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
    • 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.