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

Re: Contact me with questions

Expand Messages
  • Ic Neltococayotl
    Walt, Dear brother in Christ I need to write this to you as a warning, as one brother to another. You have stated publicly that most of my words are lies.
    Message 1 of 4 , Mar 7, 2007
    • 0 Attachment

      Walt,

       

      Dear brother in Christ I need to write this to you as a warning, as one brother to another.

       

      You have stated publicly that most of my words are lies.  Therefore you have charged with bearing false witness and accounted me a liar.  In your view I am a violator of the 9th Commandment regarding my comments that I wrote about the "RPNA (GM)", our private study group, and the excommunications of some of us.

       

      You continue to declare, like below, that you have sound Biblical principals, reasons, and other documentation to prove me/us wrong.  Yet you will only release it privately.

      If you say that I am sinning and declare it so publicly then why not provide that proof publicly instead of privately?

       

      Another false accusation: You call us a secret society.  That is an assertion, for you yet have been able to furnish the proof.  You and those of the other laity of the "RPNA(GM)" that have been so bold and firm to throw that assertion around have yet to even give an attempt to prove that assertion whether by God's Word, some kind of sound reasoning, or the Covenanter Standards that you all of the "RPNA(GM)" claim to uphold, own, and maintain.

       

      Here then is my brotherly admonition to you and every other person that continues to shovel out bushels upon bushels of assertions without proof (even though you all claim to have this proof-where is it?) and to call me and other of my brethren liars, especially in a public forum.

       

      The Word of God declares to all of us:

       

      Do violence to no man, neither accuse any falsely, Luke 3:14.

       

      Why?

       

      Deut. 19:16, 18, 19: If a false witness rise up against any man to testify against him that which is wrong;… And the judges shall make diligent inquisition: and, behold, if the witness be a false witness, and hath testified falsely against his brother; Then shall ye do unto him, as he had thought to have done unto his brother: so shalt thou put the evil away from among you.

       

      Brother, I declare unto you in presence of God and the Christians here, that unless you can publicly prove that my written words were in violation of the 9th Commandment and therefore making me a liar, then in accordance to the Word of God you will be the false witness, a liar, and a violator of God's Commandments and all the consequences that would entail for you and your integrity. 

       

      You decided to take the course of accusing me as a liar, now you must finish the course.  Now if you called me a liar due to misunderstanding my words, then repent of calling me a liar and admit your misunderstanding(s).  If I was unclear or my words confused you, then tell me, and I will apologize for my lack of clarity publicly and you will also need to retract your words.

       

      If you cannot prove my written words that you ascribed as mainly lies, in this public forum, then you must repent or the Word of God in Deuteronomy condemns you.  This is a warning to me, to you, and my brethren in the "RPNA(GM)" that use the same tactic as you have employed.

       

      If you prove me a liar, then I will repent here and to the laity/Elders of the "RPNA (GM)".

       

      Your brother because of Christ our Savior,

       

      Edgar Ibarra

       

       


