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

My last Post

Expand Messages
  • humbled.learner
    Dear brethren, I just read Chris and Edgar s last post, and now realized that this forum is virtually impossible to carry on any meaningfull discussion on the
    Message 1 of 8 , Mar 25, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      Dear brethren,

      I just read Chris and Edgar's last post, and now realized that this
      forum is virtually impossible to carry on any meaningfull discussion
      on the core issues of jurisdiction and membership. Originally I had
      thought that once I could see the Effort People's documents, I would
      then have a better and broader understanding of what happened in our
      church, but there are simply too many that will sensationalise the
      subject matter. From what I can see, the chances of to bring these
      brethren to a biblical definition and understanding of Presbyterian
      jurisdiction and membership in a church is impossible.

      Chris has already got the word Cult moving into the forum, and I've
      seen him use it (or someone else on his web posting forum in the
      past) and Jerry will likely let through what he wants, since my
      detailed message to Marc was withheld from the forum.

      I would encourage you to read Edgar's letter to the Elders and see
      how he defines jurisdiction and how he summarizes his arguments.
      Know that at this stage we never knew of the Effort People's study
      group, but only that they published a lot of questions and
      conclusions in their paper. The Elders specifically asked to put
      together a public forum where we could all discuss the issues with
      the PPSA, but this was rejected by the Effort People as they
      believed some of us too ignorant, too lacking in maturity, and maybe
      too stupid to be part of this study group, and thus only a small
      group was selected to bring their common concerns.

      If you look at the Elders publishing of the PPSA, in the cover
      email, they encouraged everyone to bring their questions to them,
      and subsequently to perhaps make a forum available for all in the
      church to discuss these issues. That was rejected privately by a
      hand full in our church, and through stealth means, and a secret
      society (my definition of what I've seen so far), they moved to
      build their own Independent definition of jurisdiction and mutual
      duties as being the "presbyterian standard" (so to speak) as how a
      court is defined. These guys are Independents, in my opinion, while
      wearing a Presbyterian Covenanter T-Shirt.

      Because their presuppositions are FIRMLY and SPECIFICALLY planted in
      the Independent arguments, they will bring a thousand questions and
      complaints making testimony. This testimony will be selective in
      its nature while at all times not telling the whole truth. This is
      why they needed to promote a secret society of sorts to do their
      study group. I'm sure if they could remove me from the RPNA (GM)
      formerally, as being only one person outside their definition, they
      would do this as it was clear I was not invited into their study
      group.

      Did you people know that some originally joined this "study group"
      and later left it confidentially, and nobody disclosed it even after
      they left for months? You see, Edgar wants people to know this was
      only like a private conference call, but he will not tell you the
      details of who joined, why some would not join, and why others
      joined and later left this group.

      No, it is better to say, "cult" and discredit our Elders and those
      of us who have worked through a lot of these questions these "Effort
      People" have raised. I for one know these guys are Independents and
      beware of their smooth talk to pursuade you otherwise.

      Dee Dee's comments are a perfect example of why what is said
      publically will be impossible defend in this forum. Again, I hope
      this message goes through. If it does not, I'll have a copy this
      time to insure it was sent.

      Removing myself from the Lion's Den and going back to the "cult"
      that Chris and others have labeled us by their sensationalism.

      May the Lord be with you,
      Walt.
    • gmw
      ... No, this is not your last post. Your last post is going to be the one where you explain what you are accusing me of doing. To my knowledge, I have allowed
      Message 2 of 8 , Mar 25, 2007
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, "humbled.learner"
        <humbled.learner@...> wrote:

        > and Jerry will likely let through what he wants, since my
        > detailed message to Marc was withheld from the forum.

        No, this is not your last post. Your last post is going to be the one
        where you explain what you are accusing me of doing.

        To my knowledge, I have allowed all posts to go through to this forum
        save some goofy advertisements and spam.

        gmw.
      • gmw
        I m speaking of the time since you ve been posting stuff, I m not denying ever blocking any message whatsoever. As far as YOUR posts, I don t recall ever
        Message 3 of 8 , Mar 25, 2007
        • 0 Attachment
          I'm speaking of the time since you've been posting stuff, I'm not
          denying ever blocking any message whatsoever.

