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

RE: [Covenanted Reformation] Re: Secret Society Paper Response

Expand Messages
  • Gus Gianello
    Mr. Gress, I missed it, since there are a flurry of posts, and I do not have the time to keep up. Please repost them. Cordially, Gus Gianello ... From:
    Message 1 of 16 , Apr 9, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      Message
      Mr. Gress,
      I missed it, since there are a flurry of posts, and I do not have the time to keep up. Please repost them.
       
      Cordially,
      Gus Gianello
      -----Original Message-----
      From: covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com [mailto:covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Julian Gress
      Sent: Saturday, April 07, 2007 9:35 PM
      To: covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com
      Subject: [Covenanted Reformation] Re: Secret Society Paper Response

      Dear Gus Gianello,

      Just to let you know, in case you missed, I did respond to your
      earlier post. If you are unable to respond (due to time
      constraints, or other factors), I understand completely, but please
      reply briefly to let me know.

      Your servant in the Lord,
      Julian R. Gress

      --- In covenantedreformati onclub@yahoogrou ps.com, "Julian Gress"
      <multiplose@ ...> wrote:
      >
      > Dear Gus Gianello,
      >
      > As I read your post a number of questions came to mind, things on
      > which I need further clarification before I can proceed to satisfy
      > the questions and objections you raise.
      >
      > First, I am afraid I simply do not understand what you meant when
      > you said, "Cult is applied to your church because of its 'cultish'
      > approach to widows, and any who disagree with it. Whatever
      happened
      > to the right of private judgment?" With respect to this
      statement,
      > I desire to know these things:
      >
      > First, "cult is applied to your church because of…" By whom is it
      > applied to my church for this reason? Does everyone who calls my
      > church a "cult" call it so for this reason? Who are you talking
      > about? Are you talking about only yourself, or others as well?
      >
      > Second, What exactly is our "cultish" approach to widows and those
      > who disagree with us?
      >
      > Third, What do you mean by the term "widows"? I do not understand
      > if you mean actual widows, or some other sense of the term. When
      I
      > read in Scripture that we are to protect the widow and the orphan,
      I
      > understand these to be specific instances of a general rule, to
      > protect those who are especially vulnerable to oppression. For
      > instance, no one should rob the rich or the poor, but to rob from
      > the poor is far worse, since they are especially vulnerable to
      it.
      > What exactly do you mean by using this word, and what are you
      saying?
      >
      > Fourth, After this you add, "And any who disagree with it." The
      > natural sense of this seems to me, anyone who maintains that we
      are
      > not a faithful church, as to our well-being, and, on those
      grounds,
      > anyone who will not unite with us. But I cannot be certain, so I
      > ask who exactly are you referring to?
      >
      > Fifth, when you say, "What ever happened to the right of private
      > judgment?" What do you take that to be, "the right of private
      > judgment"? And furthermore, how does it relate to your previous
      > assertion concerning our "cultish" approach to widows and any who
      > disagree with us?
      >
      > Sixth, I cannot tell in these words (taken as a whole) whether you
      > are referring to members of the RPNA (GM), former-members of the
      > RPNA (GM), people who are not members and never have been, or any
      > two or all three of these categories. Who exactly do you mean to
      > include here?
      >
      > Second, in your next statement you say, "And I assert that, the
      > verse you quote, you only quote for your purposes and thereby
      mangle
      > the true intent of the verse. Correct me if I am wrong in any of
      my
      > assertions." Again, I must express my confusion in the following
      > things:
      >
      > First, you say that I only quote it for "[my] purposes," and I
      > desire to know what exactly my purposes are when I quote this
      > verse. As far as I am aware I cited it in the same way as Walt
      did
      > Romans 15:5-7, as it being a source of personal comfort and
      > encouragement to me.
      >
      > Second, "and thereby mangle the true intent of the verse." Part
      of
      > my confusion arises in that I do not understand what goes before
      > it. For you say that because I use it for "[my] purposes,"
      > I, "thereby mangle the true intent of the verse." You say, then,
      > that because I used it for my own causes, I therefore mangled its
      > true intent. And if that is the cause of my error, then I ask not
      > only how I have used it for "[my] purposes," but how, by doing so,
      I
      > have mangled its true intent.