      --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, "humbled.learner" <humbled.learner@...> wrote:
      >
      > Dear brethren,
      >
      > If anyone would like to ask any questions of me regarding what
      > happened in our church, and the specific reasons for the
      > excommunications, please contact me privately at
      > [humbled.learner@...].
      >
      > I'm not going to get involved presently in a public bashing of those
      > one here who have been excommunicated, nor be at the other end of
      > receiving the public bashing. I'll leave this sort of commentary for
      > others, and those who wish to contact me privately I can give my side
      > of the story firmly, scripturally and argue why I stayed in the church
      > and sided with the Elders in their decisions.
      >
      > Once all the documents from the secret society are posted in the
      > future, as I would encourage Bob to post them on his website as he
      > obviously has all of those documents, and believes everything should
      > be made public and it was no secret society, then we will have a much
      > more clear picture of the order of events. From there, people can
      > make a much more faithful and informed decision for themselves.
      >
      > Chris, I know you have no interest in what our church does or does not
      > do in regard to its testimony, for the most part I mean, but you are
      > also welcome to write me if you want to hear my position on the
      > matter. I've studied all the documents, the arguments and examined
      > these issues back and forth. The three posting on here in testimony
      > against me have discounted me as some blind follower, dupted and
      > ignorant of Presbyterian government and historical testimony. I
      > reject this opinion, and can discuss specifically why these people are
      > wrong, need to publically repent and learn Presbyterian government
      > correctly as a first step. I have no interest in putting together my
      > own blog to daily or weekly slam any of these dissenting brethren, as
      > they (specifically Bob) desires to do to "tell the world" the truth.
      >
      > Further, I'll not submit to having people engage in public bashing of
      > one another on this site. I include myself first and foremost. I
      > stand firmly in disagreement with these brethren, especially the
      > comments made by Edgar, and will not be drawn into the tone this site
      > has already started down between myself and the others.
      >
      > Again, those who desire to understand the facts, FROM MY VIEW AND
      > STUDY OF ALL THESE ISSUES, feel free to write me privately. I have to
      > leave next week for Europe and Africa so I will be unable to respond
      > as quickly as I would like, but I am more than willing to share my
      > opinion with those who desire to understand the issues.
      >
      > May the Lord be with us all.
      > Walt.
      >

    • bob_suden
      Whoops, almost missed this one, Walter, ... Or you can go here and read the actual excommunications
      Message 2 of 4 , Mar 10, 2007
      • 0 Attachment
        Whoops, almost missed this one, Walter,

        > Dear brethren,
        >
        > If anyone would like to ask any questions of me regarding what
        > happened in our church, and the specific reasons for the
        > excommunications, please contact me privately at
        > [humbled.learner@...].
        Or you can go here and read the actual excommunications  notices. If there were other specific reasons, somebody isn't telling the whole truth, as in the ones doing the excommunicating. But that would be a violation of the 9th commandment, wouldn't it?

        > I'm not going to get involved presently in a public bashing of those
        > one here who have been excommunicated, nor be at the other end of
        > receiving the public bashing.  I'll leave this sort of commentary for
        > others, and those who wish to contact me privately I can give my side
        > of the story firmly, scripturally and argue why I stayed in the church
        > and sided with the Elders in their decisions.
        From what I see, it's more like if you disagree publicly and have some coherent reasons to support that disagreement, there are others who would call it "public bashing," much more if you care to defend yourself. That too is frowned upon.
        In short, contra the command of Christ to proclaim it from the rooftops, as urged here, the RPNA(GM believes in secret meetings and secret consultations as much as possible, if not that they have done a miserable job of proclaiming and defending the legitimacy of their court if they really are correct about it in the final analysis.
         
        > Once all the documents from the secret society are posted in the
        > future, as I would encourage Bob to post them on his website as he
        > obviously has all of those documents, and believes everything should
        > be made public and it was no secret society, then we will have a much
        > more clear picture of the order of events.  From there, people can
        > make a much more faithful and informed decision for themselves.
        Nice try, Walter, but you have those documents also, as does every one else. The Charitable Inquiry  was a signed document and was not sent out as an anonymous hushmail.
        The problem is you want to divert attention away from the Position Paper on Sessional Authority (PPSA) , which was published before the group ever got together to ask questions about it. Now since everyone has been ex'd that was in the group, much more the group has disbanded,  you are still left with that mediocre conscience binding monument of substandard and satanic stupidity, the PPSA.

        And just as the PPSA is a smokescreen and an attempt to divert attention from the real question: "What is the RP historical testimony/practice?"  so too all the squawking about "secret societies" and "conspiracies" is only more of the same old past practice and tactics to duck the material question of the legitimacy of the RPNA(GM)'s session. In other words, somebody has learned well the standard modus operandi of the RPNA(GM) Session.

