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

Scottish Excommunication

Expand Messages
  • Chris Coldwell
    FWIW, and I apologize if others have noted this, Gillespie in his 111 Propositions says the following about the power of excommunication as understood by
    Message 1 of 6 , Nov 28, 2006
    • 0 Attachment

      FWIW, and I apologize if others have noted this, Gillespie in his 111 Propositions says the following about the power of excommunication as understood by Scottish Presbyterianism, and I also give the appropriate section from Walter Steuart of Pardovan afterward (Pardovan’s Collections was the first attempt to organize Scottish practice into what we’d call a book of church order today):

      19. … it plainly followeth that those are to be kept back from the Lord’s supper, who by their fruits and manners do prove themselves to be ungodly or impenitent, and strangers or aliens from all communion with Christ. … [see also Durham ’s Concerning Scandal on how carefully excommunication should be used].

      28. Excommunication ought not to be proceeded unto except when extreme necessity constraineth: but whensoever the soul of the sinner cannot otherwise be healed, and that the safety of the church requireth the cutting off of this or that member, it behoveth to use this last remedy …

      30. But that all abuse and corruption in ecclesiastical government may be either prevented and avoided, or taken away, or lest the power of the church, either by the ignorance or unskilfulness of some ministers here and there, or also by too much heat and fervour of mind, should run out beyond measure or bounds, or contrariwise, being shut up within straiter limits than is fitting, should be made unprofitable, feeble, or of none effect,--Christ, the most wise lawgiver of his church, hath foreseen and made provision to prevent all such evils which he did foresee were to arise, and hath prepared and prescribed for them intrinsical and ecclesiastical remedies, and those also in their kind (if lawfully and rightly applied) both sufficient and effectual: some whereof he hath most expressly propounded in his word, and some he hath left to be drawn from thence by necessary consequence.

      31. Therefore, by reason of the danger of that which is called “clavis errans,” or a wrong key; and that it may not be permitted to particular churches to err or sin licentiously, and lest any man’s cause be overthrown and perish, who in a particular church had perhaps the same men both his adversaries and his judges; also that common business, which do belong to many churches, together with the more weighty and difficult controversies (the deciding whereof in the consistories of particular [sic] churches is not safe to e adventured upon) may be handled and determined by a common council of presbyteries; finally, that the governors of particular churches may impart help mutually one to another against the cunning and subtile enemies of truth, and may join their strength together (such as it is) by an holy combination, and that the church may be as a camp of an army well ordered, lest while every one striveth singly all of them be subdued and overcome, or lest by reason of the scarcity of prudent and godly counselors (in the multitude of whom is safety) the affairs of the church be undone: for all these considerations particular churches must be subordinate to classical presbyteries and synods

       

      And here is the form of Scottish excommunication as summarized by Pardovan in 1707:

      “… Where there is no obdurate contumacy, the lesser excommunication needs only have place. Again, where no scandalous practice hath been proven, only there is a simple contumacy following by not appearing, in that case, the lesser excommunication is length enough. But if the scandal be of an heinous nature, and that it is spreading and infectious, as in heresies or schism in the church, in which cases, contumacy is to be proceeded against.

      Every error or difference in judgment not sufficient ground for excommunication.

      2. Yet every error or difference in judgement about points wherein learned and godly men may differ, and which subverts not the faith, nor is destructive to godliness, or when persons, out of conscience, do not come up to the observation of all these rules, which are or shall be established by authority for regulating outward worship of God, and government of his church, the censure of excommunication should not be inflicted for such cases. See Durham on scandal. The letter from the Assembly of divines at Westminster , with the answer of our General Assembly 1645.

      How the presbytery proceeds with persons present or absent in order to the censure.

      3. The kirk-session having brought the process to the lesser excommunication, before they proceed further, they are by a reference to lay their whole proceeding in writ before the presbytery, who finding them to have orderly proceeded, and that the lesser excommunication is not sufficient, they are to cause cite the scandalous person, …

      Book IV, Title VI, Of the Order of Proceeding to Excommunication.