      >
      > Third, but there arises another confusion in these words,
      > particularly in the phrase, "the true intent" (of the verse). The
      > word intent, I understand to mean a purpose or a goal, or the
      reason
      > by which a choice is made, but afterwards you offer a very clear
      > interpretation of its meaning, but not of its use or application
      > (which, I take it would be the reason that God has included it in
      > his word). So, I ask, do you mean to say, "The true meaning" of
      the
      > verse, or its "true intent"?
      >
      > Fourth, after making all these assertions, you say, "Correct me if
      I
      > am wrong in any of my assertions." I am of course, most willing
      to
      > correct you in any of your wrong assertions, once I know what
      those
      > assertions are.
      >
      > Fifth, but when you say this, I wonder why you have chosen to make
      > these "assertions, " and then ask for my correction. Are you
      making
      > assertions, or are you asking questions? I humbly think that you
      > can not do both, for a question implies ignorance, and a statement
      > implies knowledge. And I take it that this imperative is no less
      a
      > question, as if it were in the form of a question, for it still
      > implies ignorance, as if you sensed that you needed or might need
      > correction. Unless you mean it rhetorically, as if to say, "This
      is
      > the way it is, and no other way is it, besides this. However, I
      am
      > willing to submit to your superior knowledge if it is not this way
      > (but it is)." In which case, I do not know if you actually expect
      > me to correct your assertions, or simply to consider for my own
      > sake, whether I can find anything wrong about them.
      >
      > Sixth, do accuse me of sin in these words?
      >
      > Third, I have some questions concerning the paragraph that
      > begins, "You seem to have mislaid any comments…"
      >
      > First, when you said, "You seem to have mislaid any comments…" do
      > you mean that I have mislaid these comments in the sense that the
      > comments themselves are mislaid, or in other words, the statements
      > themselves are false, or, however true they are or may be, I have
      > used them in the wrong way, or applied them inaccurately, and
      > hence "mislaid" them.
      >
      > Second, what exactly do you mean by the word "voluntary," both
      with
      > respect to my comments about the "voluntary" nature of the church,
      > and with respect to you calling the church a "voluntary" society?
      > Third, what exactly are the things in which "like-believing
      people"
      > must be "like-believing" in order to organize as a church?
      >
      > Fourth, what do you mean by the word "ostensibly" ? How is the
      > church made of those who meet together "ostensibly" ? And how do
      you
      > mean this word in the other places you use it in this paragraph?
      >
      > Fifth, with general regard to your statements about the nature of
      > the church, do you hold to and believe The Form of Presbyterial
      > Church Government?
      >
      > Sixth, when you say that a "cultish" church does this or that, do
      > you mean that it is essential to the cultishness of a church that
      it
      > does this or that, or that it is a common characteristic of cults,
      > but not a necessary one, that they do this or that?
      >
      > Seventh, when you say that a "cultish" church tries to compel,
      what
      > do you mean by "compel"? Is it compelling in general, or is it a
      > form of compelling that is unjust in itself, or is it unjust
      insofar
      > as the compelling is done in certain circumstances, or in such a
      > manner, or does it altogether depend on what they are being
      > compelled to do or believe, or how they are being compelled to do
      or
      > believe it?
      >
      > Eighth, for when you mention "implicit faith," I do not know if
      you
      > intend this as a general example of cults trying to "compel," or
      as
      > the specific instance where they wrongfully "compel" others.
      >
      > Ninth, what do you understand, "implicit faith," to mean? I am
      > unable from the context in which you use it to understand how you
      > use it.
      >
      > Tenth, does it matter at all who they try to compel, members or
      non-
      > members, or former-members?
      >
      > Eleventh, what do you mean by "compelling or coercing association
      by
      > threats or ostensibly judicial actions," a sentence so vague that
      I
      > cannot understand the meaning of it.
      >
      > Fourthly, with regard to all that you have said concerning
      > excommunication, I ask the following questions:
      >
      > First, what are the conditions that must be met in order for
      > excommunication to be lawful and just?
      >
      > Second, when you say, "I see NOTHING in the NT that
      > says, `Excommunicate… '" why do you say that you see nothing in the
      > New Testament? Do you deny that both the Old and New Testaments
      are
      > the Word of God, the only rule of faith and practice?