        That, if not that the "Session of the RPNA(GM)" itself is a secret society that not only pre-dates, but antedates the private group that got together to put some questions together about this so-called court. Where and when was this "secret session" constituted? Where are the minutes of this "secret session?" (For that matter where are the minutes of the Reformed Presbytery of N. America?) Where and when were the stated public meetings of this "secret session" announced off the pulpit or in some other public forum? Just how does one attend a meeting of this "secret session?" How come one has to get excommunicated to learn more about the meetings of this "secret session?" In short, 'heal thyself, Mr. Secret Agent Man.'

        If these brothers in this secret session could/would really get off their duff and off the dime and gather together in one place to constitute a real presbyterian session, a local congregational court - albeit temporary and extraordinary  - that would be one thing. To otherwise assert that they have a court and the right and power to excommunicate by email all who decline this "court" is the height of blind arrogance and is a usurpation of the lawful judicial powers of a true presbyterian court.
         
        > Chris, I know you have no interest in what our church does or does not
        > do in regard to its testimony, for the most part I mean, but you are
        > also welcome to write me if you want to hear my position on the
        > matter.  I've studied all the documents, the arguments and examined
        > these issues back and forth.  The three posting on here in testimony
        > against me have discounted me as some blind follower, duped and
        > ignorant of Presbyterian government and historical testimony.  I
        > reject this opinion, and can discuss specifically why these people are
        > wrong, need to publically repent and learn Presbyterian government
        > correctly as a first step. I have no interest in putting together my
        > own blog to daily or weekly slam any of these dissenting brethren, as
        > they (specifically Bob) desires to do to "tell the world" the truth.
        All you have to do then  is stop  your bloviating on this site and give us some substantial rebuttal of the points that have been brought up in the discussion, including yours where you accused Edgar of lying and which accusation you specifically need to substantiate or retract, unless you wish to be known as the "humble" liar yourself. Instead all we hear is assertions that you know this or that, but nothing else of genuine substance.
        >
        > Further, I'll not submit to having people engage in public bashing of
        > one another on this site.  I include myself first and foremost. I
        > stand firmly in disagreement with these brethren, especially the
        > comments made by Edgar, and will not be drawn into the tone this site
        > has already started down between myself and the others. 
        Nice try again, Walter, but you were the one that called Edgar a liar without any attempt at all to back it up or substantiate it. The site didn't post that accusation. You did.
        >
        > Again, those who desire to understand the facts, FROM MY VIEW AND
        > STUDY OF ALL THESE ISSUES, feel free to write me privately.  I have to
        > leave next week for Europe and Africa so I will be unable to respond
        > as quickly as I would like, but I am more than willing to share my
        > opinion with those who desire to understand the issues.
        But evidently nobody on this site does, because you won't tell us while you take off for a trip around the world in eighty days and won't be back till eighty excommunications later?

        Some things never change. In Homer's day, they were called lotus eaters. Today they are called broccoli eaters. At least that is what is stuck in their teeth. They are suffering under the grand delusion that since they desire to be presbyterian, every jot and tittle they read in the Grand Debate applies straight across the board to the situation they find themselves in, in the RPNA(GM). But wannabe, doesn't necessarily mean actually is. Say so, don't make it so.

        Even further, after we start something we can't finish or substantiate, we take refuge in bold and bald assertions and accusations of "lying", "public bashing", "secret societies" and "conspiracies".

        What really should stick in the craw of those hearty broccoli eaters though,  is the PPSA. It is a compilation of fallacies, erroneous conclusions and the previously mentioned grand delusions. The non sequiturs begin with a congregation alone in an island, Matt. 18, Act 15 and the Grand Debate. All of which arguments based on these examples are fallacies of the undistributed middle term.

        Each example assumes that the officers of the respective courts discussed actually meet together in person in one place to constitute said court. This  as opposed to the RPNA(GM)'s court which does not ordinarily, if at all, meet together in person in one place at the same time, the parties being separated by thousands of miles and an international border. This based on the unprecedented and judicially unapproved innovation and argument for essentially the divine right of long distance phone government and modern internet technology (p.9).
         