       

      Sincerely,

      Chris Coldwell

      Owner, Naphtali Press http://www.naphtali.com

      Editor, The Confessional Presbyterian journal http://www.cpjournal.com

      Member, Faith Presbyterian Church Reformed, Mesquite TX http://www.fpcr.org

       

       

    • Walt Bre
      Chris, Great posts. I ve seen these before and make a lot of good sense. Important to distinguish the following: This is subject to debate, however, so I
      Message 2 of 6 , Nov 29, 2006
      • 0 Attachment
        Chris,
        Great posts. I've seen these before and make a lot of
        good sense. Important to distinguish the following:

        This is subject to debate, however, so I will use my
        OWN situation. Therefore, I am speaking solely about
        myself and my own situation.

        In my case, I took membership in the PRCE in 1998.
        This decision was made after about 8 months of almost
        daily dialog with 2 of the 3 Elders at the time. I
        subsequently flew to take my membership interview and
        became a member. I understand that some may argue
        that and an international phone call may not qualify
        as a lawful method to take membership, in a church,
        but in my case I actually flew and met face-to-face.

        Once membership was taken, and my interview complete,
        I later saw the three member Elders grow the local
        Session into a greater Presbytery, although
        extraordinary as one Pastor and two Elders lived in
        Canada and one Pastor and one Elder in America.

        My membership did not change, except what was
        previously a local Session became a greater
        Presbytery, and I had a higher court of jurisdiction
        whereby I could take my questions. The point being
        was that my membership in the PRCE was lawful, in my
        mind, even though I lived in American and the PRCE
        existed in Canada. Some may not believe this is
        possible, but that was my knowledge and I found
        nothing in Scripture to claim unlawful my membership.
        In fact, I came out of a local Baptist church who
        shunned me for taking such a stand that I was taking
        membership in a Canadian church when only a local
        church would be lawful.

        Nevertheless, once my membership allowed me the
        greater priviledges of a Presbytery, and I saw the
        paper on headcoverings come through and cause a
        controversy, I knew that the five men who made this
        decision did so as a lawful court, although
        extraordinary, and after studying it and speaking
        through my questions, and doing my own study with the
        Scriptures, I accepted the decision. Some may have
        left over the decision, and that is their option,
        indeed.

        Once the Presbytery dissolved over controversy, I did
        not ever believe my membership dissolved, and that
        what would happen next would be settling back to a
        Session, although extraordinary and international.
        Now, I accept some will not claim any membership to
        this structure, arguing that it is not Presbyterian to
        have such an international Session (extraordinarily),
        and all Sessions need to be local, but I reject this
        view and teaching.

        I understand that some people have never taken
        membership in the PRCE (as I did in 1998), nor taken
        membership in the RPNA (as one of my friends did), nor
        taken membership in the RPNA (GM), however, have been
        members of local societies. Their membership was in
        these local societies, and that is the testimony on
        record, so when someone is excommunicated from a
        Session they never belonged to, nor took membership
        in, it is called a self-excommunication.

        Do you understand the distinction?

        If you Chris Caldwell never took membership in a
        lawful Session, Presbytery or extraordinary,
        international Session, and did so in a local Society
        according to your testimony, what on earth is wrong
        with your excommunicating yourself from something you
        admit you were never a member of in the first place.

        Perhaps I got off track a bit using my own situation,
        but I would like you to make a distinction between
        those like me to accept my membership, not in any
        society because I have no society here in America to
        join, but accept it in the PRCE, RPNA and subsequently
        the RPNA (GM). From this foundation, I work through
        my problems and misunderstandings and questions using
        Scripture and the Presbyterian traditions so many
        don't seem to understand.

        I'll let you know if this gets me excommunicated, but
        from what I read below, and what I understand from my
        membership in the RPNA (GM) I don't fear it the least.

        If I am unwilling to take the oath presented, and
        claim no membership ever in the history of our church,
        but only in local societies, then I will have no
        problem walking away to build a local society with my
        friends and call it "Presbyterianism",
        "extraordinarily" without an ministers.

        History will show the truth, I guarantee it.

        Walt.