          As far as YOUR posts, I don't recall ever nixing any of your posts
          whatsoever.

          Please refresh my failing memory.

          gmw.

          --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, "gmw"
          <ragingcalvinist@...> wrote:
          >
          > --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, "humbled.learner"
          > <humbled.learner@> wrote:
          >
          > > and Jerry will likely let through what he wants, since my
          > > detailed message to Marc was withheld from the forum.
          >
          > No, this is not your last post. Your last post is going to be the one
          > where you explain what you are accusing me of doing.
          >
          > To my knowledge, I have allowed all posts to go through to this forum
          > save some goofy advertisements and spam.
          >
          > gmw.
          >
        • puritan_at_heart
          Posts get lost in the yahoo black hole all the time when Yahoo is having problems. I lost some posts at my group a while ago, that never showed up, and when
          Message 4 of 8 , Mar 25, 2007
          • 0 Attachment

            Posts get lost in the yahoo black hole all the time when Yahoo is having problems. I lost some posts at my group a while ago,  that never showed up, and when this became known cos a member mentioned it, Larry also said in this post he had lost some from his:  http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ComeOutFromAmongstThem/message/1428

            Folks should be sure before they aspert on folks.

            ~Deejay


            --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, "gmw" <ragingcalvinist@...> wrote:
            >
            >
            > I'm speaking of the time since you've been posting stuff, I'm not
            > denying ever blocking any message whatsoever.
            >
            > As far as YOUR posts, I don't recall ever nixing any of your posts
            > whatsoever.
            >
            > Please refresh my failing memory.
            >
            > gmw.
            >
            >

          • humbled.learner
            Jerry, Ok, I ve made a very bad mistake accusing you of sin. I have looked at Mark s email and it was directed to me personally rather than through Yahoo
            Message 5 of 8 , Mar 25, 2007
            • 0 Attachment
              Jerry,

              Ok, I've made a very bad mistake accusing you of sin. I have looked
              at Mark's email and it was directed to me personally rather than
              through Yahoo Groups. Thus, my response to him on the 12th, which
              did not show up when I checked today, made me draw the conclusion.
              Mark obviously did not respond back to me privately after I
              responded to him, obviously now I know privately rather than through
              your Yahoo site, and I came to the incorrect conclusion that you
              withheld the message as it was pretty legal in defining procedure.

              I was not saying you spoke to me about procedure, but that my email
              was defining what I believe is proper legal procedure. Again, my
              mistake was in assuming it was a public post from Mark and not a
              private post for which I responded. After seeing neither his
              private response, nor my public posting, I could only allege that
              you withheld the post. Obviously, if you were to withhold a post
              one would never know, and writing privately (which I attempted to do
              last time your computer blew up, my posts showed up on the group) is
              not easy as I learned.

              Therefore, I would ask your forgiveness for my false allegations
              against you thinking you withheld my posts. By the grace of God, I
              was able to find Mark's email and realized it was a private message
              he sent me, and that I have falsely accused you of something you did
              not do, nor intend to do.

              Obviously, this mistake will damage limited credibility that I had
              on this site, and therefore this will be my last post. The issues
              surrounding the excommunications are varied with many, and you will
              have to read each persons communication to learn the details, or
              write them directly, as well as the Elders, to see if any steps were
              taken by the Elders before the Excommunications were implemented.

              My mistake in falsely accusing you is a good time for me to
              recognize (as Susan has properly pointed out) that my defending of
              my own extensive research into this controversy, and my subsequent
              standing by the Elders in their decisions, is only making matters
              worse for those reading my posts.

              I've learned to engage in these types of public discussions one
              really needs to be entirely focused and watch their words ever so
              carefully. Presently, I overly burdened myself with work, and thus
              am only damaging further the testimony of the Elders on the issues
              at hand.

