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

Re: [Covenanted Reformation] Re: On going events

Expand Messages
  • Walt Bre
    see below in [ ] ... [Because of your and Cheryl s posts I wanted to clarify the record so my comments were not taken out of context. Also, I don t mind
    Message 1 of 36 , Mar 4, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      see below in [ ]
      --- bob_suden <bsuden@...> wrote:

      > 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?
      [Because of your and Cheryl's posts I wanted to
      clarify the record so my comments were not taken out
      of context. Also, I don't mind posting, but just
      don't want to get into a public debate. Further, I do
      believe this is a private message board. It is
      controlled by Gerry and membership is approved by him,
      plus he can remove/restrict posts or people.]
      >
      > > 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.
      [yes, we all have to plead/argue the merits before us,
      and come to our own determination as to what is
      biblical. I've spent my whole life doing this and
      will continue.]

      >
      > > 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.
      [This is sort of what I thought, which with your
      comments gives me more assurance that this was a
      closed group of hand picked people. You likely know
      that I would never have supported such a group. Shawn
      knows my personality very well, and I can see why I
      was not invited. Indeed, I have always stood by the
      Elders, but it has not come without hard questions.
      Within the first year of membership, I submitted 6
      formal requests to the Session with 18 specific
      questions. Most are surprised that Elders would
      respond so extensively to those questions when I show
      them their answers. Your common concerns paper topped
      the total number of questions I submitted for sure!
      I'm not one to sit back and not ask questions, and I
      would have had a lot for your group that would not
      have been easy.]

      >
      > > You can spin this any way you like,
      > As you are doing yourself right now?
      [In your opinion, I guess so.]
      >
      > > 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.)
      [Bob, I almost wanted to really take off on you after
      reading this, and reading most all of your public
      posts against those in our church, but I'll walk away.
      Yea, it is because your criticisms and questions of
      me have me shaking in my boots.]

      >
      > > 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.
      [You do like to provoke one to anger whenever
      possible. I'll leave this one alone as well. You now
      have me running scared of your attack mode. We have
      had this discussion before, and I'll leave it in your
      capable hands to educate the masses.]

      >
      > > 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.
      [I find the merits of your arguments extremely odd,
      and have studied them over and over. In reading your
      stuff, I'm not even remotely understanding why you
      ever stayed in the church as long as you did. You are
      much better aligned with your own blog, and a
      keyboard.]

      >
      > > 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.
      [agreed, and I hope people take time to study the
      facts. They are simple and clear. All the chest
      pounding by the bloggers helps people look beneath the
      surface.]

      >
      > > 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?
      [To clarify my previous post that drew you/Cheryl to
      conclusions/comments I did not make. Again, because I
      view this site as private, not public. If it was
      public, there would not be a membership requirement
      and moderator who could reject/approve posts. Because
      they are open to google searching does not mean people
      have the right to use them to damage someone's good
      name, for money or otherwise.]
      >
      > > 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 you will find it in the society documents
      that were organized with the oath of secrecy that all
      the members took. I find it absurd that one will take
      an oath of secrecy for a study group, and then
      complain about others requesting the same. I know at
      least these posts will/could hit those on the web, and
      that is much different than where things are done in
      secret to promote a detailed, written agenda by oath.
      Big difference. If you worked for my companies, I
      would have fired you immediately. If you were my
      wife, and got all the other wives to join such a group
      to come against me, I would have been seriously
      offended.]

      >
      > > 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.
      [Ok, I'll take that into consideration.]

      >
      > > I don't have any desire to offend you.
      > Thank you, nor do I you.
      [good, I'll let you have the last crack at me, and
      then I'll leave it alone. I know where this is
      going.]

      >
      > > 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.
      [I would ask you respect my request nevertheless. I
      could not imagine someone asking me to keep their
      comments private, and then go forward to past them on
      my blog in an attempt to stir up controversy, or
      publish something someone asked me to keep private to
      a site. I trust you will honor my request.]

      >
      === message truncated ===




      ____________________________________________________________________________________
      Be a PS3 game guru.
      Get your game face on with the latest PS3 news and previews at Yahoo! Games.
      http://videogames.yahoo.com/platform?platform=120121
    • 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, 2007
      • 0 Attachment
        Greetings to you, in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ,

        Brother Chris Coldwell, may I also have your reasons.

        blessings,

        Katrina Schumacher
        triple3ranch@...



        --- 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
        even
        > members until they post 25 times; a precaution of sorts I guess.
        I'll
        > 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.