      >
      > Third, you say that my "church" has rushed to excommunication.
      What
      > do you mean when you put our church in quotation brackets? Are
      you
      > implying that we are no church at all? And how do your previous
      > comments, such as when you said that the term "cult" is applied to
      > my church at the beginning of your post, how do these comments
      > square with what you say about my "so-called" church?
      >
      > Fourth, again, you say, "Correct me if I am wrong," and the same
      > question still applies as before, are you uncertain of what you
      > say? And having heard this same thing twice, I ask generally, how
      > certain are you of the facts of the case?
      >
      > As you acknowledge in your final paragraph, we are not to be rash
      in
      > matters of great weight, therefore before I respond to your
      > questions and objections, I would like to make sure that I fully
      > understand them, so that I do not reply like a babbling fool, and
      > you say, "No, that's not what I meant." As the Scripture
      says, "The
      > heart of the righteous studieth to answer: but the mouth of the
      > wicked poureth out evil things," and, "He that answereth a matter
      > before he heareth it, it is folly and shame unto him" (Proverbs
      > 15:28, 18:13).
      >
      > Your servant in the Lord,
      > Julian R. Gress
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > --- In covenantedreformati onclub@yahoogrou ps.com, "Gus Gianello"
      > <dr.gus.gianello@ > wrote:
      > >
      > > Mr. Gress,
      > >
      > > Cult is applied to your church because of its "cultish" approach
      > to widows, and any who disagree with it. What ever happened to
      the
      > right of private judgement?
      > >
      > > And I assert that, the verse you quote, you only quote for your
      > purposes and thereby mangle the true intent of the verse. Correct
      > me if I am wrong in any of my assertions.
      > >
      > > The word used for "consent" is
      > > shekem.
      > >
      > > Keil & Delitzch have this to say concerning this passage---
      > >
      > >
      > > ------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- -
      --
      > ------------ -
      > >
      > >
      > > Consequently ×"פך אל must be explained according to
      1Sa_10:9,
      > since the circumstance that we have ×"פך ל in this passage does
      > not make any material difference in the meaning. The construction
      in
      > both passages is a pregnant one. God turns to the nations a pure
      > lip, by purifying their sinful lips, i.e., He converts them, that
      > they may be able to call upon Him with pure lips. Lip does not
      stand
      > for language, but is mentioned as the organ of speech, by which a
      > man expresses the thoughts of his heart, so that purity of the
      lips
      > involves or presupposes the purification of the heart. The lips
      are
      > defiled by the names of the idols whom they have invoked (cf.
      > Hos_2:19; Psa_16:4). The fruit of the purification is this, that
      > henceforth they call upon the name of Jehovah, and serve Him.
      קרא
      > ×`שׁם ×™×™, when used of men, always signifies to call solemnly
      > or heartily upon the name of Jehovah. To serve shekhem 'echâd,
      > with one shoulder, is to serve together or with unanimity. The
      > metaphor is taken from bearers who carry a burden with even
      > shoulders; cf. Jer_32:39.
      > >
      > >
      > > ------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- -
      --
      > ------------ -
      > >
      > >
      > > Jeremiah 32: 39 says
      > >
      > > 39 And I will give them one heart and one way, that they may
      fear
      > Me forever, for their good and for the good of their sons after
      > them.
      > >
      > > As an associated citation so that we may better understand the
      > metaphoric use of the word.
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > > You seem to have mislaid any comments about the voluntary nature
      > of the Church. The church is a voluntary society of like-
      believing
      > people, who organize together ostensibly to present Christ to the
      > world. A "cultish" church tries to compel. Roman catholicism is
      a
      > cult of implicit faith in the Pope as infallible (ex cathedra),
      > representative of the magisterium. MANY ostensibly Protestant
      > churches are cults of implicit faith in either the leaders, in
      > science, etc. Therefore they feel justified in compelling or
      > coercing association by threats and ostensibly judicial actions.
