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

Re: [Covenanted Reformation] Occasional Hearing.

Expand Messages
  • Larry Bump
    This is indeed the main issue in my posts, yes. The doctrine of occasional hearing, which you use as a reason, is simply **not operative** in the examples to
    Message 1 of 7 , Jul 3, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      This is indeed the main issue in my posts, yes.
      The doctrine of occasional hearing, which you use as a reason, is simply
      **not operative** in the examples to which I object, though. The RPNA
      members are not speaking to RPNA members when they advise non-attendance,
      but to non-affiliated seekers, or members of denominations that do not teach
      the doctrine. Therefore, their urging is simply *wrong*. It is no more sin
      for a seeker with no membership to worship with us than anywhere else; in
      fact it is, I believe you would say, preferable, since we have no hymn nor
      instrumental music, sound preaching, and solid prayer that others lack.

      I still do say that non-attendance due to the doctrine of occasional hearing
      is sin; the Reformers that held to this are/were simply wrong. (They know
      better now.) We are told to attend upon the ordinance of worship, not only
      when we can do so in our denomination, but in the Church of Our Lord. It
      must grieve Him to see us putting ourselves apart to the point of refusing
      to even hear another speak, while we pretend He would be welcome in our
      midsts.

      The reason for the lack of response to the Brotherly Entreaty, I fear, is
      simply that the document is too long, and the people do not feel your group
      is teachable. I do indeed want reconciliation and unity with you, as with
      all brothers; but you seem to automatically assume it must only be on your
      terms. Believe me when I say that none of us think we are wrong, and are
      simply obstinate. We truly believe we have better reformed the Church that
      is in our hands; and that you all need to come up to *our* attainments.

      To say that I do not promote unity because I defend my communion is
      disingenuous or short-sighted; it assumes as an assumption that I am wring
      and that I know it. I promote unity by attempting to show that we are a
      true, faithful, reforming church. I sincerely feel that the Reformers of
      Westminster, and those before, would grieve to see the teaching of the
      Traditions of Man as normative and *Semper Reformanda* repudiated by those
      calling themselves Covenanters. The cries of "No Change!", "Westminster has
      spoken, the case is closed!", and "What do the Fathers say?" is pure
      Papism/Phariseeism.

      Larry

      ----- Original Message -----
      From: <personalwg@...>

      I am *only* involved in this discussion because of the tendency to tell
      people not to worship with the RPCNA. I believe this is sin, and I will
      continue to oppose it as long as Gerry allows."

      You continue to repeat this issue with the RPNA members forbidding
      worship in RPCNA. I hope I'm not putting words in your mouth, but I've
      gone through a lot of your emails again and this seems to be the main
      focus of your testimony. I believe you have summed it up in the
      paragraph above so hopefully I'm not misquoting your context.

      However, in my own opinion, I believe that I would not permit myself to
      worship at your church based upon the doctrine of occasional hearing.
      The reason I would hold to this position is varied, as I do not know
      exactly what your church teaches (and that would have to be investigated
      and satisfied against my knowledge and research of Scripture), but I
      would not attend because I believe you specifically promote schism in
      the body of Christ.

      Why do I believe this? Because I do not believe Pastor Pockras desires
      to promote unity with those outside the RPCNA, specifically with the
      RPNA. In reading your commentary on this site, I can also see that you
      really, sincerely have no interest in promoting unity with the RPNA.
      Rather, you desire to spend your time on this site defending your
      worship as pure against those who would not desire to worship with you,
      or promote your worship to others.

      Would you please ask Pastor Pockras for me when he would formally
      respond to the brotherly entreaty the RPNA has posted against the RPCNA?
      I know that he and Pastor Price were talking a wee bit, and I do not
      know the result of those private discussions, but I would appreciate if
      your Session would formally explain your reasons for departing from the
      terms of communion which we seek communion with you brothers.

      Although I am not at liberty to quote all my discussions with Pastor
      Pockras, I will quote this point that we addressed on June 16, 2003. We
      had many other discussions before and a few after this comment:

      "It would be a big sacrifice for me to move out to you folks from the
      RPCNA, but that's not a barrier. I've made such before. I left the
      Presbyterian Church, where I'd have had much more money and prestige,
      and where I grew up and where my parents still are. That was emotionally
      and financially wrenching, but I did it."

      This is encouraging to me and I for one would worship in your church if
      you can show me where our terms of communion are wrong, and yours are
      more faithfully accurate as to allow me to covenant and worship with you
      in Christian communion.

      The brotherly entreaty was written August 5, 2002. Perhaps it is time to
      go to the heart of our disagreements outlined in that document, and have
      you work through those first.

      My Christian calling is a business man. I have engaged in business
      dealings in more than 25 countries and am generally familiar with
      corporate law of many nations. I further manage the corporate bylaws,
      minutes and articles of organization of 10 companies. When we amend our
      corporate documentation, and seek to move left or right from the
      original documents, I am the first to place a tight firm grip on my
      lawyers and their suggestions. There is much that I wish to know before
      deviating from my original founding documents, and I do not take this
      lightly.

