Re: [Covenanted Reformation] Some background
- Walt Bre wrote:
> Larry,I am going to dispense with the rest of your post, and repeat the point.
> Fortunately you are not presbyterian as you would be
> following the detailed analysis outlined by the Elders
> in the attachment I posted yesterday.
You claim that the elders didn't know the facts when they excommunicated
The elders excommunicated without knowing the facts because they didn't
bother holding a trial.
Therefor, they were remiss is taking action without the facts.
All the rest is window dressing to explain away why they did something
so wrong. You say here was no need to hold a trial, and couldn't have
discovered the facts, because the people would not do something, so why
bother. That again is simply wrong; anything can be justified as such,
with no way to prove or disprove the reasoning, ie "They would (n't)
I am presbyterian, and trained in the processes unnecessary to proper
polity and care. That is why I know you and your elders messed up badly
in this matter. The requirement to the oath of implicit faith and
acceptance is popery, not Presbyterianism. The call to sign the oath
with reservations was blasphemy.
- --- In email@example.com, "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.