      > >
      > > ONLY in Scripture can we have implicit faith. In all the back-
      and-
      > forth that I have seen nobody has asked the obvious question:
      > >
      > > What evidence of obduracy deserving being cast into the outer
      > darkness and being declared an apostate is given as reason for
      > excommunicating people? Were they fornicators? Were they
      > adulterers? It is very strange indeed that all this overblown
      > hyperbole and swelling words of dependence on "Presbyterian
      polity"
      > NEVER quotes the example of the apostle Paul who in letter after
      > letter after letter, shows that he deals with obstinancy in this
      > extreme manner ONLY after every other recourse has failed and only
      > when there is clear evidence and legitimate proceedure to compel
      > excommunication. Christian love DICTATES that we be compelled to
      > excommunicate by evidence unsullied, trial unmarred, appeals
      > unheeded, and when circumstance and incidentals deny the
      possibility
      > for remedy; and always for the salvation of the erring parties and
      > for their ultimate reconciliation. I see NOTHING in the NT that
      > says "excommunicate the moment somebody disagrees, refuses to take
      > an oath or has a problem with what you are doing." THAT is
      worthy
      > of a cult. And a cult YOU ARE, and a cultist you yourself are, if
      > you can justify these extremes.
      > >
      > > Where is the proof of their heresy?
      > >
      > > Where is the proof of their blasphemy?
      > >
      > > Where is the proof of their scandalous sin, deserving of
      immediate
      > excommunication, without process? What they were doing was it
      equal
      > or surpassing in rebellion to God, that they need to be treated as
      > partners in incest? (1 Cor. 5)
      > >
      > > Why did not your elders do what the wise apostle did when he
      > disagreed with Barnabas? Separate, go their separate ways, without
      > recrimination or censure? Are you now telling me
      that "Covenanter"
      > Reformed Presbyterian principles mean that if I become convinced
      the
      > pastor/elder/ session is wrong then I must repent or be
      > excommunicated? Is that my ONLY choice. Can we not go our
      separate
      > ways? THAT is a cult.
      > >
      > > When an acquaintance of mine became a member of an OPC church I
      > thought it a bad idea. Because he was not convinced of infant
      > baptism. (And it also indicated how orthodox the OPC church was
      that
      > they would allow such a person to become a member) When after
      > struggling with it over a year he decided that he COULD NOT be
      > convinced and wanted to leave the church, the pastor told him he
      > would be excommunicated. See, we dont succor wounded sheep---we
      > slaughter them. When an elder friend contacted me asking my
      opinion
      > of this course of action, I told him it was outrageous and worthy
      of
      > a cult. That ONLY cults excommunicate people who sincerely cannot
      > agree with them. Thank God that the elder listened, and allowed
      him
      > to leave in peace. I know ALL about cultic excommunication. When
      I
      > was a Charismatic and a member of a Faith Movement church, I WAS
      > excommunicated.
      > >
      > > Excommunication as Jay E. Adams warns should be used
      reluctantly,
      > and any time a "church(?)" rushes to it, as it seems there is
      > evidence that your "church" has done---correct me if I am wrong,
      > that church, those members and those elders are to be viewed with
      > suspicion. Any one who says "you fool" (Mat 5) quickly and not
      > reluctantly, being not dragged to the situation, and having not
      > constantly and repeatedly appealed, exhorted, admonished, cried
      over
      > the impenitent, deserves to be called a cultist. And that church
      > deserves to be called a CULT.
      > >
      > > Respectfully,
      > >
      > > Gus Gianello
      > >
      > > -----Original Message-----
      > > From: covenantedreformati onclub@yahoogrou ps.com
      > [mailto:covenantedreformati onclub@yahoogrou ps.com]On Behalf Of
      > Julian Gress
      > > Sent: Sunday, April 01, 2007 2:43 PM
      > > To: covenantedreformati onclub@yahoogrou ps.com
      > > Subject: [Covenanted Reformation] Re: Secret Society Paper
      > >
      > >
      > > Well said, brother.
      > >
      > > I have been finishing up the Old Testament recently, and found
      a
      > > great verse, Zephaniah 3:9, "For then will I turn to the
      people
      > a
      > > pure language, that they may all call upon the name of the
      Lord,
      > to
      > > serve him with one consent." This verse encourages me because
      in
      > it
      > > the Lord promises to make his church united in doctrine,
      > worship,
      > > government, and discipline, such that we may all serve the one
      > Lord
      > > as one body through one spirit.