      I'm only a corporate business person, and I cannot for the life of me
      understand how the ministers blaming the RPNA (and our members) for
      being "narrow‑minded bigots", "perfectionists", or "cultish
      separatists", etc. in times past, do not respond to our plea for unity.

      I know you are busy Larry, as is everyone that I deal with and I keep
      pretty busy myself, but I do not for the life of me know why it has
      taken almost 3 years for anyone to respond to our pleas from the RPCNA.
      Maybe you can ask Pastor Pockras for me, or ask him to personally email
      me to update me on when he was planning to respond formerally, if ever.

      For the cause of Christ,
      Walt.
    • personalwg@chartermi.net
      Larry, Thank you for the very honest reply. I must admit that I m surprised that you are ordained a ruling elder with the reply below. I m not trying to be
      Message 2 of 7 , Jul 3, 2005
      • 0 Attachment
        Larry,

        Thank you for the very honest reply. I must admit that I'm surprised
        that you are ordained a ruling elder with the reply below. I'm not
        trying to be hurtful to you, but it is what came to mind after I read
        your post. I really do endeavor to put ruling elders and ministers in
        the highest regard, and I have challenged my elders more than I may have
        should over the years, but never do I remember any sort of reply like I
        have read below.

        I'm so thankful and blessed to be part of the RPNA and been challenged
        by them over the years to take my knowledge of Scripture and historical
        testimony to new heights. It would not be wise for me to challenge your
        testimony below on this site, or in private, as your testimony below is
        why I would never regress back to the RPCNA position.

        I'm sorry to be so blunt and possibly offensive to you, but your reply
        caught me off guard. I will gracefully bow out of this further
        discussion. Perhaps one day we will see some RPCNA member or elder or
        minister read that document cover-to-cover and respond...no matter how
        long and difficult the response to write.

        May the Lord be with you,
        Walt.

        Larry Bump wrote:

        > This is indeed the main issue in my posts, yes.
        > The doctrine of occasional hearing, which you use as a reason, is simply
        > **not operative** in the examples to which I object, though. The RPNA
        > members are not speaking to RPNA members when they advise non-attendance,
        > but to non-affiliated seekers, or members of denominations that do not
        > teach
        > the doctrine. Therefore, their urging is simply *wrong*. It is no
        > more sin
        > for a seeker with no membership to worship with us than anywhere else; in
        > fact it is, I believe you would say, preferable, since we have no hymn nor
        > instrumental music, sound preaching, and solid prayer that others lack.
        >
        > I still do say that non-attendance due to the doctrine of occasional
        > hearing
        > is sin; the Reformers that held to this are/were simply wrong. (They know
        > better now.) We are told to attend upon the ordinance of worship, not
        > only
        > when we can do so in our denomination, but in the Church of Our Lord. It
        > must grieve Him to see us putting ourselves apart to the point of refusing
        > to even hear another speak, while we pretend He would be welcome in our
        > midsts.
        >
        > The reason for the lack of response to the Brotherly Entreaty, I fear, is
        > simply that the document is too long, and the people do not feel your
        > group
        > is teachable. I do indeed want reconciliation and unity with you, as with
        > all brothers; but you seem to automatically assume it must only be on your
        > terms. Believe me when I say that none of us think we are wrong, and are
        > simply obstinate. We truly believe we have better reformed the Church
        > that
        > is in our hands; and that you all need to come up to *our* attainments.
        >
        > To say that I do not promote unity because I defend my communion is
        > disingenuous or short-sighted; it assumes as an assumption that I am wring
        > and that I know it. I promote unity by attempting to show that we are a
        > true, faithful, reforming church. I sincerely feel that the Reformers of
        > Westminster, and those before, would grieve to see the teaching of the
        > Traditions of Man as normative and *Semper Reformanda* repudiated by those
        > calling themselves Covenanters. The cries of "No Change!",
        > "Westminster has
        > spoken, the case is closed!", and "What do the Fathers say?" is pure
        > Papism/Phariseeism.
        >
        > Larry
        >
        > ----- Original Message -----
        > From: <personalwg@...>
        >
        > I am *only* involved in this discussion because of the tendency to tell
        > people not to worship with the RPCNA. I believe this is sin, and I will
        > continue to oppose it as long as Gerry allows."
        >
        > You continue to repeat this issue with the RPNA members forbidding
        > worship in RPCNA. I hope I'm not putting words in your mouth, but I've
        > gone through a lot of your emails again and this seems to be the main