        --- Chris Coldwell <naphtali@...> wrote:

        > FWIW, and I apologize if others have noted this,
        > Gillespie in his 111
        > Propositions says the following about the power of
        > excommunication as
        > understood by Scottish Presbyterianism, and I also
        > give the appropriate
        > section from Walter Steuart of Pardovan afterward
        > (Pardovan's Collections
        > was the first attempt to organize Scottish practice
        > into what we'd call a
        > book of church order today):
        >
        > 19. . it plainly followeth that those are to be kept
        > back from the Lord's
        > supper, who by their fruits and manners do prove
        > themselves to be ungodly or
        > impenitent, and strangers or aliens from all
        > communion with Christ. . [see
        > also Durham's Concerning Scandal on how carefully
        > excommunication should be
        > used].
        >
        > 28. Excommunication ought not to be proceeded unto
        > except when extreme
        > necessity constraineth: but whensoever the soul of
        > the sinner cannot
        > otherwise be healed, and that the safety of the
        > church requireth the cutting
        > off of this or that member, it behoveth to use this
        > last remedy .
        >
        > .
        >
        > 30. But that all abuse and corruption in
        > ecclesiastical government may be
        > either prevented and avoided, or taken away, or lest
        > the power of the
        > church, either by the ignorance or unskilfulness of
        > some ministers here and
        > there, or also by too much heat and fervour of mind,
        > should run out beyond
        > measure or bounds, or contrariwise, being shut up
        > within straiter limits
        > than is fitting, should be made unprofitable,
        > feeble, or of none
        > effect,--Christ, the most wise lawgiver of his
        > church, hath foreseen and
        > made provision to prevent all such evils which he
        > did foresee were to arise,
        > and hath prepared and prescribed for them
        > intrinsical and ecclesiastical
        > remedies, and those also in their kind (if lawfully
        > and rightly applied)
        > both sufficient and effectual: some whereof he hath
        > most expressly
        > propounded in his word, and some he hath left to be
        > drawn from thence by
        > necessary consequence.
        >
        > 31. Therefore, by reason of the danger of that which
        > is called "clavis
        > errans," or a wrong key; and that it may not be
        > permitted to particular
        > churches to err or sin licentiously, and lest any
        > man's cause be overthrown
        > and perish, who in a particular church had perhaps
        > the same men both his
        > adversaries and his judges; also that common
        > business, which do belong to
        > many churches, together with the more weighty and
        > difficult controversies
        > (the deciding whereof in the consistories of
        > particular [sic] churches is
        > not safe to e adventured upon) may be handled and
        > determined by a common
        > council of presbyteries; finally, that the governors
        > of particular churches
        > may impart help mutually one to another against the
        > cunning and subtile
        > enemies of truth, and may join their strength
        > together (such as it is) by an
        > holy combination, and that the church may be as a
        > camp of an army well
        > ordered, lest while every one striveth singly all of
        > them be subdued and
        > overcome, or lest by reason of the scarcity of
        > prudent and godly counselors
        > (in the multitude of whom is safety) the affairs of
        > the church be undone:
        > for all these considerations particular churches
        > must be subordinate to
        > classical presbyteries and synods
        >
        >
        >
        > And here is the form of Scottish excommunication as
        > summarized by Pardovan
        > in 1707:
        >
        > ". Where there is no obdurate contumacy, the lesser
        > excommunication needs
        > only have place. Again, where no scandalous practice
        > hath been proven, only
        > there is a simple contumacy following by not
        > appearing, in that case, the
        > lesser excommunication is length enough. But if the
        > scandal be of an heinous
        > nature, and that it is spreading and infectious, as
        > in heresies or schism in
        > the church, in which cases, contumacy is to be
        > proceeded against.
        >
        > Every error or difference in judgment not sufficient
        > ground for
        > excommunication.
        >
        > 2. Yet every error or difference in judgement about
        > points wherein learned
        > and godly men may differ, and which subverts not the
        > faith, nor is
        > destructive to godliness, or when persons, out of
        > conscience, do not come up
        > to the observation of all these rules, which are or
        > shall be established by
        > authority for regulating outward worship of God, and
        > government of his
        > church, the censure of excommunication should not be
        > inflicted for such
        > cases. See Durham on scandal. The letter from the
        > Assembly of divines at
        > Westminster, with the answer of our General Assembly
        > 1645.
        >
        > How the presbytery proceeds with persons present or
        > absent in order to the
        > censure.
        >
        > 3. The kirk-session having brought the process to
        > the lesser
        > excommunication, before they proceed further, they
        > are by a reference to lay
        > their whole proceeding in writ before the
        > presbytery, who finding them to
        > have orderly proceeded, and that the lesser
        > excommunication is not
        > sufficient, they are to cause cite the scandalous
        > person, .
        >
        > Book IV, Title VI, Of the Order of Proceeding to
        > Excommunication.
        >
        >
        >
        > Sincerely,
        >
        > Chris Coldwell
        >
        > Owner, Naphtali Press <http://www.naphtali.com>
        > http://www.naphtali.com
        >
        > Editor, The Confessional Presbyterian journal
        > <http://www.cpjournal.com>
        > http://www.cpjournal.com
        >
        > Member, Faith Presbyterian Church Reformed, Mesquite
        > TX http://www.fpcr.org
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >




        ____________________________________________________________________________________
        Do you Yahoo!?
        Everyone is raving about the all-new Yahoo! Mail beta.
        http://new.mail.yahoo.com
      • Chris Coldwell
        Walt, While it s pronounced Caldwell, I do spell my name Coldwell like my Scotch-Irish Presbyterian gggg grandfather did. :-) I m glad the quotations are
        Message 3 of 6 , Nov 29, 2006
        • 0 Attachment
          Walt,
          While it's pronounced Caldwell, I do spell my name Coldwell like my
          Scotch-Irish Presbyterian gggg grandfather did. :-) I'm glad the quotations
          are useful; as to further discussion, I would simply prefer not to engage
          particulars of this situation given I'm not in agreement with the RPNA
          ecclesiology generally.
          Sincerely,
          Chris Coldwell
          Owner, Naphtali Press http://www.naphtali.com
          Editor, The Confessional Presbyterian journal http://www.cpjournal.com
          Member, Faith Presbyterian Church Reformed, Mesquite TX http://www.fpcr.org


          -----Original Message-----
          From: notify@yahoogroups.com [mailto:notify@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
          Chris Coldwell
          Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2006 8:00 AM
          To: naphtali@...
          Subject: Fwd: Re: [Covenanted Reformation] Scottish Excommunication

          --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, Walt Bre
          <humbled.learner@...> wrote:

          Chris,
          Great posts. I've seen these before and make a lot of
          good sense. Important to distinguish the following:

          This is subject to debate, however, so I will use my
          OWN situation. Therefore, I am speaking solely about
          myself and my own situation.

          In my case, I took membership in the PRCE in 1998.
          This decision was made after about 8 months of almost
          daily dialog with 2 of the 3 Elders at the time. I
          subsequently flew to take my membership interview and
          became a member. I understand that some may argue
          that and an international phone call may not qualify
          as a lawful method to take membership, in a church,
          but in my case I actually flew and met face-to-face.

          Once membership was taken, and my interview complete,
          I later saw the three member Elders grow the local
          Session into a greater Presbytery, although
          extraordinary as one Pastor and two Elders lived in
          Canada and one Pastor and one Elder in America.

          My membership did not change, except what was
          previously a local Session became a greater
          Presbytery, and I had a higher court of jurisdiction
          whereby I could take my questions. The point being
          was that my membership in the PRCE was lawful, in my
          mind, even though I lived in American and the PRCE
          existed in Canada. Some may not believe this is
          possible, but that was my knowledge and I found
          nothing in Scripture to claim unlawful my membership.
          In fact, I came out of a local Baptist church who
          shunned me for taking such a stand that I was taking
          membership in a Canadian church when only a local
          church would be lawful.

          Nevertheless, once my membership allowed me the
          greater priviledges of a Presbytery, and I saw the
          paper on headcoverings come through and cause a
          controversy, I knew that the five men who made this
          decision did so as a lawful court, although
          extraordinary, and after studying it and speaking
          through my questions, and doing my own study with the
          Scriptures, I accepted the decision. Some may have
          left over the decision, and that is their option,
          indeed.

          Once the Presbytery dissolved over controversy, I did
          not ever believe my membership dissolved, and that
          what would happen next would be settling back to a
          Session, although extraordinary and international.
          Now, I accept some will not claim any membership to
          this structure, arguing that it is not Presbyterian to
          have such an international Session (extraordinarily),
          and all Sessions need to be local, but I reject this
          view and teaching.

          I understand that some people have never taken
          membership in the PRCE (as I did in 1998), nor taken
          membership in the RPNA (as one of my friends did), nor
          taken membership in the RPNA (GM), however, have been
          members of local societies. Their membership was in
          these local societies, and that is the testimony on
          record, so when someone is excommunicated from a
          Session they never belonged to, nor took membership
          in, it is called a self-excommunication.

          Do you understand the distinction?

