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

Re: Dissolution of the RPNA(GM)

Expand Messages
  • Ic Neltococayotl
    When (not IF) the RPNA(GM) dissolves, what will that mean given their view of the modern ecclesiastical scenario? They are of course the only faithful
    Message 1 of 43 , Jan 1, 2008
    • 0 Attachment
      When (not IF) the "RPNA(GM)" dissolves, what will that mean given their view of the modern ecclesiastical scenario?

      They are of course the only faithful church, the only ones with faithful elders, and the only ones with a faithful court on earth, right?  If they dissolve, then the whole world is left without any faithful, well see above list.

      What happens then?  No sacraments for the few that cling onto these men, what a minute the Lord's Supper has not been served among them since 2005(?), so never mind. 

      Uh, so what will that mean?  Well no more faithful church is left, until another minister takes up their cause, that is...and their publishing arm will of course continue to promote their brand of the Covenanted Reformation (maybe).

      I say this of the testimony of the "RPNA(GM)", NOT of others that are trying to uphold the Covenanted Reformation in a more consistent and historical manner, so please don't mix that up.

      Well, I wonder if that means that their unlawful and unbiblical excommunications are dissolved as well...not likely cause then they will then argue that the baptisms that he performed are also nulled, after all he could only dispense of the sacraments while a Session existed, never mind that Gillespie, that faithful Covenanter, (as they always like to preface our forefathers) stated that the sacraments are part and parcel of the office of a minister (his Power of Order) and that he can dispense them even though there is no session present or in existence, see fourth paragraph at http://www.truecovenanter.com/gillespie/gillespie_assertion_govt_kirk_scotland.html#cap1_02
      .

      Well, what ever, anyone who has read the Presbyterian Standards on Excommunication or has a grasp and handle of Presbyterian polity and reviews these so-called excommunications will find them ludicrious, unlawful, and unbiblical.  At least now that they are going to dissolve there is a less chance of others falling into their honey trap...

      Once in the "RPNA(GM)" then freed
      back into the visible Church of Christ,

      Edgar

      --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, "bob_suden" <bsuden@...> wrote:
      >
      > Greetings,
      > It was recently pointed out to the undersigned, that the formal
      > dissolution of the RPNA court has been alluded to in the opening
      > paragraphs of a sermon Dec. 23, '07, on Prov. 22:28 entitled "Moving
      > the Landmarks
      > <http://www.albanycrpc.org/Site/SermonDocs/Moving%20The%20Landmarks.pdf>
      > ".
      > Further previous comments on that court's censurable policy of
      > secrecy/communication can be found at . . . . And In Secret Have I Said
      > Nothing
      > <http://reformedveritas.blogspot.com/2007/12/and-in-secret-have-i-said-n\
      > othing.html> , with hopefully more to come DV on the sermon above.
      > Thank you,
      > Bob S
      >
    • John Hackler
      Mr Suden, It s my understanding that much of the support for the court from Mr. NS is founded in the idea that he(and maybe others) where junior/future
      Message 43 of 43 , Feb 17, 2008
      • 0 Attachment
        Mr Suden,
         
        It's my understanding that much of the support for the court from Mr. NS is founded in the idea  that he(and maybe others) where junior/future members of the court and they were looking out for their own best interest. I know on a very personal level that information shared with the court found its way to certain people, and very swiftly I might add...
         
        John Hackler Jr.

        bob_suden <bsuden@...> wrote:

        --- In covenantedreformati onclub@yahoogrou ps.com, John Hackler <sparenoarrows@ ...> wrote:
        >
        > Mr. Suden,
        >
        > Thank you for clarifying.
        >
        > John Hackler Jr.
        >

        Mr. Hackler,

        While for a lot of people, it might be redundant,  further clarification would mention that Mr. NS is our brother that is responsible for   Principium 1643,  an apology at great length for the RPNA(GM)'s court. (It can also be found  here as originally posted 7/8/07.)     In  defense of his chief  proposition that it is not necessary for the officers of a presbytery to actually "brush shoulders" with the members of the church, he not only touts "mercy" as an essential quality of the court, he also takes  an ad hominem poke or two at Edgar, which is why they are not quite best buddies at the moment.
        In my opinion, the crux of the argument though,  as mentioned 11/8/06  or as recently as  2/12/08, if not in the 8/20/07 reply to P1643  More Non Sequiturs from Mr. NS,  is whether or not,  along with "mercy",  the personal presence of the officers  is necessary to the constitution of a court. Is that presence  'ben esse' and does it only concern the well being of the court -  or is it 'esse', of its essence and without which a court cannot exist?  The RPNA(GM) and Mr. NS obviously think it 'ben esse' and that officers may attend via the internet or telephone, while at least the undersigned thinks it 'esse'.
         
        Regardless, two things can still be said even if the RPNA(GM) position is correct.

        One,  Mr. NS is not a lawful teaching elder and it is negligence on the part of the "lawful spiritual eldership"  of the RPNA(GM) to assign, if not tacitly designate  Mr. NS to instruct one and all, which they have not been willing  themselves to do in response to the material questions and criticisms of the heart of their position (if it is not the throat of its error).

        Two, even if the RPNA(GM) position is correct, the elders still have yet to construct a reasonable and valid argument for their court.  Implicit faith, tacit consent and the superficial and erroneous arguments of the PPSA, some of which appeal to courts with a plurality of ministers,  are hardly persuasive regardless  if the Tattoo Paper has set the precedent for its confusion in reasoning.
         
        Thank you,
         
        Bob S
         



        Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage.

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