        > focus of your testimony. I believe you have summed it up in the
        > paragraph above so hopefully I'm not misquoting your context.
        >
        > However, in my own opinion, I believe that I would not permit myself to
        > worship at your church based upon the doctrine of occasional hearing.
        > The reason I would hold to this position is varied, as I do not know
        > exactly what your church teaches (and that would have to be investigated
        > and satisfied against my knowledge and research of Scripture), but I
        > would not attend because I believe you specifically promote schism in
        > the body of Christ.
        >
        > Why do I believe this? Because I do not believe Pastor Pockras desires
        > to promote unity with those outside the RPCNA, specifically with the
        > RPNA. In reading your commentary on this site, I can also see that you
        > really, sincerely have no interest in promoting unity with the RPNA.
        > Rather, you desire to spend your time on this site defending your
        > worship as pure against those who would not desire to worship with you,
        > or promote your worship to others.
        >
        > Would you please ask Pastor Pockras for me when he would formally
        > respond to the brotherly entreaty the RPNA has posted against the RPCNA?
        > I know that he and Pastor Price were talking a wee bit, and I do not
        > know the result of those private discussions, but I would appreciate if
        > your Session would formally explain your reasons for departing from the
        > terms of communion which we seek communion with you brothers.
        >
        > Although I am not at liberty to quote all my discussions with Pastor
        > Pockras, I will quote this point that we addressed on June 16, 2003. We
        > had many other discussions before and a few after this comment:
        >
        > "It would be a big sacrifice for me to move out to you folks from the
        > RPCNA, but that's not a barrier. I've made such before. I left the
        > Presbyterian Church, where I'd have had much more money and prestige,
        > and where I grew up and where my parents still are. That was emotionally
        > and financially wrenching, but I did it."
        >
        > This is encouraging to me and I for one would worship in your church if
        > you can show me where our terms of communion are wrong, and yours are
        > more faithfully accurate as to allow me to covenant and worship with you
        > in Christian communion.
        >
        > The brotherly entreaty was written August 5, 2002. Perhaps it is time to
        > go to the heart of our disagreements outlined in that document, and have
        > you work through those first.
        >
        > My Christian calling is a business man. I have engaged in business
        > dealings in more than 25 countries and am generally familiar with
        > corporate law of many nations. I further manage the corporate bylaws,
        > minutes and articles of organization of 10 companies. When we amend our
        > corporate documentation, and seek to move left or right from the
        > original documents, I am the first to place a tight firm grip on my
        > lawyers and their suggestions. There is much that I wish to know before
        > deviating from my original founding documents, and I do not take this
        > lightly.
        >
        > I'm only a corporate business person, and I cannot for the life of me
        > understand how the ministers blaming the RPNA (and our members) for
        > being "narrow‑minded bigots", "perfectionists", or "cultish
        > separatists", etc. in times past, do not respond to our plea for unity.
        >
        > I know you are busy Larry, as is everyone that I deal with and I keep
        > pretty busy myself, but I do not for the life of me know why it has
        > taken almost 3 years for anyone to respond to our pleas from the RPCNA.
        > Maybe you can ask Pastor Pockras for me, or ask him to personally email
        > me to update me on when he was planning to respond formerally, if ever.
        >
        > For the cause of Christ,
        > Walt.
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
        > YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
        >
        > * Visit your group "covenantedreformationclub
        > <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/covenantedreformationclub>" on
        > the web.
        >
        > * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
        > covenantedreformationclub-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
        > <mailto:covenantedreformationclub-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>
        >
        > * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
        > Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>.
        >
        >
        > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
        >
      • Larry Bump
        If you feel I have sinned in my response, you are duty-bound to tell me how and where. If you do not wish to discuss it further, that s fine; but at least
        Message 3 of 7 , Jul 3, 2005
        • 0 Attachment
          If you feel I have sinned in my response, you are duty-bound to tell me how
          and where. If you do not wish to discuss it further, that's fine; but at
          least tell me where I have broken which Biblical laws. Off list will be
          fine.

