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

15799Re: major versus minor & (ATTENTION COVENANTERS)

Expand Messages
  • Tim Cunningham
    May 24, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, "gmw"
      <ragingcalvinist@...> wrote:
      >
      > --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, "nocost2great"
      > <manna4free@> wrote:
      >
      > > Please don't think that I was suggesting that we ditch any of the
      > > doctrines that delineate us as covenanters!
      >
      > Good, but I understand that not everyone who has been excommunicated
      > is of your opinion anymore. Which brings something up...
      >
      > IF YOU ARE REMAIN COVENANTER, I MEAN "THE SIX TERMS OF COMMUNION"
      TYPE
      > OF REFORMED PRESBYTERIAN, AND HAVE EITHER BEEN EXCOMMUNICATED OR
      > OTHERWISE ARE UNABLE TO JOIN WITH OTHER CONGREGATIONS IN GOOD
      > CONSCIENCE, PLEASE EMAIL ME PRIVATELY -- ragingcalvinist@...
      > -- I have an idea I want to talk about.

      Tim-Hi Gerry:
      Whatever your idea is, I hope it will be a blessing to all the
      unjustly X'd.
      >

      > I can only speak of my own opinion on this matter. My wife covers
      her
      > head, and does so because we believe the Bible requires it. She
      will
      > not be uncovering her head for any man but me.

      Tim-Granted that I am not from a covie background and so may not know
      how the relevant passage of 1 Cor. 11 has been interpreted in that
      tradition, but this appears to imply that your wife wears a head
      covering at all times. Am I reading you correctly? If I am, I wonder
      about something. As I read the relevant passage, Paul seems to be
      mandating covering in the worship service of the church not as
      something to be done at all times. Is there a reason that your wife
      is extending the practice beyond church walls?

      Just curious
      Tim



      A church that REQUIRES
      > her to go uncovered (i.e. the RPNA), cannot be an option for us. It
      > has become ~major~ in such a case -- requiring us to do that which
      we
      > believe to be sin. But if there were an existing church whose
      > Confession of Faith, Terms of Communion, etc., we were in agreement
      > with, except that they allowed woman to go with their heads
      uncovered,
      > I do not think this would be enough to keep me from going there. My
      > wife would continue to cover her head, but in such a case as this it
      > would not be ~major~ to me.
      >
      > As far as the movies, plays, and other worldly things, I wish I were
      > more free from the stains of this world than I am. But it may
      > interest you to see what the REAL Reformed Presbytery said on this
      > topic: http://tinyurl.com/3exd22
      >
      > I would wish, for my own sake, for the sake of my family, and for
      the
      > sake of other Christians, that churches would have a more united
      view
      > against worldliness. I've attended sermons that have referenced
      > movies as illustrations, I've read sermons that were pretty much
      based
      > on sermons, and I've heard it suggested by some that attending
      movies
      > is actually a Christian thing to do as it exposes us to the thinking
      > of the world (I guess this is to assist our apologetics) -- in such
      > cases, the issues is more ~major~. But, if, again, we find that
      > church with which were are in complete agreement, yet they are not
      so
      > firmly warning against theater attendance as much as they ought, I
      > don't believe this alone would prevent my attendance/membership...
      in
      > such a case it would be more of a ~minor~ to me.
      >
      > > In fact, I have long
      > > questioned (in my heart) the degree of worldliness that is
      > > acceptable in the RPNA(GM) but didn't feel it was an issue to
      > > separate over (although it did cause some problems with my
      teenagers
      > > comparing our rules to the rules of others, particularly elder
      > > families.)
      >
      > This is another issue -- when the worldliness becomes so widespread
      > among the children, then those worldy children become the kind of
      kids
      > that I don't want my kids hanging around with too much, then this
      > causes all kinds of problems.
      >
      > > I am rethinking the idea that God is going to bring in the
      millenium
      > > with a bride that is completely united on all issues so that
      there
      > > are no disagreements or compromises.
      >
      > Perhaps not. But as far as issues of doctrine, the "whatsoever I
      have
      > commanded thee" that Christ spoke of, we are commanded "Now I
      beseech
      > you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all
      speak
      > the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that
      ye
      > be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same
      > judgment." With weakness and infirmity, we are to forbear. With
      > honest error, we are to correct and educate. With anti-scriptural
      and
      > un-scriptural doctrine obstinately held, we are to be firm and
      > uncompromising.
      >
      > gmw.
      >
    • Show all 23 messages in this topic