              In conclusion, I would encourage any who are interested to get a
              copy of Pastor Price's Sermons on Excommunications. They are in a
              three part series here:

              http://www.albanycrpc.org/sermons.php?yr=2006

              They are dated July 2, 9 and 16. For those who have a desire to
              understand how we define excommunication, as well as how the Elders
              define mutual agreement and consent in terms of the court's
              jurisdiction, see the 3rd sermon. Those of us who took our
              membership interviews, and believe we became members of the PRCE, or
              RPNA or RPNA (GM), have agreed to follow certain procedures and
              further agreed to recognize that our jurisdiction is granted by
              mutual consent and agreement.

              I believe these 3 Sermons will give you all a much clearer view of
              how we view the doctrine of excommunication, and in now way desire
              vengence or any ill will toward these brethren. Indeed, they are
              brethren, and I for one have been crushed learning about this
              society/study group within our church, and need to emotionally
              disengage until I can read the facts regarding those involved.
              People defending themselves, or me defending myself, on this forum
              have only damaged the love I have for my Elders, and my desire to
              defend them in a public forum. My schedule and commitments are not
              allowing me to do this effectively, and falsely accusing Jerry has
              shown me I need to withdraw and let the controversy continue without
              my involvement.

              Again, Jerry, please forgive me as I admit my mistake and am ashamed
              at how I treated you on this forum.

              Your brother in Christ,
              Walt.

              --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, "gmw"
              <ragingcalvinist@...> wrote:
              >
              >
              > I'm speaking of the time since you've been posting stuff, I'm not
              > denying ever blocking any message whatsoever.
              >
              > As far as YOUR posts, I don't recall ever nixing any of your posts
              > whatsoever.
              >
              > Please refresh my failing memory.
              >
              > gmw.
              >
              > --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, "gmw"
              > <ragingcalvinist@> wrote:
              > >
              > > --- In
              covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, "humbled.learner"
              > > <humbled.learner@> wrote:
              > >
              > > > and Jerry will likely let through what he wants, since my
              > > > detailed message to Marc was withheld from the forum.
              > >
              > > No, this is not your last post. Your last post is going to be
              the one
              > > where you explain what you are accusing me of doing.
              > >
              > > To my knowledge, I have allowed all posts to go through to this
              forum
              > > save some goofy advertisements and spam.
              > >
              > > gmw.
              > >
              >
            • Jerry
              Walt, I accept your apology, and forgive you. And just for the record, I have never censored your posts, and I do not plan on doing so either. I think that it
              Message 6 of 8 , Mar 25, 2007
              • 0 Attachment

                Walt,

                I accept your apology, and forgive you.

                And just for the record, I have never censored your posts, and I do not plan on doing so either.
                I think that it is only fair that someone has leave to explain the position against which so many are protesting.

                gmw.

                humbled.learner wrote:

                Jerry,

                Ok, I've made a very bad mistake accusing you of sin. I have looked
                at Mark's email and it was directed to me personally rather than
                through Yahoo Groups. Thus, my response to him on the 12th, which
                did not show up when I checked today, made me draw the conclusion.
                Mark obviously did not respond back to me privately after I
                responded to him, obviously now I know privately rather than through
                your Yahoo site, and I came to the incorrect conclusion that you
                withheld the message as it was pretty legal in defining procedure.

                I was not saying you spoke to me about procedure, but that my email
                was defining what I believe is proper legal procedure. Again, my
                mistake was in assuming it was a public post from Mark and not a
                private post for which I responded. After seeing neither his
                private response, nor my public posting, I could only allege that
                you withheld the post. Obviously, if you were to withhold a post
                one would never know, and writing privately (which I attempted to do
                last time your computer blew up, my posts showed up on the group) is
                not easy as I learned.

                Therefore, I would ask your forgiveness for my false allegations
                against you thinking you withheld my posts. By the grace of God, I
                was able to find Mark's email and realized it was a private message
                he sent me, and that I have falsely accused you of something you did
                not do, nor intend to do.

                Obviously, this mistake will damage limited credibility that I had
                on this site, and therefore this will be my last post. The issues
                surrounding the excommunications are varied with many, and you will
                have to read each persons communication to learn the details, or
                write them directly, as well as the Elders, to see if any steps were
                taken by the Elders before the Excommunications were implemented.