          BTW, yes; that was an incredibly hurtful and offensive thing to say. You
          asked what may be keeping others from responding, and I simply told you why.

          Larry

          ----- Original Message -----
          From: <personalwg@...>

          Larry,

          Thank you for the very honest reply. I must admit that I'm surprised
          that you are ordained a ruling elder with the reply below. I'm not
          trying to be hurtful to you, but it is what came to mind after I read
          your post. I really do endeavor to put ruling elders and ministers in
          the highest regard, and I have challenged my elders more than I may have
          should over the years, but never do I remember any sort of reply like I
          have read below.
        • personalwg@chartermi.net
          Larry, I m very truly sorry to have hurt you and perhaps my emotion took over the better sense of me in saying such things. My Elders know how sometimes I get
          Message 4 of 7 , Jul 3, 2005
          • 0 Attachment
            Larry,

            I'm very truly sorry to have hurt you and perhaps my emotion took over
            the better sense of me in saying such things. My Elders know how
            sometimes I get a bit zealous over these issues and therefore I will
            send you an email privately to see if I can share with you my strong
            desires for us to work through these divisive issues.

            Walt.

            Larry Bump wrote:

            > If you feel I have sinned in my response, you are duty-bound to tell
            > me how
            > and where. If you do not wish to discuss it further, that's fine; but at
            > least tell me where I have broken which Biblical laws. Off list will be
            > fine.
            >
            > BTW, yes; that was an incredibly hurtful and offensive thing to say. You
            > asked what may be keeping others from responding, and I simply told
            > you why.
            >
            > Larry
            >
            > ----- Original Message -----
            > From: <personalwg@...>
            >
            > Larry,
            >
            > Thank you for the very honest reply. I must admit that I'm surprised
            > that you are ordained a ruling elder with the reply below. I'm not
            > trying to be hurtful to you, but it is what came to mind after I read
            > your post. I really do endeavor to put ruling elders and ministers in
            > the highest regard, and I have challenged my elders more than I may have
            > should over the years, but never do I remember any sort of reply like I
            > have read below.
            >
            >
            > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
            > YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
            >
            > * Visit your group "covenantedreformationclub
            > <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/covenantedreformationclub>" on
            > the web.
            >
            > * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
            > covenantedreformationclub-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
            > <mailto:covenantedreformationclub-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>
            >
            > * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
            > Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>.
            >
            >
            > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
            >
          • personalwg@chartermi.net
            I was reading M Master today on An Apology For The Book Of Pslams, and he wrote the following. Perhaps it is a good lesson for me. As friends of Zion’s
            Message 5 of 7 , Jul 3, 2005
            • 0 Attachment
              I was reading M'Master today on An Apology For The Book Of Pslams, and
              he wrote the following. Perhaps it is a good lesson for me.

              "As friends of Zion’s peace I address you on this subject; and again, I
              repeat the question: Why, in a matter of doubtful disputation, to say
              the least of it, rend the church of Christ? Consider, ye friends of
              godliness, the great importance of union in the household of faith.
              Seriously reflect on the fearful consequences of disunion among those
              who love the Lord, and who ought, with cordiality, to love one another.
              To effect this harmony, the Father of mercies purposed to shed abroad
              his love in his people’s hearts; to accomplish it, the Son of God
              humbled himself and became obedient unto death; to unite those living
              stones that compose the building of mercy, he shed his precious blood;
              to effect the same end he appears as our intercessor within the vail;
              his prayer now, as formerly on earth, is that those who are given him
              /may be one. /In answer to his intercessory prayer, and in pursuance of
              the same design of grace, the Holy Ghost descends into his church. The
              whole tendency of his operation is to bring the subjects of his grace
              into /one; /not only as regards their connexion with Jesus, as their
              living head, but also as respects their principles, dispositions, hopes
              and practice.

              Among the professed disciples of the Redeemer, diversity of views, and
              difference of practice, do indeed prevail; but let each of them be
              assured that no just ground of these proceeds from the Spirit of God. So
              far as they are actuated by him, the disciples of Christ, in sentiments
              and pursuits, are the same. He, though acting in different subjects, and
              under different circumstances, is never at variance with himself. This
              fact, taken in connexion with existing animosities among the avowed
              friends of religion, affords no flattering assurance to the present age
              of a great measure of the Spirit’s influence being enjoyed. I am,
              indeed, aware that there is much talk of union; and that schemes are
              devised, no doubt with the best designs, for its extension: but you
              likewise know that the elements of schismatical faction also have a
              place in the church. That there should be more of union is readily
              confessed. That means more efficient for its attainment must be
              employed, all but the most superficial thinkers do admit. Too much, we
              have reason to fear, is attempted on this subject by one effort; and
              that one not well directed. Under the influence of a thoughtless
              impulse, early opinions, ancient prejudices and confirmed habits, may
              for a moment be forgotten; but that impulse once gone, that moment past,
              they will return in all their wonted force. So far as contending parties
              unite on principle,—and for an unprincipled union, no man of enlightened
              piety will plead,—it must be effected by deliberation, and a precise
              inspection of the ground on which they meet.



              personalwg@... wrote:

              > Larry,
              >
              > I'm very truly sorry to have hurt you and perhaps my emotion took over
              > the better sense of me in saying such things. My Elders know how
              > sometimes I get a bit zealous over these issues and therefore I will
              > send you an email privately to see if I can share with you my strong
              > desires for us to work through these divisive issues.
              >
              > Walt.
              >
              > Larry Bump wrote:
              >
              > > If you feel I have sinned in my response, you are duty-bound to tell
              > > me how
              > > and where. If you do not wish to discuss it further, that's fine;
              > but at
              > > least tell me where I have broken which Biblical laws. Off list will be
              > > fine.
              > >
              > > BTW, yes; that was an incredibly hurtful and offensive thing to
              > say. You
              > > asked what may be keeping others from responding, and I simply told
              > > you why.
              > >
              > > Larry
              > >
              > > ----- Original Message -----
              > > From: <personalwg@...>
              > >
              > > Larry,
              > >
              > > Thank you for the very honest reply. I must admit that I'm surprised
              > > that you are ordained a ruling elder with the reply below. I'm not
              > > trying to be hurtful to you, but it is what came to mind after I read
              > > your post. I really do endeavor to put ruling elders and ministers in
              > > the highest regard, and I have challenged my elders more than I may have
              > > should over the years, but never do I remember any sort of reply like I
              > > have read below.
              > >
              > >
              > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
              > > YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
              > >
              > > * Visit your group "covenantedreformationclub
              > > <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/covenantedreformationclub>" on
              > > the web.
              > >
              > > * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
              > > covenantedreformationclub-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
              > >
              > <mailto:covenantedreformationclub-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>
              > >
              > > * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
              > > Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>.
              > >
              > >
              > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
              > >
              >
              >
              > SPONSORED LINKS
              > True religion
              > <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=True+religion&w1=True+religion&w2=Christian+theology&w3=Online+theology+degree&w4=School+of+theology&w5=Systematic+theology&w6=Theology+degree&c=6&s=141&.sig=7-aShrj6zJNtqeJ9TsAo5A>
              > <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=True+religion&w1=True+religion&w2=Christian+theology&w3=Online+theology+degree&w4=School+of+theology&w5=Systematic+theology&w6=Theology+degree&c=6&s=141&.sig=7-aShrj6zJNtqeJ9TsAo5A>
              > Christian theology
              > <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Christian+theology&w1=True+religion&w2=Christian+theology&w3=Online+theology+degree&w4=School+of+theology&w5=Systematic+theology&w6=Theology+degree&c=6&s=141&.sig=5lwDUtgVNnWd_SEfU8PtmA>
              > <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Christian+theology&w1=True+religion&w2=Christian+theology&w3=Online+theology+degree&w4=School+of+theology&w5=Systematic+theology&w6=Theology+degree&c=6&s=141&.sig=5lwDUtgVNnWd_SEfU8PtmA>
              > Online theology degree
              > <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Online+theology+degree&w1=True+religion&w2=Christian+theology&w3=Online+theology+degree&w4=School+of+theology&w5=Systematic+theology&w6=Theology+degree&c=6&s=141&.sig=Kr4JDD2uE5reFwG9qYemOA>
              > <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Online+theology+degree&w1=True+religion&w2=Christian+theology&w3=Online+theology+degree&w4=School+of+theology&w5=Systematic+theology&w6=Theology+degree&c=6&s=141&.sig=Kr4JDD2uE5reFwG9qYemOA>
              >
              > School of theology
              > <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=School+of+theology&w1=True+religion&w2=Christian+theology&w3=Online+theology+degree&w4=School+of+theology&w5=Systematic+theology&w6=Theology+degree&c=6&s=141&.sig=3N9k6yGg5rTNnAJQ4j5eEQ>
              > <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=School+of+theology&w1=True+religion&w2=Christian+theology&w3=Online+theology+degree&w4=School+of+theology&w5=Systematic+theology&w6=Theology+degree&c=6&s=141&.sig=3N9k6yGg5rTNnAJQ4j5eEQ>
              > Systematic theology
              > <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Systematic+theology&w1=True+religion&w2=Christian+theology&w3=Online+theology+degree&w4=School+of+theology&w5=Systematic+theology&w6=Theology+degree&c=6&s=141&.sig=P_qg4-23zv-hChcSQy-L1A>
              > <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Systematic+theology&w1=True+religion&w2=Christian+theology&w3=Online+theology+degree&w4=School+of+theology&w5=Systematic+theology&w6=Theology+degree&c=6&s=141&.sig=P_qg4-23zv-hChcSQy-L1A>
              > Theology degree
              > <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Theology+degree&w1=True+religion&w2=Christian+theology&w3=Online+theology+degree&w4=School+of+theology&w5=Systematic+theology&w6=Theology+degree&c=6&s=141&.sig=BzTYvIe_u9MSKQTNZFmfnQ>
              > <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Theology+degree&w1=True+religion&w2=Christian+theology&w3=Online+theology+degree&w4=School+of+theology&w5=Systematic+theology&w6=Theology+degree&c=6&s=141&.sig=BzTYvIe_u9MSKQTNZFmfnQ>
              >
              >
              >
              > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
              > YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
              >
              > * Visit your group "covenantedreformationclub
              > <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/covenantedreformationclub>" on
              > the web.
              >
              > * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
              > covenantedreformationclub-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
              > <mailto:covenantedreformationclub-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>
              >
              > * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
              > Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>.
              >
              >
              > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
              >
            • Fred blahous
              While I cannot speak to the issue at hand, since I am not knowledgeable on the subject, there is one comment you made which was clearly not true. You say that
              Message 6 of 7 , Jul 5, 2005
              • 0 Attachment
                While I cannot speak to the issue at hand, since I am not
                knowledgeable on the subject, there is one comment you made which
                was clearly not true. You say that maintaining the teachings of the
                fathers is Phariseeism or Papism. This is not true. The Pharisees
                were never condemned by Jesus for holding to the laws of Moses. What
                they did was to create an "oral tradition" supposedly handed down by
                Moses which actually negated much of the Mosaic code by permitting
                false worship amongst non-Jews, tribalising the religion so as to
                allow for religous pluralism, evading the actual requirements of the
                law such as in the matter of "corban" or a gift devoted to God which
                ends parental support obligations, and using the Jew/non-Jew
                distinction to promote Zionist supremacism. They weren't interested
                in simply restoring the Old Covenant biblical worship. Popery does
                much the same thing by taking the New Covenant bible and reversing
                all the doctrines and teachings contained in them, and teaching that
                no oaths made to non "Catholics" are binding. They say that right is
                anything that will establish Rome as the capital city of earth. Both
                religions use new invented doctrines of their own which they
                misrepresent as the teachings of the fathers or the elders but which
                are generally opposite to both. So teaching doctrines of the fathers
                would be the opposite of Phariseeism or Papism. I pray that God
                would open the eyes of both, cause them to see the futility of their
                beliefs, and embrace the salvation that is in Chist Jesus ALONE.

