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

[Covenanted Reformation] Re: On going events

Expand Messages
  • bob_suden
    ... Nope, based on your post below to Edgar, you don t get it, if not that also based on the same, your statement is an indisputable lie. ... But let me make a
    Message 1 of 36 , Mar 6, 2007
      --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, Walt Bre <humbled.learner@...> wrote:
      > Ok, got it.
      Nope, based on your post below to Edgar, you don't get it, if not that also based on the same, your statement is an indisputable lie.      

      > Edgar,
      > I firmly reject almost everything you said below based
      > upon my own research.  Indeed, you have got this whole
      > thing mapped out in your mind, and all your facts are
      > not only disputable, but lies.  However, I'll wait for
      > the information on your group, and add it to what I
      > already have in hand to get a broader picture of what
      > you guys did to the church.
      > Walt.
      But let me make a few things clear so there is no doubt or room to weasel out of  "getting it,"  much more you will not hear it in the RPNA(GM). (If you did, the elders would have to repent and it would really have to become a General Meeting in more than name only.)

      The PPSA which you necessarily have to agree with as a member of  the RPWhateverItIs is a fraud because:

      In  Q. 1 there is no mention at all of any RP historical testimony of precedent for the extraordinary session (as per for example the RP Minutes for Oct. 1842). This is the glaring sin of omission which trumps all and sets the stage for the following sins of commission.

      The arguments of the congregation alone in an island and Matt. 18 are fallacies of the undistributed middle term. Both examples assume  two or more officers of a court are gathered together in one place in person, but this does not apply to the RPNA(GM)'s court.

      The arguments from Act 15 and the council of Jerusalem/ Grand Debate and a presbytery as a common court are also fallacies of the undistributed middle term. Again the ability and practice of the officers of the court being gathered together in person in one place, if not  a plurality of teaching elders or the presence of resident and representative ruling elders from the congregations over which jurisdiction is claimed, are assumed in the two examples mentioned, but again are absent from/not applicable to the RPNA(GM)'s court.

      If this is not enough, these arguments are also fallacies of division in that the parts or a part is assumed to have the properties of the whole. The RPNA(GM)'s session is assumed to have the international jurisdiction of a synod and instead of being a congregational court with a local jurisdiction, it  is asserted to be a "common court" over many non local religious  societies/congregations, just as a presbytery is over congregations/sessions in its locality.

      All this contra the brief paragraph that asserts that the arguments of the PPSA are Scriptural and of good and necessary consequence (p.9).

      All this and more contra the brief paragraph that asserts the divine right of long distance phone government and internet technology which is the hinge of the PPSA's justification for overturning/ ignoring the mandate in Matt.18:20 for officers to meet together in person, likewise the essence of a local congregational court or session, extraordinary or no,  that its officers can and do meet together  (p.9). If the PPSA is correct and this innovation/insight is lawful, it has yet to be proven - one paragraph is not even a start, brass assertion that it is -  much less sanctioned by a genuine greater presbytery, much more general assembly. Yet the RPNA(GM) has neither. 

      Neither is the Dictionary of Scottish Church History & Theology a binding constitutional/subordinate standard in RP circles, as is the Minutes of the RP of A which it supplanted, nor is the Privy Kirk an approved historical example per se compared to Second Reformation and the doctrine of attainments.

      Neither does the DSCH&T explicitly, much more implicitly say what the PPSA claims for it: that a court is necessary to adminster the sacraments.
      The PPSA then contradicts the June 14, `03 letter from the same elders responsible for the PPSA which testimony is suppressed/selectively quoted from in the PPSA where the power of order as in a minister's office -  not power of jurisdiction as in a court -  as well as "clear historical testimony" is appealed to support G. Price's right as a pastor to administer the sacraments. But June `03 is the last we will hear of this.

      And while in Q.1 the Second Book of Discipline 7:10 is quoted re. "common elderships" to support more or less (implicitly in June `03?)  the PPSA's extraordinary court, in Q.2 the DSCH&T is quoted (p.19) to the effect that the "common elderships" of the SBD (1578) became a reality in the institution of "thirteen  model presbyteries" in 1581. But presbyteries are not, as the PPSA wants to say, "common sessions."  So much for the sole argument from a subordinate standard in the PPSA on the basis of its own choice and witness. (This is usually called leading with your chin or shooting yourself in the foot.)

      Also Q.2 argues that a local session can extraordinarily exercise presbyterial powers in its own matters such as excommunication. But again the court argued for in the PPSA is not a local congregational court that can and does meet together in one place in person ( if not at least temporarily for an extraordinary session.)

      Likewise Q.3 again contradicts the power of order at least as understood by the star witness of the PPSA at ten mentions, George Gillespie (Assertion, I:II) in asserting that a court (power of jurisdiction) is necessary to adminster the sacraments.

      As for Q.4, again, names are for to distinguish, even amongst those who have the same terms of communion. The PPSA though, forsaking reason and common sense, asserts that as long as one has the same terms of communion as the RP Church, the Reformed Presbytery or RP General Meeting, it is OK to go by the same name. In other words, in any sane world outside of Alice's Wonderland, this would call for drug testing. Reductio ad absurdum,  anyone in the RPNA(GM) can call themselves " the Session of the RPNA(GM)" because they have the same terms of communion as these brethren with terminal confusion, if not also anyone else that agrees with the historic RP terms of communion.

      In short and in sum, we can all cry about not being invited to the "secret society" or cry up "conspiracy, conspiracy" all we want - the boy who cried "wolf" not withstanding -  but the PPSA still remains a conscience binding monument to stupidity, hubris  and serious/egregious error.

      Even further, that anybody would have the brass to impose an oath to believe it, four month waiting period or no and excommunicate those who demur, all the while  the sheep/serfs are still waiting for a Birth Control paper promised as a point of "duty" in the June `03 letter from the elders is nothing more than  arrogant.

      Consequently the brethren who authored both the PPSA and the self righteous demand of the oath, are responsible for all the turmoil it has provoked and the refusal to go along with the pogrom, as well they justly deserve the labels of innovators and tyrants. That they can complain is only that much more more evidence of their judicial blindness. May the Lord have mercy on them and all those they have managed to deceive, as well those they have unjustly excommunicated.

      Thank you very much,
      cordially yours,
      in the Lord Jesus Christ
      Bob Suden
    • 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
        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.