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

Re: [Covenanted Reformation] Occasional Hearing.

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 7 , Jul 5, 2005
      "I'm surprised that you are ordained a ruling elder with the reply

      Ouch! Maybe you do cop it a bit.

      --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, personalwg@c...
      > Larry,
      > Thank you for the very honest reply. I must admit that I'm
      > that you are ordained a ruling elder with the reply below. I'm
      > trying to be hurtful to you, but it is what came to mind after I
      > 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
      > by them over the years to take my knowledge of Scripture and
      > 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
      > 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
      > 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-
      > > but to non-affiliated seekers, or members of denominations that
      do not
      > > teach
      > > the doctrine. Therefore, their urging is simply *wrong*. It is
      > > 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
      > > 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
      > > 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
      > > that
      > > is in our hands; and that you all need to come up to *our*
      > >
      > > To say that I do not promote unity because I defend my communion
      > > 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
      > > 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
      > > 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
      > > 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
      > > The reason I would hold to this position is varied, as I do not
      > > exactly what your church teaches (and that would have to be
      > > 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
      > > to promote unity with those outside the RPCNA, specifically with
      > > RPNA. In reading your commentary on this site, I can also see
      that you
      > > really, sincerely have no interest in promoting unity with the
      > > 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
      > > 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
      > > 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
      > > Presbyterian Church, where I'd have had much more money and
      > > and where I grew up and where my parents still are. That was
      > > 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
      > > dealings in more than 25 countries and am generally familiar with
      > > corporate law of many nations. I further manage the corporate
      > > 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
      > > lawyers and their suggestions. There is much that I wish to know
      > > deviating from my original founding documents, and I do not take
      > > 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)
      > > being "narrowâ€`minded bigots", "perfectionists", or "cultish
      > > separatists", etc. in times past, do not respond to our plea for
      > >
      > > I know you are busy Larry, as is everyone that I deal with and I
      > > pretty busy myself, but I do not for the life of me know why it
      > > taken almost 3 years for anyone to respond to our pleas from the
      > > 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.
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > > -----------------------------------------------------------------
      > >
      > > * Visit your group "covenantedreformationclub
      > > <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/covenantedreformationclub>"
      > > the web.
      > >
      > > * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
      > > covenantedreformationclub-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
      > > <mailto:covenantedreformationclub-
      > >
      > > * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms
      > > Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>.
      > >
      > >
      > > -----------------------------------------------------------------
      > >
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.