                Fred.

                --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, "Larry Bump"
                <lbump@b...> wrote:
                > This is indeed the main issue in my posts, yes.
                > The doctrine of occasional hearing, which you use as a reason, is
                simply
                > **not operative** in the examples to which I object, though. The
                RPNA
                > members are not speaking to RPNA members when they advise non-
                attendance,
                > but to non-affiliated seekers, or members of denominations that do
                not teach
                > the doctrine. Therefore, their urging is simply *wrong*. It is
                no more sin
                > for a seeker with no membership to worship with us than anywhere
                else; in
                > fact it is, I believe you would say, preferable, since we have no
                hymn nor
                > instrumental music, sound preaching, and solid prayer that others
                lack.
                >
                > I still do say that non-attendance due to the doctrine of
                occasional hearing
                > is sin; the Reformers that held to this are/were simply wrong.
                (They know
                > better now.) We are told to attend upon the ordinance of worship,
                not only
                > when we can do so in our denomination, but in the Church of Our
                Lord. It
                > must grieve Him to see us putting ourselves apart to the point of
                refusing
                > to even hear another speak, while we pretend He would be welcome
                in our
                > midsts.
                >
                > The reason for the lack of response to the Brotherly Entreaty, I
                fear, is
                > simply that the document is too long, and the people do not feel
                your group
                > is teachable. I do indeed want reconciliation and unity with you,
                as with
                > all brothers; but you seem to automatically assume it must only be
                on your
                > terms. Believe me when I say that none of us think we are wrong,
                and are
                > simply obstinate. We truly believe we have better reformed the
                Church that
                > is in our hands; and that you all need to come up to *our*
                attainments.
                >
                > To say that I do not promote unity because I defend my communion is
                > disingenuous or short-sighted; it assumes as an assumption that I
                am wring
                > and that I know it. I promote unity by attempting to show that we
                are a
                > true, faithful, reforming church. I sincerely feel that the
                Reformers of
                > Westminster, and those before, would grieve to see the teaching of
                the
                > Traditions of Man as normative and *Semper Reformanda* repudiated
                by those
                > calling themselves Covenanters. The cries of "No
                Change!", "Westminster has
                > spoken, the case is closed!", and "What do the Fathers say?" is
                pure
                > Papism/Phariseeism.
                >
                > Larry
                >
                > ----- Original Message -----
                > From: <personalwg@c...>
                >
                > I am *only* involved in this discussion because of the tendency to
                tell
                > people not to worship with the RPCNA. I believe this is sin, and I
                will
                > continue to oppose it as long as Gerry allows."
                >
                > You continue to repeat this issue with the RPNA members forbidding
                > worship in RPCNA. I hope I'm not putting words in your mouth, but
                I've
                > gone through a lot of your emails again and this seems to be the
                main
                > focus of your testimony. I believe you have summed it up in the
                > paragraph above so hopefully I'm not misquoting your context.
                >
                > However, in my own opinion, I believe that I would not permit
                myself to
                > worship at your church based upon the doctrine of occasional
                hearing.
                > The reason I would hold to this position is varied, as I do not
                know
                > exactly what your church teaches (and that would have to be
                investigated
                > and satisfied against my knowledge and research of Scripture), but
                I
                > would not attend because I believe you specifically promote schism
                in
                > the body of Christ.
                >
                > Why do I believe this? Because I do not believe Pastor Pockras
                desires
                > to promote unity with those outside the RPCNA, specifically with
                the
                > RPNA. In reading your commentary on this site, I can also see that
                you
                > really, sincerely have no interest in promoting unity with the
                RPNA.
                > Rather, you desire to spend your time on this site defending your
                > worship as pure against those who would not desire to worship with
                you,
                > or promote your worship to others.
                >
                > Would you please ask Pastor Pockras for me when he would formally
                > respond to the brotherly entreaty the RPNA has posted against the
                RPCNA?
                > I know that he and Pastor Price were talking a wee bit, and I do
                not
                > know the result of those private discussions, but I would
                appreciate if
                > your Session would formally explain your reasons for departing
                from the
                > terms of communion which we seek communion with you brothers.
                >
                > Although I am not at liberty to quote all my discussions with
                Pastor
                > Pockras, I will quote this point that we addressed on June 16,
                2003. We
                > had many other discussions before and a few after this comment:
                >
                > "It would be a big sacrifice for me to move out to you folks from
                the
                > RPCNA, but that's not a barrier. I've made such before. I left the
                > Presbyterian Church, where I'd have had much more money and
                prestige,
                > and where I grew up and where my parents still are. That was
                emotionally
                > and financially wrenching, but I did it."
                >
                > This is encouraging to me and I for one would worship in your
                church if
                > you can show me where our terms of communion are wrong, and yours
                are
                > more faithfully accurate as to allow me to covenant and worship
                with you
                > in Christian communion.
                >
                > The brotherly entreaty was written August 5, 2002. Perhaps it is
                time to
                > go to the heart of our disagreements outlined in that document,
                and have
                > you work through those first.
                >
                > My Christian calling is a business man. I have engaged in business
                > dealings in more than 25 countries and am generally familiar with
                > corporate law of many nations. I further manage the corporate
                bylaws,
                > minutes and articles of organization of 10 companies. When we
                amend our
                > corporate documentation, and seek to move left or right from the
                > original documents, I am the first to place a tight firm grip on my
                > lawyers and their suggestions. There is much that I wish to know
                before
                > deviating from my original founding documents, and I do not take
                this
                > lightly.
                >
                > I'm only a corporate business person, and I cannot for the life of
                me
                > understand how the ministers blaming the RPNA (and our members) for
                > being "narrowâ€`minded bigots", "perfectionists", or "cultish
                > separatists", etc. in times past, do not respond to our plea for
                unity.
                >
                > I know you are busy Larry, as is everyone that I deal with and I
                keep
                > pretty busy myself, but I do not for the life of me know why it has
                > taken almost 3 years for anyone to respond to our pleas from the
                RPCNA.
                > Maybe you can ask Pastor Pockras for me, or ask him to personally
                email
                > me to update me on when he was planning to respond formerally, if
                ever.
                >
                > For the cause of Christ,
                > Walt.
              • Fred blahous
                I m surprised that you are ordained a ruling elder with the reply below Ouch! Maybe you do cop it a bit. ... surprised ... not ... read ... ministers in ...
                Message 7 of 7 , Jul 5, 2005
                • 0 Attachment
                  "I'm surprised that you are ordained a ruling elder with the reply
                  below"

