurisdiction and the duties of membership by oath.
      > > These two primary fundamental roots of the problem
      > > grew into a massive protest. The protest was:
      > >
      > > 1) In the form of a Secret Society led by a few within
      > > our church who wanted to make a positive impact.
      > >
      > > 2) In the form of a Public positive attack (admitted
      > > by some that a good offence is always better than a
      > > good defense) against the Elders to damage their
      > > reputations and destroy all their credibility.
      > >
      > > As I read the comments made by Whit and Chris, and
      > > others will most likely follow, I can see that as more
      > > and more people protest against us, for being strict
      > > Covenanters, the hammer is going to fall on our heads
      > > in the future. There is no doubt that as more and
      > > more people see us as a threat to their own
      > > backslidden Presbyterian churches, and their own
      > > unfaithful testimony as faithful Covenanters, the
      > > flame throwers will be forthcoming and likely with a
      > > vengeance.
      > >
      > > For those who would like to pray for us, please join
      > > me in the following prayers before the feet of Christ:
      > >
      > > 1) That the Lord will enlighten the hearts of those
      > > who participated in The Effort and reveal to them the
      > > sin of schism it caused within the RPNA (GM). For
      > > those who the Session Paper only hardens and causes
      > > more forthcoming words of vengeance against us and the
      > > Elders, that the Lord would use those words to be the
      > > seeds of another Reformation within His Church.
      > >
      > > 2) That the Lord would raise up Ministers and Elders
      > > to study intensely the testimony of the Scottish
      > > Covenanters and especially the fundamentals of how
      > > they preached biblical doctrine, discipline, form of
      > > government and form of worship. That this research
      > > and study will lead them to compare the Terms of
      > > Communion preached and practiced by the RPCNA, CLC,
      > > CRCNA, PCA and all the other Presbyterian
      > > denominations.
      > >
      > > 3) That the Lord will allow the RPNA (GM) to at the
      > > very least find one more Pastor for Edmonton and one
      > > more Ruling Elder for Albany so that we may have two
      > > ordinary locally defined Session courts, and move us
      > > away from being defined as a cult that has only an
      > > extraordinary Session court with two Ruling Elders in
      > > Edmonton and one Pastor in Albany.
      > >
      > > 4) That the Lord would reveal to other Ministers and
      > > Elders the lawfulness and faithfulness, in
      > > extraordinary and unsettled times, of a phone
      > > conference to discuss matters of church doctrine,
      > > discipline, form of worship and form of government.
      > > That the international phone conference, where two or
      > > three ordained ministers are gathered, is indeed
      > > lawful and faithful, and thereby does bring Christ
      > > into their midst to rule, bind and loose as He has
      > > promised in His word.
      > >
      > > 4) Finally, that the Lord would soon return with His
      > > vial judgments upon the earth, and that historical
      > > post millennialism will be taught from the pulpits
      > > again sending fear of the Lord into each of us
      > > Covenanters and Presbyterians. The return of his vial
      > > judgments will indeed bring whole nations to covenant
      > > together, and cause a major change where those who
      > > desire to be faithful to His Majesty and Power will be
      > > loved, rather than labeled cults and openly despised.
      > >
      > >
      > > Please forgive my spelling errors and mistakes above,
      > > but I wanted to close out with my pleas as like anyone
      > > the more I see the labels coming against those in our
      > > church I admit it does give me fear. Not so much the
      > > fear of man, as I know man cannot touch me without the
      > > approval of God, but more that I will continue to
      > > stand in the face of fear, and not let my Lord down
      > > when the whole world begins to follow suit based upon
      > > the "cult" seeds planted by Rev. C. Matthew McMahon,
      > > Chris Coldwell and Whit Roberts (he did not say it,
      > > but implied it). Indeed, these seeds are now firmly
      > > planted in the minds of many, and likely in the future
      > > the reporters and media, I suspect it will challenge
      > > all our members to stay the course.
      > >
      > > As I am now finishing my 36 time reading the bible
      > > cover-to-cover, I was in the plane flying back from
      > > Africa and something jumped out at me I've read many
      > > times before. Nevertheless, it gave me a new meaning.
      > >
      > > "Now the God of patience and consolation grant you to
      > > be likeminded one toward another according to Christ
      > > Jesus: That ye may with one mind and one mouth glorify
      > > God, even the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.
      > > Wherefore receive ye one another, as Christ also
      > > received us to the glory of God." (Rom.15:5-7)
      > >
      > > "For as we have many members in one body, and all
      > > members have not the same office: So we, being many,
      > > are one body in Christ, and everyone members one of
      > > another. Having then gifts differing according to the
      > > grace that is given to us, whether prophecy, let us
      > > prophesy according to the proportion of faith; Or
      > > ministry, let us wait on our ministering: or he that
      > > teacheth, on teaching; Or he that exhorteth, on
      > > exhortation: he that giveth, let him do it with
      > > simplicity; he that ruleth, with diligence; he that
      > > showeth mercy, with cheerfulness. Let love be without
      > > dissimulation. Abhor that which is evil; cleave to
      > > that which is good. Be kindly affectioned one to
      > > another with brotherly love; in honor preferring one
      > > another; Not slothful in business; fervent in spirit,
      > > serving the Lord; Rejoicing in hope; patient in
      > > tribulation; continuing instant in prayer;
      > > Distributing to the necessity of saints; given to
      > > hospitality. Bless them which persecute you: bless,
      > > and curse not. Rejoice with them that do rejoice, and
      > > weep with them that weep. Be of the same mind one
      > > toward another. Mind not high things, but condescend
      > > to men of low estate. Be not wise in your own
      > > conceits. Recompense to no man evil for evil.
      > > Provide things honest in the sight of all men. If it
      > > be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably
      > > with all men." (Rom.12:5-18).
      > >
      > > These are some words, as revealed by our Lord to Paul,
      > > and have given me a special blessing as I prepare for
      > > the power of words, and the seeds planted in the
      > > hearts and minds of those who want neither
      > > reformation, nor want anything to do with God's
      > > appointed Ministers and Elders in this life.
      > >
      > > May the Lord be with you all,
      > > Walt.
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > __________________________________________________________
      > _______________
      > > Need Mail bonding?
      > > Go to the Yahoo! Mail Q&A for great tips from Yahoo! Answers
      > > http://answers.yahoo.com/dir/?link=list&sid=396546091
      > >
    • Show all 16 messages in this topic