- 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, 2007View Source
MessageMr. 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: email@example.com [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org] On Behalf Of Julian Gress
Sent: Saturday, April 07, 2007 9:35 PM
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
> to the right of private judgment?" With respect to this
> 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
> read in Scripture that we are to protect the widow and the orphan,
> 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
> What exactly do you mean by using this word, and what are you
> Fourth, After this you add, "And any who disagree with it." The
> natural sense of this seems to me, anyone who maintains that we
> not a faithful church, as to our well-being, and, on those
> 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
> the true intent of the verse. Correct me if I am wrong in any of
> assertions." Again, I must express my confusion in the following
> 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
> 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
> 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,
> 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
> 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
> verse, or its "true intent"?
> Fourth, after making all these assertions, you say, "Correct me if
> am wrong in any of my assertions." I am of course, most willing
> correct you in any of your wrong assertions, once I know what
> 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
> 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
> 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
> the way it is, and no other way is it, besides this. However, I
> 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
> 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
> 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
> 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
> 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,
> 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
> 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
> believe it?
> Eighth, for when you mention "implicit faith," I do not know if
> intend this as a general example of cults trying to "compel," or
> 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
> members, or former-members?
> Eleventh, what do you mean by "compelling or coercing association
> threats or ostensibly judicial actions," a sentence so vague that
> 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
> the Word of God, the only rule of faith and practice?
> Third, you say that my "church" has rushed to excommunication.
> do you mean when you put our church in quotation brackets? Are
> 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
> 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
> 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
> 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 ×"×¤×š ××œ must be explained according to
> since the circumstance that we have ×"×¤×š ×œ in this passage does
> not make any material difference in the meaning. The construction
> 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
> 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
> involves or presupposes the purification of the heart. The lips
> 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.
> ×`×©×× ×™×™, when used of men, always signifies to call solemnly
> or heartily upon the name of Jehovah. To serve shekhem 'echaÌ‚d,
> 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
> Me forever, for their good and for the good of their sons after
> > 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-
> people, who organize together ostensibly to present Christ to the
> world. A "cultish" church tries to compel. Roman catholicism is
> 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-
> 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
> 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
> 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
> 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
> excommunication, without process? What they were doing was it
> 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
> Reformed Presbyterian principles mean that if I become convinced
> pastor/elder/ session is wrong then I must repent or be
> excommunicated? Is that my ONLY choice. Can we not go our
> 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
> 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
> of this course of action, I told him it was outrageous and worthy
> a cult. That ONLY cults excommunicate people who sincerely cannot
> agree with them. Thank God that the elder listened, and allowed
> to leave in peace. I know ALL about cultic excommunication. When
> was a Charismatic and a member of a Faith Movement church, I WAS
> > Excommunication as Jay E. Adams warns should be used
> 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
> 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
> > great verse, Zephaniah 3:9, "For then will I turn to the
> > pure language, that they may all call upon the name of the
> > serve him with one consent." This verse encourages me because
> > the Lord promises to make his church united in doctrine,
> > government, and discipline, such that we may all serve the one
> > as one body through one spirit.
> > I for one do not understand what some brethren mean they call
> > RPNA (GM) a "cult." I once heard with reference to the "one
> > church syndrome," but this objection has been thoroughly dealt
> > before.
> > First, "true" as to the essence of the church, or as to the
> > or structure of the church, true as being or as to well-being?
> > accusation is entirely out of order unless this detail is
> > Second, every church under heaven proclaims that it is the one
> > 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
> > church (for imagine one professing his church not to be the
> > church, faithful and well-established) . Either a church is
> > in doctrine, worship, government, discipline, or it is not. If
> > 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.
> > if the second is true, then it is no true church as to well-
> > So if there are a number of true churches as to well-being,
> > they will faithfully into one true church. And they will
> > separation from ill or diseased churches (I mean unfaithful
> > which do not add to the number of healthy churches. Hence
> > and can be only one true church.
> > So if the word "cult," is applied to us as meaning that we
> > to be the only true church, then the objection has lost its
> > 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?
> > will gladly hear whatever arguments you have to put forth
> against us
> > being a "cult" and sincerely endeavor to satisfy your
> > objections, as I am able.
> > On a separate note, I am aware that several faithful members
> > RPNA (GM) have left this forum because of the condemnation our
> > church has received. To avoid all confusion, I merely want to
> > 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,
> > this is my reason: in this forum, there is no necessary
> > to recognize one opinion or another, because it is granted by
> > nature of this forum that there may be disagreements. Of
> > do not intend to have familiar fellowship with any who have
> > excommunicated from the RPNA (GM), or to violate any of my
> > given duties. But unless someone points out a reason
> > something that I have missed, or unless there is a change in
> > constitution of this forum that necessitates me to violate my
> > 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
> > > http://answers. yahoo.com/ dir/?link= list&sid= 396546091
> > >