                  Ouch! Maybe you do cop it a bit.

                  --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, personalwg@c...
                  wrote:
                  > Larry,
                  >
                  > Thank you for the very honest reply. I must admit that I'm
                  surprised
                  > that you are ordained a ruling elder with the reply below. I'm
                  not
                  > trying to be hurtful to you, but it is what came to mind after I
                  read
                  > your post. I really do endeavor to put ruling elders and
                  ministers in
                  > the highest regard, and I have challenged my elders more than I
                  may have
                  > should over the years, but never do I remember any sort of reply
                  like I
                  > have read below.
                  >
                  > I'm so thankful and blessed to be part of the RPNA and been
                  challenged
                  > by them over the years to take my knowledge of Scripture and
                  historical
                  > testimony to new heights. It would not be wise for me to
                  challenge your
                  > testimony below on this site, or in private, as your testimony
                  below is
                  > why I would never regress back to the RPCNA position.
                  >
                  > I'm sorry to be so blunt and possibly offensive to you, but your
                  reply
                  > caught me off guard. I will gracefully bow out of this further
                  > discussion. Perhaps one day we will see some RPCNA member or
                  elder or
                  > minister read that document cover-to-cover and respond...no matter
                  how
                  > long and difficult the response to write.
                  >
                  > May the Lord be with you,
                  > Walt.
                  >
                  > Larry Bump wrote:
                  >
                  > > This is indeed the main issue in my posts, yes.
                  > > The doctrine of occasional hearing, which you use as a reason,
                  is simply
                  > > **not operative** in the examples to which I object, though.
                  The RPNA
                  > > members are not speaking to RPNA members when they advise non-
                  attendance,
                  > > but to non-affiliated seekers, or members of denominations that
                  do not
                  > > teach
                  > > the doctrine. Therefore, their urging is simply *wrong*. It is
                  no
                  > > more sin
                  > > for a seeker with no membership to worship with us than anywhere
                  else; in
                  > > fact it is, I believe you would say, preferable, since we have
                  no hymn nor
                  > > instrumental music, sound preaching, and solid prayer that
                  others lack.
                  > >
                  > > I still do say that non-attendance due to the doctrine of
                  occasional
                  > > hearing
                  > > is sin; the Reformers that held to this are/were simply wrong.
                  (They know
                  > > better now.) We are told to attend upon the ordinance of
                  worship, not
                  > > only
                  > > when we can do so in our denomination, but in the Church of Our
                  Lord. It
                  > > must grieve Him to see us putting ourselves apart to the point
                  of refusing
                  > > to even hear another speak, while we pretend He would be welcome
                  in our
                  > > midsts.
                  > >
                  > > The reason for the lack of response to the Brotherly Entreaty, I
                  fear, is
                  > > simply that the document is too long, and the people do not feel
                  your
                  > > group
                  > > is teachable. I do indeed want reconciliation and unity with
                  you, as with
                  > > all brothers; but you seem to automatically assume it must only
                  be on your
                  > > terms. Believe me when I say that none of us think we are
                  wrong, and are
                  > > simply obstinate. We truly believe we have better reformed the
                  Church
                  > > that
                  > > is in our hands; and that you all need to come up to *our*
                  attainments.
                  > >
                  > > To say that I do not promote unity because I defend my communion
                  is
                  > > disingenuous or short-sighted; it assumes as an assumption that
                  I am wring
                  > > and that I know it. I promote unity by attempting to show that
                  we are a
                  > > true, faithful, reforming church. I sincerely feel that the
                  Reformers of
                  > > Westminster, and those before, would grieve to see the teaching
                  of the
                  > > Traditions of Man as normative and *Semper Reformanda*
                  repudiated by those
                  > > calling themselves Covenanters. The cries of "No Change!",
                  > > "Westminster has
                  > > spoken, the case is closed!", and "What do the Fathers say?" is
                  pure
                  > > Papism/Phariseeism.
                  > >
                  > > Larry
                  > >
                  > > ----- Original Message -----
                  > > From: <personalwg@c...>
                  > >
                  > > I am *only* involved in this discussion because of the tendency
                  to tell
                  > > people not to worship with the RPCNA. I believe this is sin, and
                  I will
                  > > continue to oppose it as long as Gerry allows."
                  > >
                  > > You continue to repeat this issue with the RPNA members
                  forbidding
                  > > worship in RPCNA. I hope I'm not putting words in your mouth,
                  but I've
                  > > gone through a lot of your emails again and this seems to be the
                  main
                  > > focus of your testimony. I believe you have summed it up in the
                  > > paragraph above so hopefully I'm not misquoting your context.
                  > >
                  > > However, in my own opinion, I believe that I would not permit
