Re: [Covenanted Reformation] Re: Scottish Excommunication
- 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,=== message truncated ===
> 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.
> Chris Coldwell
> Owner, Naphtali Press http://www.naphtali.com
> Editor, The Confessional Presbyterian journal
> Member, Faith Presbyterian Church Reformed, Mesquite
> TX http://www.fpcr.org
> -----Original Message-----
> From: email@example.com
> [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org] On Behalf Of
> Chris Coldwell
> Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2006 8:00 AM
> To: naphtali@...
> Subject: Fwd: Re: [Covenanted Reformation] Scottish
> --- In email@example.com,
> Walt Bre
> <humbled.learner@...> wrote:
> Great posts. I've seen these before and make a lot
> 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
> 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
> daily dialog with 2 of the 3 Elders at the time. I
> subsequently flew to take my membership interview
> 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
> 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
> 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
> Scriptures, I accepted the decision. Some may have
> left over the decision, and that is their option,
> Once the Presbytery dissolved over controversy, I
> 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
> have such an international Session
> 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),
> taken membership in the RPNA (GM), however, have
> 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
> admit you were never a member of in the first place.
> Perhaps I got off track a bit using my own
> 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
> the RPNA (GM). From this foundation, I work through
> my problems and misunderstandings and questions
> Scripture and the Presbyterian traditions so many
> don't seem to understand.
> I'll let you know if this gets me excommunicated,
> from what I read below, and what I understand from
> membership in the RPNA (GM) I don't fear it the
> If I am unwilling to take the oath presented, and
> claim no membership ever in the history of our
> but only in local societies, then I will have no
> problem walking away to build a local society with
> friends and call it "Presbyterianism",
> "extraordinarily" without an ministers.
> History will show the truth, I guarantee it.
> --- 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
> > into what we'd call a
> > book of church order today):
> > 19. . it plainly followeth that those are to be
> > 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
> > last remedy .
> > .
> > 30. But that all abuse and corruption in
> > ecclesiastical government may be
> > either prevented and avoided, or taken away, or
> > the power of the
> > church, either by the ignorance or unskilfulness
> > some ministers here and
Yahoo! Music Unlimited
Access over 1 million songs.