                My mistake in falsely accusing you is a good time for me to
                recognize (as Susan has properly pointed out) that my defending of
                my own extensive research into this controversy, and my subsequent
                standing by the Elders in their decisions, is only making matters
                worse for those reading my posts.

                I've learned to engage in these types of public discussions one
                really needs to be entirely focused and watch their words ever so
                carefully. Presently, I overly burdened myself with work, and thus
                am only damaging further the testimony of the Elders on the issues
                at hand.

                In conclusion, I would encourage any who are interested to get a
                copy of Pastor Price's Sermons on Excommunications. They are in a
                three part series here:

                http://www.albanycr pc.org/sermons. php?yr=2006

                They are dated July 2, 9 and 16. For those who have a desire to
                understand how we define excommunication, as well as how the Elders
                define mutual agreement and consent in terms of the court's
                jurisdiction, see the 3rd sermon. Those of us who took our
                membership interviews, and believe we became members of the PRCE, or
                RPNA or RPNA (GM), have agreed to follow certain procedures and
                further agreed to recognize that our jurisdiction is granted by
                mutual consent and agreement.

                I believe these 3 Sermons will give you all a much clearer view of
                how we view the doctrine of excommunication, and in now way desire
                vengence or any ill will toward these brethren. Indeed, they are
                brethren, and I for one have been crushed learning about this
                society/study group within our church, and need to emotionally
                disengage until I can read the facts regarding those involved.
                People defending themselves, or me defending myself, on this forum
                have only damaged the love I have for my Elders, and my desire to
                defend them in a public forum. My schedule and commitments are not
                allowing me to do this effectively, and falsely accusing Jerry has
                shown me I need to withdraw and let the controversy continue without
                my involvement.

                Again, Jerry, please forgive me as I admit my mistake and am ashamed
                at how I treated you on this forum.

                Your brother in Christ,
                Walt.

                --- In covenantedreformati onclub@yahoogrou ps.com, "gmw"
                <ragingcalvinist@ ...> wrote:
                >
                >
                > I'm speaking of the time since you've been posting stuff, I'm not
                > denying ever blocking any message whatsoever.
                >
                > As far as YOUR posts, I don't recall ever nixing any of your posts
                > whatsoever.
                >
                > Please refresh my failing memory.
                >
                > gmw.
                >
                > --- In covenantedreformati onclub@yahoogrou ps.com, "gmw"
                > <ragingcalvinist@ > wrote:
                > >
                > > --- In
                covenantedreformati onclub@yahoogrou ps.com, "humbled.learner"
                > > <humbled.learner@ > wrote:
                > >
                > > > and Jerry will likely let through what he wants, since my
                > > > detailed message to Marc was withheld from the forum.
                > >
                > > No, this is not your last post. Your last post is going to be
                the one
                > > where you explain what you are accusing me of doing.
                > >
                > > To my knowledge, I have allowed all posts to go through to this
                forum
                > > save some goofy advertisements and spam.
                > >
                > > gmw.
                > >
                >


              • Chris Coldwell
                I wrote: Walt, Well, I guess the “cult” word might sting a bit
                Message 7 of 8 , Mar 25, 2007
                • 0 Attachment

                  I wrote: <<While I have rejected the term in the past, this is sounding more and more like a cult.>>

                   

                  Walt,

                  Well, I guess the “cult” word might sting a bit if one thinks their organization is the only truly constituted church around.

                   

                  To clarify on your comment lest some be confused, the only place I recall the word “cult” coming up was on The Puritan Board which is not “my” web posting forum; it belongs to Dr. McMahon and is under the auspices of the RPCGA. When he used the term there on a thread I believe I cautioned against it. What I’ve seen here has caused me to rethink my reticence to use the term. That said, I’m neither so naïve nor blindly prejudice to presume that no one in this controversy could have done something worthy of discipline. I have only been reacting to the general outlines of the manner of discipline that is being practiced, and which to date has not been disputed. In my small opinion, it doesn’t pass the biblical smell test. Beyond that it is neither necessary nor my desire to grab a dog by his ears and delve into details. Nor do I want to know more than I do already of any personal or family problems the elders in question have or have had. They were despicable enough to broadcast Dr. Bacon’s family griefs in that waste of paper by Greg Barrow, and I will not treat them in kind. I realize I’m the elephant in the living room to some extent, but I have to say at the risk of coming off as a crass “told you so” that the requiring of an “implicit faith” was obvious 12 years ago, and the chickens are just coming home to roost in a rather huge way.