                  myself to
                  > > worship at your church based upon the doctrine of occasional
                  hearing.
                  > > The reason I would hold to this position is varied, as I do not
                  know
                  > > exactly what your church teaches (and that would have to be
                  investigated
                  > > and satisfied against my knowledge and research of Scripture),
                  but I
                  > > would not attend because I believe you specifically promote
                  schism in
                  > > the body of Christ.
                  > >
                  > > Why do I believe this? Because I do not believe Pastor Pockras
                  desires
                  > > to promote unity with those outside the RPCNA, specifically with
                  the
                  > > RPNA. In reading your commentary on this site, I can also see
                  that you
                  > > really, sincerely have no interest in promoting unity with the
                  RPNA.
                  > > Rather, you desire to spend your time on this site defending your
                  > > worship as pure against those who would not desire to worship
                  with you,
                  > > or promote your worship to others.
                  > >
                  > > Would you please ask Pastor Pockras for me when he would formally
                  > > respond to the brotherly entreaty the RPNA has posted against
                  the RPCNA?
                  > > I know that he and Pastor Price were talking a wee bit, and I do
                  not
                  > > know the result of those private discussions, but I would
                  appreciate if
                  > > your Session would formally explain your reasons for departing
                  from the
                  > > terms of communion which we seek communion with you brothers.
                  > >
                  > > Although I am not at liberty to quote all my discussions with
                  Pastor
                  > > Pockras, I will quote this point that we addressed on June 16,
                  2003. We
                  > > had many other discussions before and a few after this comment:
                  > >
                  > > "It would be a big sacrifice for me to move out to you folks
                  from the
                  > > RPCNA, but that's not a barrier. I've made such before. I left
                  the
                  > > Presbyterian Church, where I'd have had much more money and
                  prestige,
                  > > and where I grew up and where my parents still are. That was
                  emotionally
                  > > and financially wrenching, but I did it."
                  > >
                  > > This is encouraging to me and I for one would worship in your
                  church if
                  > > you can show me where our terms of communion are wrong, and
                  yours are
                  > > more faithfully accurate as to allow me to covenant and worship
                  with you
                  > > in Christian communion.
                  > >
                  > > The brotherly entreaty was written August 5, 2002. Perhaps it is
                  time to
                  > > go to the heart of our disagreements outlined in that document,
                  and have
                  > > you work through those first.
                  > >
                  > > My Christian calling is a business man. I have engaged in
                  business
                  > > dealings in more than 25 countries and am generally familiar with
                  > > corporate law of many nations. I further manage the corporate
                  bylaws,
                  > > minutes and articles of organization of 10 companies. When we
                  amend our
                  > > corporate documentation, and seek to move left or right from the
                  > > original documents, I am the first to place a tight firm grip on
                  my
                  > > lawyers and their suggestions. There is much that I wish to know
                  before
                  > > deviating from my original founding documents, and I do not take
                  this
                  > > lightly.
                  > >
                  > > I'm only a corporate business person, and I cannot for the life
                  of me
                  > > understand how the ministers blaming the RPNA (and our members)
                  for
                  > > being "narrowâ€`minded bigots", "perfectionists", or "cultish
                  > > separatists", etc. in times past, do not respond to our plea for
                  unity.
                  > >
                  > > I know you are busy Larry, as is everyone that I deal with and I
                  keep
                  > > pretty busy myself, but I do not for the life of me know why it
                  has
                  > > taken almost 3 years for anyone to respond to our pleas from the
                  RPCNA.
                  > > Maybe you can ask Pastor Pockras for me, or ask him to
                  personally email
                  > > me to update me on when he was planning to respond formerally,
                  if ever.
                  > >
                  > > For the cause of Christ,
                  > > Walt.
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > > -----------------------------------------------------------------
                  -------
                  > > YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
                  > >
                  > > * Visit your group "covenantedreformationclub
                  > > <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/covenantedreformationclub>"
                  on
                  > > the web.
                  > >
                  > > * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                  > > covenantedreformationclub-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                  > > <mailto:covenantedreformationclub-
                  unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>
                  > >
                  > > * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms
                  of
                  > > Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>.
                  > >
                  > >
                  > > -----------------------------------------------------------------
                  -------
                  > >
                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.