          If you Chris Caldwell never took membership in a
          lawful Session, Presbytery or extraordinary,
          international Session, and did so in a local Society
          according to your testimony, what on earth is wrong
          with your excommunicating yourself from something you
          admit you were never a member of in the first place.

          Perhaps I got off track a bit using my own situation,
          but I would like you to make a distinction between
          those like me to accept my membership, not in any
          society because I have no society here in America to
          join, but accept it in the PRCE, RPNA and subsequently
          the RPNA (GM). From this foundation, I work through
          my problems and misunderstandings and questions using
          Scripture and the Presbyterian traditions so many
          don't seem to understand.

          I'll let you know if this gets me excommunicated, but
          from what I read below, and what I understand from my
          membership in the RPNA (GM) I don't fear it the least.

          If I am unwilling to take the oath presented, and
          claim no membership ever in the history of our church,
          but only in local societies, then I will have no
          problem walking away to build a local society with my
          friends and call it "Presbyterianism",
          "extraordinarily" without an ministers.

          History will show the truth, I guarantee it.

          Walt.

          --- Chris Coldwell <naphtali@...> wrote:

          > FWIW, and I apologize if others have noted this,
          > Gillespie in his 111
          > Propositions says the following about the power of
          > excommunication as
          > understood by Scottish Presbyterianism, and I also
          > give the appropriate
          > section from Walter Steuart of Pardovan afterward
          > (Pardovan's Collections
          > was the first attempt to organize Scottish practice
          > into what we'd call a
          > book of church order today):
          >
          > 19. . it plainly followeth that those are to be kept
          > back from the Lord's
          > supper, who by their fruits and manners do prove
          > themselves to be ungodly or
          > impenitent, and strangers or aliens from all
          > communion with Christ. . [see
          > also Durham's Concerning Scandal on how carefully
          > excommunication should be
          > used].
          >
          > 28. Excommunication ought not to be proceeded unto
          > except when extreme
          > necessity constraineth: but whensoever the soul of
          > the sinner cannot
          > otherwise be healed, and that the safety of the
          > church requireth the cutting
          > off of this or that member, it behoveth to use this
          > last remedy .
          >
          > .
          >
          > 30. But that all abuse and corruption in
          > ecclesiastical government may be
          > either prevented and avoided, or taken away, or lest
          > the power of the
          > church, either by the ignorance or unskilfulness of
          > some ministers here and
          > there, or also by too much heat and fervour of mind,
          > should run out beyond
          > measure or bounds, or contrariwise, being shut up
          > within straiter limits
          > than is fitting, should be made unprofitable,
          > feeble, or of none
          > effect,--Christ, the most wise lawgiver of his
          > church, hath foreseen and
          > made provision to prevent all such evils which he
          > did foresee were to arise,
          > and hath prepared and prescribed for them
          > intrinsical and ecclesiastical
          > remedies, and those also in their kind (if lawfully
          > and rightly applied)
          > both sufficient and effectual: some whereof he hath
          > most expressly
          > propounded in his word, and some he hath left to be
          > drawn from thence by
          > necessary consequence.
          >
          > 31. Therefore, by reason of the danger of that which
          > is called "clavis
          > errans," or a wrong key; and that it may not be
          > permitted to particular
          > churches to err or sin licentiously, and lest any
          > man's cause be overthrown
          > and perish, who in a particular church had perhaps
          > the same men both his
          > adversaries and his judges; also that common
          > business, which do belong to
          > many churches, together with the more weighty and
          > difficult controversies
          > (the deciding whereof in the consistories of
          > particular [sic] churches is
          > not safe to e adventured upon) may be handled and
          > determined by a common
          > council of presbyteries; finally, that the governors
          > of particular churches
          > may impart help mutually one to another against the
          > cunning and subtile
          > enemies of truth, and may join their strength
          > together (such as it is) by an
          > holy combination, and that the church may be as a
          > camp of an army well
          > ordered, lest while every one striveth singly all of
          > them be subdued and
          > overcome, or lest by reason of the scarcity of
          > prudent and godly counselors
          > (in the multitude of whom is safety) the affairs of
          > the church be undone:
          > for all these considerations particular churches
          > must be subordinate to
          > classical presbyteries and synods
          >
          >
          >
          > And here is the form of Scottish excommunication as
          > summarized by Pardovan
          > in 1707:
          >
          > ". Where there is no obdurate contumacy, the lesser
          > excommunication needs
          > only have place. Again, where no scandalous practice
          > hath been proven, only
          > there is a simple contumacy following by not
          > appearing, in that case, the
          > lesser excommunication is length enough. But if the
          > scandal be of an heinous
          > nature, and that it is spreading and infectious, as
          > in heresies or schism in
          > the church, in which cases, contumacy is to be
          > proceeded against.
          >
          > Every error or difference in judgment not sufficient
          > ground for
          > excommunication.
          >
          > 2. Yet every error or difference in judgement about
          > points wherein learned
          > and godly men may differ, and which subverts not the
          > faith, nor is
          > destructive to godliness, or when persons, out of
          > conscience, do not come up
          > to the observation of all these rules, which are or
          > shall be established by
          > authority for regulating outward worship of God, and
          > government of his
          > church, the censure of excommunication should not be
          > inflicted for such
          > cases. See Durham on scandal. The letter from the
          > Assembly of divines at
          > Westminster, with the answer of our General Assembly
          > 1645.
          >
          > How the presbytery proceeds with persons present or
          > absent in order to the
          > censure.
          >
          > 3. The kirk-session having brought the process to
          > the lesser
          > excommunication, before they proceed further, they
          > are by a reference to lay
          > their whole proceeding in writ before the
          > presbytery, who finding them to
          > have orderly proceeded, and that the lesser
          > excommunication is not
          > sufficient, they are to cause cite the scandalous
          > person, .
          >
          > Book IV, Title VI, Of the Order of Proceeding to
          > Excommunication.
          >
          >
          >
          > Sincerely,
          >
          > Chris Coldwell
          >
          > Owner, Naphtali Press <http://www.naphtali.com>
          > http://www.naphtali.com
          >
          > Editor, The Confessional Presbyterian journal
          > <http://www.cpjournal.com>
          > http://www.cpjournal.com
          >
          > Member, Faith Presbyterian Church Reformed, Mesquite
          > TX http://www.fpcr.org
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >




          ____________________________________________________________________________
          ________
          Do you Yahoo!?
          Everyone is raving about the all-new Yahoo! Mail beta.
          http://new.mail.yahoo.com

          --- End forwarded message ---
        • trygvesson@aol.com
          In a message dated 11/29/2006 7:39:07 AM Eastern Standard Time, humbled.learner@yahoo.com writes: If you Chris Caldwell never took membership in a lawful
          Message 4 of 6 , Nov 29, 2006
          • 0 Attachment
            In a message dated 11/29/2006 7:39:07 AM Eastern Standard Time, humbled.learner@... writes:
             
            "If you Chris Caldwell never took membership in a lawful Session, Presbytery or extraordinary, international Session, and did so in a local Society according to your testimony, what on earth is wrong with your excommunicating yourself from something youbadmit you were never a member of in the first place."
            I an not speaking for the other Chris, but this singular point of yours is confusing and makes no sense at all to my reading. How can one be EX-comminucated from something they never had communion with in the first place? The term "excommunication" implies that one is going from the position of being IN communion with others to being OUT of communion with others, having one's membership in a particular church revoked or suspended. How can you revoke or suspend something that never took place to begin with?
             
            If one was never a member of a particular church, how then can they be said to be excommunicated from it?
             
            ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
            Christopher Coombes

                                                                            _
                                                                           / )
                                                         (\__/)         ( (
                                                          )    (           ) )
                                                       ={      }=       / /
                                                          )     `-------/ /
                                                         (               /
                                                          \              |
                                                          ,'\       ,    ,'
                                                          `-'\  ,---\   | \
                                                             _) )    `. \ /
                                                            (__/       ) )
                                                                      (_/
          • Walt Bre
            Amen to that...it is precisely what I thought when I read the public testimony of some claiming no membership. Thanks for catching that point, I hope others
            Message 5 of 6 , Nov 29, 2006
            • 0 Attachment
              Amen to that...it is precisely what I thought when I
              read the public testimony of some claiming no
              membership. Thanks for catching that point, I hope
              others see it as well and we will see a broader
              understanding what membership means for those of us
              who did take it, and for those who apparantly did not.

