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

Re: [Covenanted Reformation] Question

Expand Messages
  • Larry Bump
    ... I have some queries out, I ll let you know what I find.
    Message 1 of 10 , Sep 13, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      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 2 of 10 , Sep 13, 2007
      • 0 Attachment
        > 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 3 of 10 , Sep 14, 2007
        • 0 Attachment
          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.