        Even further, regarding the council of Acts 15 and the Grand Debate, one, a plurality of teaching elders is assumed and  two, the council in Jerusalem or common court of presbytery, along with ministers or teaching elders, is made up of representative and resident ruling elders from each of the courts represented in either higher court. Again these conditions that apply to these two examples, do not apply to the RPNA(GM)'s court. Hence the arguments from the examples fail.

        The arguments from Acts 15 and the Grand Debate are also fallacies of division. That is when the properties of the whole are attributed to the parts. The smaller constituent court is assumed to have the power of the larger body. Church power is considered distributive either to each individual elder, which is one of the arguments of the Independents in the Grand Debate against presbyterianism, or the local congregational  court. Rather church power is accumulates in the higher court or presbytery. While in extraordinary times, the local session can have presbyterial powers, those powers do not extend beyond that local congregation. Any appeal for international jurisdiction as the PPSA does for the session of the RPNA(GM) is to over reach and contradict the essence of a local congregational court, extraordinary or no.

        The PPSA also blatant contradicts (pp.13,14,21) the doctrine of the power of order and the June 14, `03 letter from the same elders responsible for the June `06 PPSA which affirms the same.  Both doctrine and letter teach that G.Price's office as pastor alone is sufficient to administer the sacraments -  without a court. (See Gillespie's Assertion of the Ch. Govt. of Scotland, I:II or his Notes on the West. Assembly for Feb. 14, 1644 in his Works, 1991, rpt. SWRB, II:18)

        The PPSA also forsakes the RP historical testimony on temporary/ extraordinary sessions for the testimony supposedly of the Dictionary of Scottish Church History and Theology on the Privy Kirk. (See the Minutes for the RP of A, Oct. 5, 1842
        .)
         Yet the PPSA also quotes the same Dictionary where it says the "common elderships" of the Second Book of Discipline 7:10 written in 1578, meant that "several adjacent churches might share a common eldership on a basis similar to the 'general sessions' which had emerged in some larger towns (p.19)." But one,  the congregations/societies of the RPNA(GM) are not adjacent to each other. Two, the quote from the DSCH&T goes on to say that three years later in 1581, "thirteen model presbyteries" were set up as examples to the rest of the country. So much for the "common elderships" of the SBD 7:10 as "common sessions" as per the PPSA's  wishful thinking. Not only is this a lot more clear in J. Kirk's commentary on this section of the SBD (2005, p.199), in that he also wrote the entry for the DSCH&T, neither are there "elders [to] be chosen out of every particular congregation" in  the PPSA's implementation of SBD 7:10. So much for the letter and spirit of SBD 7:10 .

        As for Q.4, it again is a laughable pastiche of schtick and nonsense, regardless of the toothless assertion that the PPSA's arguments are Scriptural and of good and necessary consequence (p.9). While we have already mentioned that if its chief premise is true -  names are only to distinguish that one has the same terms of communion -  then anybody that has the same terms as the Reformed Presbytery or the RP General Meeting can call themselves the RP or the RPGM.  Or they could call themselves the "Session of the RPNA(GM)" and excommunicate all those who disagree with this masquerade and fraudulent pretense of theological insight.
        Not to nitpick, neither does the RPNA(GM) have a General Meeting, nor does a session have oversight of a GM, contra again the PPSA (p.27).

        May God have mercy on all this unbelievable nonsense.

        cordially in Christ
        Bob Suden



      • humbled.learner
        Bob, go away. You have nothing of interest to me as I read more and more of your foolish comments. The more I read the more I am concerned your spiritual
        Message 3 of 4 , Mar 11, 2007
        • 0 Attachment
          Bob, go away. You have nothing of interest to me as I read more and
          more of your foolish comments. The more I read the more I am
          concerned your spiritual life is suffering greatly. Repent and be
          saved with a true saving knowledge of Christ. Turn your life over to
          Him and the Scriptures, and make a real EFFORT to learn Scripture.
          Walt. PS - You obviously got your comments from some of my recent
          private comments to someone else...so spin what you want, but go away!
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.