              --- trygvesson@... wrote:

              >
              >
              > In a message dated 11/29/2006 7:39:07 AM Eastern
              > Standard Time,
              > humbled.learner@... writes:
              >
              > "If you Chris Caldwell never took membership in a
              > lawful Session, Presbytery
              > or extraordinary, international Session, and did so
              > in a local Society
              > according to your testimony, what on earth is wrong
              > with your excommunicating
              > yourself from something youbadmit you were never a
              > member of in the first place."
              >
              >
              >
              >
              > I an not speaking for the other Chris, but this
              > singular point of yours is
              > confusing and makes no sense at all to my reading.
              > How can one be
              > EX-comminucated from something they never had
              > communion with in the first place? The term
              > "excommunication" implies that one is going from the
              > position of being IN
              > communion with others to being OUT of communion with
              > others, having one's
              > membership in a particular church revoked or
              > suspended. How can you revoke or
              > suspend something that never took place to begin
              > with?
              >
              > If one was never a member of a particular church,
              > how then can they be said
              > to be excommunicated from it?
              >
              > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
              > Christopher Coombes
              > _
              > / )
              > (\__/) ( (
              > ) ( ) )
              > ={ }= / /
              > ) `-------/ /
              > ( /
              > \ |
              > ,'\ , ,'
              > `-'\ ,---\ | \
              > _) ) `. \ /
              > (__/ ) )
              > (_/
              >




              ____________________________________________________________________________________
              Yahoo! Music Unlimited
              Access over 1 million songs.
              http://music.yahoo.com/unlimited
            • Walt Bre
              Thanks Chris, I have read some of your comments about us on some of the threads over on the puritanboard, and am thankful that we don t go down that path. I
              Message 6 of 6 , Nov 29, 2006
              • 0 Attachment
                Thanks Chris,

                I have read some of your comments about us on some of
                the threads over on the puritanboard, and am thankful
                that we don't go down that path. I appreciate the
                work you have done in the past and have chosen to stay
                out of much of those discussions. Wishing you and
                your colleagues steadfastness and faithfulness in the
                Lord.

                Walt.

                --- Chris Coldwell <naphtali@...> wrote:

                > Walt,
                > While it's pronounced Caldwell, I do spell my name
                > Coldwell like my
                > Scotch-Irish Presbyterian gggg grandfather did. :-)
                > I'm glad the quotations
                > are useful; as to further discussion, I would simply
                > prefer not to engage
                > particulars of this situation given I'm not in
                > agreement with the RPNA
                > ecclesiology generally.
                > Sincerely,
                > Chris Coldwell
                > Owner, Naphtali Press http://www.naphtali.com
                > Editor, The Confessional Presbyterian journal
                > http://www.cpjournal.com
                > Member, Faith Presbyterian Church Reformed, Mesquite
                > TX http://www.fpcr.org
                >
                >
                > -----Original Message-----
                > From: notify@yahoogroups.com
                > [mailto:notify@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
                > Chris Coldwell
                > Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2006 8:00 AM
                > To: naphtali@...
                > Subject: Fwd: Re: [Covenanted Reformation] Scottish
                > Excommunication
                >
                > --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com,
                > Walt Bre
                > <humbled.learner@...> wrote:
                >
                > Chris,
                > Great posts. I've seen these before and make a lot
                > of
                > good sense. Important to distinguish the following:
                >
                > This is subject to debate, however, so I will use my
                > OWN situation. Therefore, I am speaking solely
                > about
                > myself and my own situation.
                >
                > In my case, I took membership in the PRCE in 1998.
                > This decision was made after about 8 months of
                > almost
                > daily dialog with 2 of the 3 Elders at the time. I
                > subsequently flew to take my membership interview
                > and
                > became a member. I understand that some may argue
                > that and an international phone call may not qualify
                > as a lawful method to take membership, in a church,
                > but in my case I actually flew and met face-to-face.
                >
                > Once membership was taken, and my interview
                > complete,
                > I later saw the three member Elders grow the local
                > Session into a greater Presbytery, although
                > extraordinary as one Pastor and two Elders lived in
                > Canada and one Pastor and one Elder in America.
                >
                > My membership did not change, except what was
                > previously a local Session became a greater
                > Presbytery, and I had a higher court of jurisdiction
                > whereby I could take my questions. The point being
                > was that my membership in the PRCE was lawful, in my
                > mind, even though I lived in American and the PRCE
                > existed in Canada. Some may not believe this is
                > possible, but that was my knowledge and I found
                > nothing in Scripture to claim unlawful my
                > membership.
                > In fact, I came out of a local Baptist church who
                > shunned me for taking such a stand that I was taking
                > membership in a Canadian church when only a local
                > church would be lawful.
                >
                > Nevertheless, once my membership allowed me the
                > greater priviledges of a Presbytery, and I saw the
                > paper on headcoverings come through and cause a
                > controversy, I knew that the five men who made this
                > decision did so as a lawful court, although
                > extraordinary, and after studying it and speaking
                > through my questions, and doing my own study with
                > the
                > Scriptures, I accepted the decision. Some may have
                > left over the decision, and that is their option,
                > indeed.
                >
                > Once the Presbytery dissolved over controversy, I
                > did
                > not ever believe my membership dissolved, and that
                > what would happen next would be settling back to a
                > Session, although extraordinary and international.
                > Now, I accept some will not claim any membership to
                > this structure, arguing that it is not Presbyterian
                > to
                > have such an international Session
                > (extraordinarily),
                > and all Sessions need to be local, but I reject this
                > view and teaching.
                >
                > I understand that some people have never taken
                > membership in the PRCE (as I did in 1998), nor taken
                > membership in the RPNA (as one of my friends did),
                > nor
                > taken membership in the RPNA (GM), however, have
                > been
                > members of local societies. Their membership was in
                > these local societies, and that is the testimony on
                > record, so when someone is excommunicated from a
                > Session they never belonged to, nor took membership
                > in, it is called a self-excommunication.
                >
                > Do you understand the distinction?
                >
                > If you Chris Caldwell never took membership in a
                > lawful Session, Presbytery or extraordinary,
                > international Session, and did so in a local Society
                > according to your testimony, what on earth is wrong
                > with your excommunicating yourself from something
                > you
                > admit you were never a member of in the first place.
                >
                > Perhaps I got off track a bit using my own
                > situation,
                > but I would like you to make a distinction between
                > those like me to accept my membership, not in any
                > society because I have no society here in America to
                > join, but accept it in the PRCE, RPNA and
                > subsequently
                > the RPNA (GM). From this foundation, I work through
                > my problems and misunderstandings and questions
                > using
                > Scripture and the Presbyterian traditions so many
                > don't seem to understand.
                >
                > I'll let you know if this gets me excommunicated,
                > but
                > from what I read below, and what I understand from
                > my
                > membership in the RPNA (GM) I don't fear it the
                > least.
                >
                > If I am unwilling to take the oath presented, and
                > claim no membership ever in the history of our
                > church,
                > but only in local societies, then I will have no
                > problem walking away to build a local society with
                > my
                > friends and call it "Presbyterianism",
                > "extraordinarily" without an ministers.
                >
                > History will show the truth, I guarantee it.
                >
                > Walt.
                >
                > --- Chris Coldwell <naphtali@...> wrote:
                >
                > > FWIW, and I apologize if others have noted this,
                > > Gillespie in his 111
                > > Propositions says the following about the power of
                > > excommunication as
                > > understood by Scottish Presbyterianism, and I also
                > > give the appropriate
                > > section from Walter Steuart of Pardovan afterward
                > > (Pardovan's Collections
                > > was the first attempt to organize Scottish
                > practice
                > > into what we'd call a
                > > book of church order today):
                > >
                > > 19. . it plainly followeth that those are to be
                > kept
                > > back from the Lord's
                > > supper, who by their fruits and manners do prove
                > > themselves to be ungodly or
                > > impenitent, and strangers or aliens from all
                > > communion with Christ. . [see
                > > also Durham's Concerning Scandal on how carefully
                > > excommunication should be
                > > used].
                > >
                > > 28. Excommunication ought not to be proceeded unto
                > > except when extreme
                > > necessity constraineth: but whensoever the soul of
                > > the sinner cannot
                > > otherwise be healed, and that the safety of the
                > > church requireth the cutting
                > > off of this or that member, it behoveth to use
                > this
                > > last remedy .
                > >
                > > .
                > >
                > > 30. But that all abuse and corruption in
                > > ecclesiastical government may be
                > > either prevented and avoided, or taken away, or
                > lest
                > > the power of the
                > > church, either by the ignorance or unskilfulness
                > of
                > > some ministers here and
                >
                === message truncated ===




                ____________________________________________________________________________________
                Yahoo! Music Unlimited
                Access over 1 million songs.
                http://music.yahoo.com/unlimited
              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.