Re: [Covenanted Reformation] Some background
Fortunately you are not presbyterian as you would be
following the detailed analysis outlined by the Elders
in the attachment I posted yesterday.
Clearly, there are distinctions very carefully
outlined in the documents which you obviously have
overlooked as to why a trial was not held and why
Presbyterianism allows for a serious public Scandel,
where the accused fails to appear in court for
whatever reason (in this case because the accused
rejected they were members and rejected the court was
If you want to have a trial where the accused never
shows up for the trial, then show me in Scripture or
Presbyterian government where this is mandated. It is
very clear from the subordinate documents referenced
in the Session Response on November 4 that you idea of
holding a trial where nobody shows up is foolish and
May I assume you are a baptist or independent and not
familiar with the subordinate standards referenced in
the Elders Response on November 4? If so, I wish not
to offend you, but there are some detailed references
in Presbyterian historical standards on
excommunication process when the accussed fails to
appear, and yet publically protests to create as much
scandal and division as possible before they leave the
Perhaps you will want to read the standards for your
own research before making comments as the issue was
dealt with by the Elders. You are not the first one
to make the claims below.
Is it true that you are a Pastor? What denomination?
I fully agree with this point you made, "Brothers and
sister, hold a focus on the real issues, and stand
fast for truth and right." Amen brother!
--- Larry Bump <lbump@...> wrote:
> Walt Bre wrote:____________________________________________________________________________________
> > Unfortunately, to be fair to the Elders, many of
> > did not know (including the Elders), that the
> > society (my words) was started around July 10,
> I have stayed out of this, though it has been
> difficult. But I must
> interject a simple, yet important point here:
> That's why the elders were supposed to **HOLD A
> TRIAL**. To discover
> and establish facts, both condemnatory and
> Failing to do so proves their unfitness and
> Christ commanded a process, and to toss it over
> one's shoulder because
> "I know best" is serious, disqualifying sin for an
> Brothers and sister, hold a focus on the real
> issues, and stand fast for
> truth and right. Above all, be content to say, as
> many saints have in
> the past, "May God judge between thee and me".
It's here! Your new message!
Get new email alerts with the free Yahoo! Toolbar.
- --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "Susan Wilkinson" <gpyp@...> wrote:
>Which is precisely why the elders themselves called for a restructuring of the church Jan. 1, '06 though they went back on it later because . . . . . . things got better? The workload and situation improved?
> If the elders are that busy you also have to wonder what kind of shape their
> families are in-neglect like that cannot be contained and will affect other
> areas of their lives. You know, these men's views are their own
> punishment-they will likely literally work themselves and their families
> into the grave.
It's hard to think so.