      > >
      > > I for one do not understand what some brethren mean they call
      > the
      > > RPNA (GM) a "cult." I once heard with reference to the "one
      true
      > > church syndrome," but this objection has been thoroughly dealt
      > with
      > > before.
      > >
      > > First, "true" as to the essence of the church, or as to the
      > nature
      > > or structure of the church, true as being or as to well-being?
      > The
      > > accusation is entirely out of order unless this detail is
      > included.
      > >
      > > Second, every church under heaven proclaims that it is the one
      > true
      > > church, by maintaining separation from other churches.
      > >
      > > Third, there is and can only be one true church as to well-
      > being, so
      > > that there is no absurdity in professing one's own church to
      be
      > that
      > > church (for imagine one professing his church not to be the
      one
      > true
      > > church, faithful and well-established) . Either a church is
      > faithful
      > > in doctrine, worship, government, discipline, or it is not. If
      > the
      > > first, then it is obliged to unite with other churches of the
      > same,
      > > and if it does not do this, it is no longer a faithful church.
      > And
      > > 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 church.
      > >
      > > So if the word "cult," is applied to us as meaning that we
      > profess
      > > to be the only true church, then the objection has lost its
      > entire
      > > savor, and is no objection at all, for it points toward no sin
      > in or
      > > among us.
      > >
      > > Perhaps someone on this forum means something different by it?
      I
      > > will gladly hear whatever arguments you have to put forth
      > against us
      > > being a "cult" and sincerely endeavor to satisfy your
      questions
      > and
      > > objections, as I am able.
      > >
      > > On a separate note, I am aware that several faithful members
      of
      > the
      > > RPNA (GM) have left this forum because of the condemnation our
      > > church has received. To avoid all confusion, I merely want to
      > point
      > > out that I do not see any obligation to leave this forum in
      > order to
      > > be faithful to the covenanted testimony we as a church hold,
      and
      > > this is my reason: in this forum, there is no necessary
      > obligation
      > > to recognize one opinion or another, because it is granted by
      > the
      > > nature of this forum that there may be disagreements. Of
      course,
      > I
      > > do not intend to have familiar fellowship with any who have
      been
      > > excommunicated from the RPNA (GM), or to violate any of my
      other
      > God-
      > > given duties. But unless someone points out a reason
      otherwise,
      > > something that I have missed, or unless there is a change in
      > > constitution of this forum that necessitates me to violate my
      > oath
      > > of membership in the RPNA (GM), I do not see any necessary
      > reason to
      > > leave.
      > >
      > > Your brother and servant in the Lord,
      > > Julian R. Gress (RPNA-GM)
      > >
      > > --- In covenantedreformati onclub@yahoogrou ps.com, Walt Bre
      > > <humbled.learner@ > wrote:
      > > >
      > > > Dear brethren,
      > > >
      > > > I know that I promised not to post again on here, and
      > > > for going back on my promise I'm sorry. If you would
      > > > grant me liberty to post only one document, I wanted
      > > > to attach only part of the "Sins Committed By "The
      > > > Effort" and Steps to Repentance" Issued by the Session
      > > > of the RPNA (GM), March 22, 2007.
      > > >
      > > > There is also a supporting document called "Effort
      > > > Emails (RPNA--GM)" that I am not including in this
      > > > message to protect the names of those involved. I'm
      > > > sure that people would like to read those supporting
      > > > emails that are the primary reason for the Session
      > > > Paper above, but I would ask you to contact Pastor
      > > > Greg Price at (covpastor@) if interested in
      > > > the document.
      > > >
      > > > I saw Whit's comment this morning supporting the ideas
      > > > promoted by Chris and others in the Presbyterian
      > > > movement that not only are we an unfaithful church,
      > > > but that we would border on the edge of the Morman
      > > > Church, the Roman Catholic Ave Maria Worshippers,
      > > >
      > > > In interesting definition I found will most definitely
      > > > scare away many people from EVER and NEVER consider
      > > > even reading our Terms of Communion, and subsequent
      > > > Session and Presbytery Decisions that our Church has
      > > > issued since around 1996. The definition says:
      > > >
      > > > "Cults are groups that often exploit members
      > > > psychologically and/or financially, typically by
      > > > making members comply with leadership's demands
      > > > through certain types of psychological manipulation,
      > > > popularly called mind control, and through the
      > > > inculcation of deep-seated anxious dependency on the
      > > > group and its leaders.
