[Covenanted Reformation] Re: Secret Society Paper
- Dear Mrs. Grenon,
I would like to respond to your post in a thoughtful way, but before
I can reply to your argument, I must request some clarification, as
I am not entirely sure what you intend to communicate. At least, it
is not clear to me what the purpose of your comment is.
First, are you saying that Christians are only distinguished from
the rest of the world, and not among themselves? In other words, do
you say that there is no distinction between Christians or Christian
churches, as long as they are Christian?
Second, you say that, "The above sort of thinking is precisely what
lends itself to this," and I ask, does it lend itself to this (the
conclusions you refer to) by necessary consequence, or by a tendency
of a thing to be abused? In the first, it is like Arminianism,
whose necessary conclusion is a rejection of the Gospel, if followed
out to all of its implications. In the second, it is more like
alcohol; although people have a tendency to use it in excess, there
is nothing wrong with alcohol itself.
In general, I would like to have a better idea of your claims, your
arguments, and their implications.
Once I have a clearer understanding of what you are saying, I can
then answer your objection to the best of my ability.
As I recall, we met at the Prince George Conventicle, although many
that I met there have now left the church. In any case, I will pray
for your restoration.
Your brother and servant in the Lord,
Julian R. Gress
--- In firstname.lastname@example.org, Cheryl Grenon
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: Julian Gress <multiplose@...>
> To: email@example.com
> Sent: Sunday, April 1, 2007 11:43:17 AM
> Subject: [Covenanted Reformation] Re: Secret Society Paper
> <<Third, there is and can only be one true church as to well-
> that there is no absurdity in professing one's own church to bethat
> church (for imagine one professing his church not to be the onetrue
> church, faithful and well-established) . Either a church isfaithful
> in doctrine, worship, government, discipline, or it is not. If thesame,
> first, then it is obliged to unite with other churches of the
> and if it does not do this, it is no longer a faithful church. Andkingdom of this world and the kingdom of our Christ. Instead we
> if the second is true, then it is no true church as to well-being.
> So if there are a number of true churches as to well-being, then
> they will faithfully into one true church. And they will maintain
> separation from ill or diseased churches (I mean unfaithful ones),
> which do not add to the number of healthy churches. Hence there is
> and can be only one true >>
> Sometimes I think we forget that the antithesis is between the
make the antithesis between the various branches of Christianity
and the "one true church as to well-being" whatever we happen to
think that church is. The above sort of thinking is precisely what
lends itself to this.
> CherylRecent Activity
> 1New Members
> Visit Your Group
> Yahoo! News
> Kevin Sites
> Get coverage of
> world crises.
> Yahoo! TV
> Play the Intern Game
> Win and work for
> the next Apprentice.
> Y! GeoCities
> Be Vocal
> Publish your opi-
> nions with a blog..
> TV dinner still cooling?
> Check out "Tonight's Picks" on Yahoo! TV.