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

Re: On going events

Expand Messages
  • bob_suden
    Greetings Walter, Thanks for yours. ... Then why this public post instead of one privately? ... The point is, it doesn t make any difference if the elders can
    Message 1 of 36 , Mar 4 4:10 PM
      Greetings Walter,
      Thanks for yours.

      > I wish not to get into a public debate with you on this matter.
      Then why  this public post instead of one privately?

      > You can say the following with confidence: "I am sure enough of a
      > hullabaloo can be made within the RPNA(GM) by the elders themselves,
      > if not their sycophantic followers, to persuade, if not hoodwink, the
      > gullible and immature in Christ into buying the argument that the
      > "sins" of these "conspiratorial" brethren are more than enough to
      > outweigh and overwhelm the shoddy scholarship, logical butcherwork and
      > fallacious arguments of the PPSA which preceded said "conspiracy."",
      > but I have not seen all the documents you have seen.
      The point is, it doesn't make any difference if the elders can  grub up 1. some rare bound photocopy or 2. some document from, about or on the group responsible for the Charitable Inquiry, it is all a red herring and a diversion.  You and everybody else have enough go on with the PPSA or the Oath, which are in the public realm, to come to a reasonable judgement, yea or nay about it.

      > I was never
      > invited to participate in this group, even though some of the members
      > recommended to me that I need to study the documents. I understand it
      > was only a study group for members in our church, and the first time I
      > ever heard about this group was from Shawn's published agology. There
      > were several people who were critical of me personally that I was
      > basically ignorant and blind to the truth, but yet nobody invited me
      > (or others I've asked) to be part of this group.
      The reasons for that were 1. You have made some broad and uncritical remarks favoring the elders in the past and didn't seem willing to try to look at both sides, (which is why Bob Humbug said what he did when he did.) 2. You have withdrawn from many lists or requested people not to send you emails about these matters.

      > You can spin this any way you like,
      As you are doing yourself right now?

      > as I know on this web site you
      > have a lot of supporters, but I have not seen these documents, nor was
      > I ever invited to participate in your study group. Some have called
      > it a secret society you formed, others called it a study group that
      > was within our church. I never heard about either until recently.
      Again, this irrelevant. The PPSA has been and will be around a lot longer to bind your conscience than the group that put the Charitable Inquiry together and then disbanded, i.e was "euthanized." (There should be great joy in Grinchville at the last, but for some reason the grinches aren't celebrating, they are complaining that the group ever was. Hmmm, maybe they can't stand any criticism or questions. So much for a love of the truth and an ability to rise above partisan church politics.)

      > Thus, don't start slamming me personally on this site,
      I am not slamming you personally and I daresay if I was, being reasonably articulate, you would certainly know it.  Rather the yes man is your enemy, but your friend will tell you what you need to hear even if you don't want to hear it.

      > nor make any statements that are offensive.
      Rather the problem is  that the PPSA and the confidential loyalty oath is offensive to Christ, Scripture, the  RP subordinate standards and the light of natural reason. That that doesn't seem to bother the elders and all who agree with them including yourself,  I find a little odd, to put it  mildly.

      > Since this started when I was in
      > Africa I have read a substantial amount of materials on these issues,
      > and had many discussions with both the Elders as well as those who
      > have testified against the Elders. Unfortunately, half of what I read
      > from your comments I do not understand so any claims you make I take
      > with a grain of salt. I'm sure you don't understand me either, and
      > take what I say with even less authority, and would put me into the,
      > as you say, "sycophantic followers, to persuade, if not hoodwink, the
      > gullible and immature in Christ".
      We've all been there/everybody has got to start somewhere, but to insist otherwise when the facts are available to all, flies in the face of reason.

      > Whatever the case may be, I do not need to draw all these other people
      > into a public argument between myself, Cheryl, yourself and others who
      > support your cause.
      Then again, why this public post?

      > I'm going to wait until I see the documents from
      > the your private study group, and make my own decisions on the merits.
      > My decision is already made on the excommunications, and I support the
      > elders in their decisions. Obviously, we lost a lot of people in our
      > church, but thinking that those who stayed are a bunch of blind,
      > ignorant and "sycophantic followers" if not "hoodwink, the guilible
      > and immature in Christ" is foolish.
      But for just one instance, Q.4 of the PPSA is not foolish/stupid/ridiculous? Come on, Walter. Get real. In support of the lawfulness of the RPNA(GM)'s name, the PPSA tells us that as long as somebody has the same terms of communion as the RP Church or the Reformed Presbytery or the RP General Meeting, it is OK to go by the same name.
      Hence  I hold to the same terms of communion as the "RPNA(GM) Session" so I can call myself by the same name. So can you and if you don't agree, well, my session will  just have to "self" excommunicate your session. Wait a minute while I find the proper  oath to send you.  It's around here somewhere . . .

      > I think some of us who stayed are quite the opposite even in the face
      > of those supporters who would agree with you. Surely you don't agree,
      > but if you wish to keep bad mouthing us publically, I will leave this 
      > forum immediately
      Nobody is getting bad mouthed per se, rather as above, you are confusing false prophets and yes men for a real friends. That unfortunately can be damaging to your spiritual health and well being.

      >  I don't have any desire to offend you.
      Thank you, nor do I you.

      > If this post gets through, I again ask you to leave it on this forum
      > and not post it to your site.
      You have been hanging around the RPNA(GM) too long. Public posts are in the public domain, besides more people probably read it here than at the  RPV site. Not that I necessarily intend to do anything, but Eph. 5:12 is operative. The more sunlight the better on this little dunghill of the problem with the RPNA(GM). If that means posting it publicly on the RPV, well, that's what it means. Othewise, send it privately please, as I usually respect people's wishes then.

      > Thank you.

      cordially in Christ
      Bob Suden
      Member of,  but not speaking for - take your pick - the "Session of the RPWhateverItIs"/Society of Disaffected Brethren
    • desire_pure_heart
      Greetings to you, in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, Brother Chris Coldwell, may I also have your reasons. blessings, Katrina Schumacher
      Message 36 of 36 , Mar 12 9:21 AM
        Greetings to you, in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ,

        Brother Chris Coldwell, may I also have your reasons.


        Katrina Schumacher

        --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, Cheryl Grenon
        <knoxknoxwhosthere@...> wrote:
        > Me too.
        > Cheryl
        > ----- Original Message ----
        > From: "trygvesson@..." <trygvesson@...>
        > To: covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com
        > Sent: Thursday, March 8, 2007 4:31:52 AM
        > Subject: Re: [Covenanted Reformation] Re: On going events
        > In a message dated 3/7/2007 7:09:35 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
        naphtali@naphtali. com writes:
        > Bob, Tom,
        > Sorry, I remember now that some of the forums are "invisible" to
        > members until they post 25 times; a precaution of sorts I guess.
        > send the text to each of you directly.
        > Sincerely,
        > Chris Coldwell
        > Chris,
        > Please send me a copy as well. Thanks!
        > ~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~
        > Christopher Coombes
        > _
        > / )
        > (\__/) ( (
        > ) ( ) )
        > ={ }= / /
        > ) `-------/ /
        > ( /
        > \ |
        > ,'\ , ,'
        > `-'\ ,---\ | \
        > _) ) `. \ /
        > (__/ ) )
        > (_/

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