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

Re: [Covenanted Reformation] Question

Expand Messages
  • Larry Bump
    ... Before my time, and I don t know. I wish I could help. Larry
    Message 1 of 10 , Sep 13, 2007
      Glenn Ferrell wrote:
      > Can anyone tell me when the RPCNA changed their stand on voting in US
      > civil elections and what arguments were used for the change?

      Before my time, and I don't know.
      I wish I could help.

      Larry
    • Glenn Ferrell
      I wonder if it was in the Abolitionist debates, because they wanted to support the Radical Republicans. Don t know, just guessing. Any further information
      Message 2 of 10 , Sep 13, 2007
        I wonder if it was in the Abolitionist debates, because they wanted to support the Radical Republicans.  Don't know, just guessing.
         
        Any further information would be appreciated.
         
        Glenn


        J. Glenn Ferrell, Pastor, Sovereign Redeemer Presbyterian Church, Boise, Idaho   http://sermonaudio.com/reformationidaho



        To: covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com
        From: lbump@...
        Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2007 18:21:03 -0400
        Subject: Re: [Covenanted Reformation] Question

        Glenn Ferrell wrote:
        > Can anyone tell me when the RPCNA changed their stand on voting in US
        > civil elections and what arguments were used for the change?

        Before my time, and I don't know.
        I wish I could help.

        Larry

      • Larry Bump
        ... I have some queries out, I ll let you know what I find.
        Message 3 of 10 , Sep 13, 2007
          Glenn Ferrell wrote:
          > I wonder if it was in the Abolitionist debates, because they wanted to
          > support the Radical Republicans. Don't know, just guessing.
          >
          > Any further information would be appreciated.


          I have some queries out, I'll let you know what I find.
        • forisraelssake
          ... wanted to ... It seems Jim Dodson puts the denominational Synod of 1967 as the year the position changed, and 1980 with the present Testimony as the year
          Message 4 of 10 , Sep 13, 2007
            > Glenn Ferrell wrote:
            > > I wonder if it was in the Abolitionist debates, because they
            wanted to
            > > support the Radical Republicans. Don't know, just guessing.
            > >
            > > Any further information would be appreciated.
            >
            >
            > I have some queries out, I'll let you know what I find.
            >

            It seems Jim Dodson puts the denominational Synod of 1967 as the year
            the position changed, and 1980 with the present Testimony as the year
            it was put into the Constitution itself.

            Chris
            Orthodox Reformed Church of Edmonton (URCNA)
          • Larry Bump
            ... We changed our testimony in 1964 or 1965, and allowed the voting *for those using the Explanatory Declaration * in 1968 or so. Despite the fact that
            Message 5 of 10 , Sep 14, 2007
              Glenn Ferrell wrote:
              > Any further information would be appreciated.

              Here's what my Pastor says:

              -------------------------------------------
              We changed our testimony in 1964 or 1965, and allowed the voting *for
              those using the "Explanatory Declaration"* in 1968 or so. Despite the
              fact that many, probably most, in our denomination ignore this, it
              appears to me we're still supposed to do that. We're only to vote for
              those who have the Christian view of civil government, and we define
              what we mean by that in our _Testimony_. It basically, as it's written,
              demands use of the "Explanatory Declaration".
              The argument is that the "Explanatory Declaration" effectively
              insulates the declarer from the immorality of the current Constitution
              of government of the USA. In effect, it is really an Anti-Burgher
              Seceder position, which we effectively took up in 1871, though very few
              people inside the RPCNA realized the change of ground. It is the
              position I now hold again.
              Hope this helps a wee bit.
            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.