[Covenanted Reformation] Re: Dissolution of the RPNA(GM)
- Hi Edgar,
How's it going?
--- In email@example.com, "Ic Neltococayotl"
>1. Cunningham has something to say about whether it is apostolic in his
> Let me expand a bit to clarify some things:
> This the foundational Creed, not open to accomodation...every Reformed
> Creed/Confession uses this as the architecture:
Hist. Theology Chapt. 3 - in the negative.
2. The WCF doesn't use the AC format starting out as it does with the
doctrine of Scripture. True it is at least, a break from the Belgic.
Turretin for that matter, follows the WCF, writing as he does in the
> I agree with the 6 Terms of Communion, but the parts in red should be
> negotiable and open to accomodation if that means achieving the
> of the Saints. They should not be means of division and even schism.The Scotch church could legitimately require them and arguably the
English speaking nations and presbyterian churches that descend from the
Again, as I mentioned to Parnell, the substance is what is important.
The Terms have not remained the same verbatim, but just as the argument
for singing inspired songs other than the psalms generally seems to be a
ruse to sing uninspired hymns, so too the objections to the specific
covenant or the renewals in the terms, might seem to mask a
disagreement with the principle of covenanting itself, not just a
specific instance of its practice.
- 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.