      > > >
      > > > "A cult is a group or movement exhibiting a great or
      > > > excessive devotion or dedication to some person, idea
      > > > or thing and employing unethically manipulative
      > > > techniques of persuasion and control (e.g. isolation
      > > > from former friends and family, debilitation, use of
      > > > special methods to heighten suggestibility and
      > > > subservience, powerful group pressures, information
      > > > management, suspension of individuality or critical
      > > > judgement, promotion of total dependency on the group
      > > > and fear of [consequences of] leaving it, etc)
      > > > designed to advance the goals of the group's leaders
      > > > to the actual or possible detriment of members, their
      > > > families, or the community."
      > > >
      > > > Based upon the above definition, after our Elders have
      > > > learned about the Secret Society within our own
      > > > Church, I can see how not only those of us who are
      > > > left inside the RPNA (GM), but those especially who
      > > > were members inside the RPNA (GM) as part of this
      > > > Secret Society, will be viewed likewise.
      > > >
      > > > After I read the documents of this Secret Society, I
      > > > can understand what these guys were trying to do and I
      > > > do not believe they intended to create the problems
      > > > that ultimately led many away from our church (this is
      > > > my own opinion). Surely, some have already admitted
      > > > that they have never felt better since leaving our
      > > > church, but others I'm sure may look back on The
      > > > Effort and the means they used with sorrow.
      > > >
      > > > As I study these documents, and all the documents that
      > > > make up the basis for nearly 30 excommunications, I am
      > > > firmly convinced now that my brothers and sisters have
      > > > misunderstood the doctrine of true Presbyterian
      > > > jurisdiction and the duties of membership by oath.
      > > > These two primary fundamental roots of the problem
      > > > grew into a massive protest. The protest was:
      > > >
      > > > 1) In the form of a Secret Society led by a few within
      > > > our church who wanted to make a positive impact.
      > > >
      > > > 2) In the form of a Public positive attack (admitted
      > > > by some that a good offence is always better than a
      > > > good defense) against the Elders to damage their
      > > > reputations and destroy all their credibility.
      > > >
      > > > As I read the comments made by Whit and Chris, and
      > > > others will most likely follow, I can see that as more
      > > > and more people protest against us, for being strict
      > > > Covenanters, the hammer is going to fall on our heads
      > > > in the future. There is no doubt that as more and
      > > > more people see us as a threat to their own
      > > > backslidden Presbyterian churches, and their own
      > > > unfaithful testimony as faithful Covenanters, the
      > > > flame throwers will be forthcoming and likely with a
      > > > vengeance.
      > > >
      > > > For those who would like to pray for us, please join
      > > > me in the following prayers before the feet of Christ:
      > > >
      > > > 1) That the Lord will enlighten the hearts of those
      > > > who participated in The Effort and reveal to them the
      > > > sin of schism it caused within the RPNA (GM). For
      > > > those who the Session Paper only hardens and causes
      > > > more forthcoming words of vengeance against us and the
      > > > Elders, that the Lord would use those words to be the
      > > > seeds of another Reformation within His Church.
      > > >
      > > > 2) That the Lord would raise up Ministers and Elders
      > > > to study intensely the testimony of the Scottish
      > > > Covenanters and especially the fundamentals of how
      > > > they preached biblical doctrine, discipline, form of
      > > > government and form of worship. That this research
      > > > and study will lead them to compare the Terms of
      > > > Communion preached and practiced by the RPCNA, CLC,
      > > > CRCNA, PCA and all the other Presbyterian
      > > > denominations.
      > > >
      > > > 3) That the Lord will allow the RPNA (GM) to at the
      > > > very least find one more Pastor for Edmonton and one
      > > > more Ruling Elder for Albany so that we may have two
      > > > ordinary locally defined Session courts, and move us
      > > > away from being defined as a cult that has only an
      > > > extraordinary Session court with two Ruling Elders in
      > > > Edmonton and one Pastor in Albany.
      > > >
      > > > 4) That the Lord would reveal to other Ministers and
      > > > Elders the lawfulness and faithfulness, in
      > > > extraordinary and unsettled times, of a phone
      > > > conference to discuss matters of church doctrine,
      > > > discipline, form of worship and form of government.