                  Sincerely,

                  Chris Coldwell

                  Naphtali Press http://www.naphtali.com

                  The Confessional Presbyterian journal http://www.cpjournal.com

                  Member Lakewood PCA, Dallas , Texas .

                   

                   

                  --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com , "humbled.learner" <humbled.learner@...> wrote:

                  >  

                  > Dear brethren,

                  >

                  > I just read Chris and Edgar's last post, and now realized that this

                  > forum is virtually impossible to carry on any meaningfull discussion

                  > on the core issues of jurisdiction and membership.  Originally I had

                  > thought that once I could see the Effort People's documents, I would

                  > then have a better and broader understanding of what happened in our

                  > church, but there are simply too many that will sensationalise the

                  > subject matter.  From what I can see, the chances of to bring these

                  > brethren to a biblical definition and understanding of Presbyterian

                  > jurisdiction and membership in a church is impossible.

                  >

                  > Chris has already got the word Cult moving into the forum, and I've

                  > seen him use it (or someone else on his web posting forum in the

                  > past) and Jerry will likely let through what he wants, since my

                  > detailed message to Marc was withheld from the forum.

                  >

                   

                   

                • humbled.learner
                  Jerry, I just wanted to acknowledge your post and thank you. At this point, I intend to forget the matter and use the experience to improve my relationship
                  Message 8 of 8 , Apr 1 5:14 AM
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Jerry,
                    I just wanted to acknowledge your post and thank you. At this point,
                    I intend to forget the matter and use the experience to improve my
                    relationship toward treatment of other brethren.
                    May the Lord be with you,
                    Walt.

