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

Re: [Covenanted Reformation] Re: Scottish Excommunication

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 6 , Nov 29, 2006
      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


      --- 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.
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.