      > > > That the international phone conference, where two or
      > > > three ordained ministers are gathered, is indeed
      > > > lawful and faithful, and thereby does bring Christ
      > > > into their midst to rule, bind and loose as He has
      > > > promised in His word.
      > > >
      > > > 4) Finally, that the Lord would soon return with His
      > > > vial judgments upon the earth, and that historical
      > > > post millennialism will be taught from the pulpits
      > > > again sending fear of the Lord into each of us
      > > > Covenanters and Presbyterians. The return of his vial
      > > > judgments will indeed bring whole nations to covenant
      > > > together, and cause a major change where those who
      > > > desire to be faithful to His Majesty and Power will be
      > > > loved, rather than labeled cults and openly despised.
      > > >
      > > >
      > > > Please forgive my spelling errors and mistakes above,
      > > > but I wanted to close out with my pleas as like anyone
      > > > the more I see the labels coming against those in our
      > > > church I admit it does give me fear. Not so much the
      > > > fear of man, as I know man cannot touch me without the
      > > > approval of God, but more that I will continue to
      > > > stand in the face of fear, and not let my Lord down
      > > > when the whole world begins to follow suit based upon
      > > > the "cult" seeds planted by Rev. C. Matthew McMahon,
      > > > Chris Coldwell and Whit Roberts (he did not say it,
      > > > but implied it). Indeed, these seeds are now firmly
      > > > planted in the minds of many, and likely in the future
      > > > the reporters and media, I suspect it will challenge
      > > > all our members to stay the course.
      > > >
      > > > As I am now finishing my 36 time reading the bible
      > > > cover-to-cover, I was in the plane flying back from
      > > > Africa and something jumped out at me I've read many
      > > > times before. Nevertheless, it gave me a new meaning.
      > > >
      > > > "Now the God of patience and consolation grant you to
      > > > be likeminded one toward another according to Christ
      > > > Jesus: That ye may with one mind and one mouth glorify
      > > > God, even the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.
      > > > Wherefore receive ye one another, as Christ also
      > > > received us to the glory of God." (Rom.15:5-7)
      > > >
      > > > "For as we have many members in one body, and all
      > > > members have not the same office: So we, being many,
      > > > are one body in Christ, and everyone members one of
      > > > another. Having then gifts differing according to the
      > > > grace that is given to us, whether prophecy, let us
      > > > prophesy according to the proportion of faith; Or
      > > > ministry, let us wait on our ministering: or he that
      > > > teacheth, on teaching; Or he that exhorteth, on
      > > > exhortation: he that giveth, let him do it with
      > > > simplicity; he that ruleth, with diligence; he that
      > > > showeth mercy, with cheerfulness. Let love be without
      > > > dissimulation. Abhor that which is evil; cleave to
      > > > that which is good. Be kindly affectioned one to
      > > > another with brotherly love; in honor preferring one
      > > > another; Not slothful in business; fervent in spirit,
      > > > serving the Lord; Rejoicing in hope; patient in
      > > > tribulation; continuing instant in prayer;
      > > > Distributing to the necessity of saints; given to
      > > > hospitality. Bless them which persecute you: bless,
      > > > and curse not. Rejoice with them that do rejoice, and
      > > > weep with them that weep. Be of the same mind one
      > > > toward another. Mind not high things, but condescend
      > > > to men of low estate. Be not wise in your own
      > > > conceits. Recompense to no man evil for evil.
      > > > Provide things honest in the sight of all men. If it
      > > > be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably
      > > > with all men." (Rom.12:5-18) .
      > > >
      > > > These are some words, as revealed by our Lord to Paul,
      > > > and have given me a special blessing as I prepare for
      > > > the power of words, and the seeds planted in the
      > > > hearts and minds of those who want neither
      > > > reformation, nor want anything to do with God's
      > > > appointed Ministers and Elders in this life.
      > > >
      > > > May the Lord be with you all,
      > > > Walt.
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > ____________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _
      > > ____________ ___
      > > > Need Mail bonding?
      > > > Go to the Yahoo! Mail Q&A for great tips from Yahoo! Answers
      > users.
      > > > http://answers. yahoo.com/ dir/?link= list&sid= 396546091
      > > >
      > >
      >

    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.