                    --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, Jerry
                    <ragingcalvinist@...> wrote:
                    >
                    >
                    > Walt,
                    >
                    > I accept your apology, and forgive you.
                    >
                    > And just for the record, I have never censored your posts, and I do not
                    > plan on doing so either.
                    > I think that it is only fair that someone has leave to explain the
                    > position against which so many are protesting.
                    >
                    > gmw.
                    >
                    > humbled.learner wrote:
                    > >
                    > > Jerry,
                    > >
                    > > Ok, I've made a very bad mistake accusing you of sin. I have looked
                    > > at Mark's email and it was directed to me personally rather than
                    > > through Yahoo Groups. Thus, my response to him on the 12th, which
                    > > did not show up when I checked today, made me draw the conclusion.
                    > > Mark obviously did not respond back to me privately after I
                    > > responded to him, obviously now I know privately rather than through
                    > > your Yahoo site, and I came to the incorrect conclusion that you
                    > > withheld the message as it was pretty legal in defining procedure.
                    > >
                    > > I was not saying you spoke to me about procedure, but that my email
                    > > was defining what I believe is proper legal procedure. Again, my
                    > > mistake was in assuming it was a public post from Mark and not a
                    > > private post for which I responded. After seeing neither his
                    > > private response, nor my public posting, I could only allege that
                    > > you withheld the post. Obviously, if you were to withhold a post
                    > > one would never know, and writing privately (which I attempted to do
                    > > last time your computer blew up, my posts showed up on the group) is
                    > > not easy as I learned.
                    > >
                    > > Therefore, I would ask your forgiveness for my false allegations
                    > > against you thinking you withheld my posts. By the grace of God, I
                    > > was able to find Mark's email and realized it was a private message
                    > > he sent me, and that I have falsely accused you of something you did
                    > > not do, nor intend to do.
                    > >
                    > > Obviously, this mistake will damage limited credibility that I had
                    > > on this site, and therefore this will be my last post. The issues
                    > > surrounding the excommunications are varied with many, and you will
                    > > have to read each persons communication to learn the details, or
                    > > write them directly, as well as the Elders, to see if any steps were
                    > > taken by the Elders before the Excommunications were implemented.
                    > >
                    > > My mistake in falsely accusing you is a good time for me to
                    > > recognize (as Susan has properly pointed out) that my defending of
                    > > my own extensive research into this controversy, and my subsequent
                    > > standing by the Elders in their decisions, is only making matters
                    > > worse for those reading my posts.
                    > >
                    > > I've learned to engage in these types of public discussions one
                    > > really needs to be entirely focused and watch their words ever so
                    > > carefully. Presently, I overly burdened myself with work, and thus
                    > > am only damaging further the testimony of the Elders on the issues
                    > > at hand.
                    > >
                    > > In conclusion, I would encourage any who are interested to get a
                    > > copy of Pastor Price's Sermons on Excommunications. They are in a
                    > > three part series here:
                    > >
                    > > http://www.albanycrpc.org/sermons.php?yr=2006
                    > > <http://www.albanycrpc.org/sermons.php?yr=2006>
                    > >
                    > > They are dated July 2, 9 and 16. For those who have a desire to
                    > > understand how we define excommunication, as well as how the Elders
                    > > define mutual agreement and consent in terms of the court's
                    > > jurisdiction, see the 3rd sermon. Those of us who took our
                    > > membership interviews, and believe we became members of the PRCE, or
                    > > RPNA or RPNA (GM), have agreed to follow certain procedures and
                    > > further agreed to recognize that our jurisdiction is granted by
                    > > mutual consent and agreement.
                    > >
                    > > I believe these 3 Sermons will give you all a much clearer view of
                    > > how we view the doctrine of excommunication, and in now way desire
                    > > vengence or any ill will toward these brethren. Indeed, they are
                    > > brethren, and I for one have been crushed learning about this
                    > > society/study group within our church, and need to emotionally
                    > > disengage until I can read the facts regarding those involved.
                    > > People defending themselves, or me defending myself, on this forum
                    > > have only damaged the love I have for my Elders, and my desire to
                    > > defend them in a public forum. My schedule and commitments are not
                    > > allowing me to do this effectively, and falsely accusing Jerry has
                    > > shown me I need to withdraw and let the controversy continue without
                    > > my involvement.
                    > >
                    > > Again, Jerry, please forgive me as I admit my mistake and am ashamed
                    > > at how I treated you on this forum.
                    > >
                    > > Your brother in Christ,
                    > > Walt.
                    > >
                    > > --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com
                    > > <mailto:covenantedreformationclub%40yahoogroups.com>, "gmw"
                    > > <ragingcalvinist@> wrote:
                    > > >
                    > > >
                    > > > I'm speaking of the time since you've been posting stuff, I'm not
                    > > > denying ever blocking any message whatsoever.
                    > > >
                    > > > As far as YOUR posts, I don't recall ever nixing any of your posts
                    > > > whatsoever.
                    > > >
                    > > > Please refresh my failing memory.
                    > > >
                    > > > gmw.
                    > > >
                    > > > --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com
                    > > <mailto:covenantedreformationclub%40yahoogroups.com>, "gmw"
                    > > > <ragingcalvinist@> wrote:
                    > > > >
                    > > > > --- In
                    > > covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com
                    > > <mailto:covenantedreformationclub%40yahoogroups.com>,
                    "humbled.learner"
                    > > > > <humbled.learner@> wrote:
                    > > > >
                    > > > > > and Jerry will likely let through what he wants, since my
                    > > > > > detailed message to Marc was withheld from the forum.
                    > > > >
                    > > > > No, this is not your last post. Your last post is going to be
                    > > the one
                    > > > > where you explain what you are accusing me of doing.
                    > > > >
                    > > > > To my knowledge, I have allowed all posts to go through to this
                    > > forum
                    > > > > save some goofy advertisements and spam.
                    > > > >
                    > > > > gmw.
                    > > > >
                    > > >
                    > >
                    > >
                    >
                  Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.