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

[Covenanted Reformation] Re: Dissolution of the RPNA(GM)

Expand Messages
  • Ic Neltococayotl
    ... Jerry, Thanks for the clarification. I agree with what you said above. Whether it is the Westminster Standards, the 3Forms of Unity, 6 Terms, and etc., if
    Message 1 of 43 , Jan 21, 2008
    • 0 Attachment
      > Terms of Communion ~can~ be altered, but if it is going to happen, it
      > must be done the right way (for example, overturing the people so they
      > can assent or dissent from the new terms), for the right reasons (and
      > not because the people have grown indifferent or oppositional to a
      > Scriptural doctrine or practice), and with right results (so that more
      > truth is bought without any being sold).
      >

      Jerry,

      Thanks for the clarification.

      I agree with what you said above.  Whether it is the Westminster Standards, the 3Forms of Unity, 6 Terms, and etc., if a robust Assembly of Presbyters can alter any or all for more Truth to shine through without any being sold, then we all should be ready and willing to embrace it and give our support for such work towards ecclesiastical Unity for there to be One body of Christ on earth.  We see that the WS were not created in a vaccum, just compare the WCF with the Irish Confession of the previous century (16th) and that of the Genevan Catechism with the WSC/WLC and one can readily see it.  Such documents build on one another...so we should hope and expect this to occur in the future.  But like you said, WITHOUT any Truth being sold, even if that means that Creed or Confession would merge, blend, or eradicate one's distinctive as an CP, WP, OP, RP, FP, PC, PR, and etc so that you can no longer say you (in general) are so and so kind of P and R and we are not, but say all of us embrace the Truth of God's Word without compromise and etc and now are (well fill in your inventive blend of "R" and "P").

      I think we are not in disagreement per se.  I just wanted to point out that we should be able and willing to lay down our hold on our particular combo of the "P" and the "R" whenever that time may come for the right and Biblical reasons, that you mentioned.

      If something is indifferent we should have the willingness to say so as well, no matter how much we care for that item of belief.  Again, if it IS indifferent.  No examples come to mind yet...I am sure someone can supply one...and then open up a can of worms and debate and etc...

      Thanks Jerry,

      Edgar

      --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, "gmw" <ragingcalvinist@...> wrote:
      >
      > --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, "Ic Neltococayotl"
      > puritanpresbyterian@ wrote:
      >
      > > > > ...does a Dutch
      > > > > or German tradition need hold to 1712 Renovation or 1761, again not
      > > done
      > > > > by a Synod or robust body of Presbyterians/Reformed?
      > > >
      > > > A German Church or a Dutch Church doesn't have to hold to the 6 Terms
      > > > (as such) at all. Of course, they out to hold to the truths contained
      > > > therein, but not being RP churches descending from the Scottish Church
      > > > that held to those terms in some form or another in her history, they
      > > > can be deemed faithful churches, and there can be a degree of
      > > > fellowship with them, even if they never heard of the SL&C or any
      > > > Renovations. Cameron would have told you that.
      > >
      > > I am very glad you say this. The RPNA would of course have said to the
      > > German Reformed, adopt our 6 Terms and etc., then we can merge.
      >
      > Looking back at what I wrote, I may have been unclear. Terms of
      > Communion are exactly that, the terms of communion. I agree with the
      > RP Terms of Communion, though I acknowledge with Samuel Wylie,
      >
      > "Perhaps it may be admitted, that our terms of church communion could
      > well enough bear some simplification, and amendment. We never believed
      > them to be perfect."
      >
      > If, hypothetically speaking, a German Reformed Church was considering
      > a merger with an RP Church, one would imagine the German Reformed
      > Church would have some reason to want to merge with the RP Church.
      > Supposing they perused the Terms of Communion and approved of them,
      > taking issue only with some certain wording which truly amounted to
      > only semantics, then the wording needs to be worked on to remove the
      > problem. But if the German Reformed Church in question actually takes
      > issue with a material tenet of the RP Terms of Communion, then I see
      > no reason to alter the Terms simply in hopes of merging two churches.
      > Such an endeavor too often does not make one body out of two, but
      > actually makes two bodies into three (in this hypothetical case --
      > those who hold to the original RP view, those who hold to the original
      > German Reformed view, and those who agreed to the altered Terms of
      > Communion of the merger). Such unity is multiplication!
      >
      > Terms of Communion ~can~ be altered, but if it is going to happen, it
      > must be done the right way (for example, overturing the people so they
      > can assent or dissent from the new terms), for the right reasons (and
      > not because the people have grown indifferent or oppositional to a
      > Scriptural doctrine or practice), and with right results (so that more
      > truth is bought without any being sold).
      >
      > gmw.
      >
    • 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.