Re: [Covenanted Reformation] Why Stay at Home?
Isn't is sad that we must ask these questions? Does it not grieve you that within the body of Christ there is so much division and contention, so many different opinions and practices?
Let's all remember to continue to pray to our Lord to heal the divisions in HIS CHURCH, so that we might all call upon His Name in one accord, with one voice, all having the mind of Christ, in unity of faith!
Ic Neltococayotl wrote:
Both of you express the sentiment I have. I guess, however it is a
matter of degree between how far or such we apply this, no?
Larry, since we believe that Presbyterianism IS the only divine command
in regards to church government, would you recommend a family to attend
an RP congregation that violates this doctrine if they have a
woman/women actively filling the office of a deacon? In my view of
church government, a woman in the office of deacon is sin, not just an
error. So given your principle, my understanding would be that you
would not recommend a family to an RP congregation that has women
deacons, or am I wrong?
I could not recognize a woman as a deacon, even if she were introduced
as such, I would refuse to recognize her as such. Yes that would be
divisive, but I would be justified in doing so by Scripture. Is not the
Westminster Standards divisive (in that it distinguishes us from
--- In covenantedreformati onclub@yahoogrou ps.com, Larry Bump <lbump@...>
> Jerry wrote:
> > I'll let Larry speak for himself, of course. But I wouldn't care
> > 1 mile, 10 miles, 100 miles or 1000 miles. If the issue is
> > distance doesn't make a difference.
> I cannot and will not attend corporate worship where hymns are sung.
> more than I could where any other sin is required of me. With my
> convictions, attending and sinning is worse than not attending at all.
- --- In email@example.com, "benhartmail"
>RPNA or RPNA(GM)? Reformed Presbyterian or pseudo presbyterian?
> It's ironic that you, who seem to have such a personal disdain for
> anything RPNA, refuse to let matters drop with them.
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 atThen keep it at that level please, but you do come with a background and
> that level.
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.Sorry, Ben, your past behavior and efforts preceded you.
> 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?
>Well, praise the Lord. I am glad to see you have some backbone.
> 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.
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.Galatians 2:11 But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to
> "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."
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?! No comment.
> understanding of issues of unity and separation, I'd like to hear
> what you've got to say.
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