--- In email@example.com
> It's ironic that you, who seem to have such a personal disdain for
> anything RPNA, refuse to let matters drop with them.
RPNA or RPNA(GM)? Reformed Presbyterian or pseudo presbyterian?
Who cares what
> they're doing, as far as you're concerned?
Taking a page from you Ben, on one hand I don't. On the other, there
are still people that remained in the group, who seemed to be largely
untaught and were/are being led about by the nose of their tacit
consent. You probably won't agree, but I saw and still see,
FWIW/somewhat of an obligation to warn people about what's up.
My original question was
> regarding issues of unity and separation, and I'd like to keep it at
> that level.
Then keep it at that level please, but you do come with a background and
I find your continual harassing of the RPNA--even if
> justified to some level--unedifying and obnoxious.
So what? Or should I say, what if I find your comments maudlin,
unedifying and unable to come to a decent conclusion?
You've got a blog
> to take care of your ranting, perhaps you can keep it there.
Pot, kettle, black.
> a peaceful question and was hoping for a peaceful discussion.
> As far as the Effort is concerned, I didn't even bring it up in the
> first place. Edgar asked how I regard those who've been
> excommunicated by the RPNA and I gave an honest answer. Could you
> tell that I was a little confused in how to regard you and I wasn't
> coming down on a hard-and-fast conclusion?
Sorry, Ben, your past behavior and efforts preceded you.
> As for being an RPNA clone: have you forgotten who in the RPNA was
> most vociferously against whoever wrote the law advocate email?
> Maybe you'd like to know that that email virtually got me
> excommunicated and is largely why my two girls remain unbaptized.
Well, praise the Lord. I am glad to see you have some backbone.
I was unaware of it.
But one, some of us really were excommunicated and two, that should have
clued you in to what kind of outfit the elders have become and what kind
of sinful wickedness the doctrine of tacit consent would lead to.
Instead, it seems, you waited till they disbanded and let you go. You
protested our pseudo presbyterian Perry Mason, but not the elders.
> Here's some advice from Paul that I think you would do well to heed.
> "I therefore, the prisoner of the Lord, beseech you that ye walk
> worthy of the vocation wherewith ye are called, with all lowliness
> and meekness, with longsuffering, forbearing one another in love;
> endeavouring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace."
Galatians 2:11 But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to
the face, because he was to be blamed.
Your dissimulation or confusion might be well meant, but that is still
what it is.
> If you have something edifying to say that will advance my
> understanding of issues of unity and separation, I'd like to hear
> what you've got to say.
?! No comment.
Otherwise, it would be best to drop the RPNA
> polemic. You're almost literally beating a dead horse.
For someone who defended them and bent over backward to excuse them,
yes, it would be best to drop the matter or tell others to. But I see
lessons still to be learned and some haven't learned them. You have
to get off the dime. Edgar asked you how you see us. You remained in the
group until they let you go, but we were excommunicated from the body of
Christ. So which is it?
That's the point.
But now you're onto something about unity and separation.
Well, respectfully we can be so studious that we avoid the real issues.
That's what I see and have always seen with the objections to the