Re: Why Stay at Home?
- Verily thou art a coy rascal, Benjamin Hart, verily thou art indeed.
(Ditto Mr. Putz.)
You tantalize us in your post below by saying, "As you know, I was a member of the RPNA(GM) --I say "was" because the court has formally dissolved, thereby releasing me of my membership vows." But you then fail to tell us anything further. As in when, why or how all this came to pass.
As Delilah unto Samson, surely thou mock us and do not love us by refusing to tell us more (Jdg. 16:15).
Further, you were a member of the RPNA(GM) not the "Session" of the same, were you not? The dissolution of the one is not necessarily the dissolution of the other. Or is it? For that matter, was there ever really a GM to begin with, or was it from the get go, a legal fiction? Hmm. Consequently, with the dissolution of the "court" there was nothing left?
Anyway, inquiring (and excommunicated) minds are somewhat interested in the answers to these kinds of questions.
Please advise us at your convenience, sir.
Thank you very much.
--- In email@example.com, "benhartmail" <benjamin.hart1@...> wrote:
> Hi Edgar,
> John is right about my intention, so I won't add anything to what he
> said there. That said, I can briefly answer your question by saying
> that I don't have much of a principle at present! Whatever I have to
> say on the matter is largely autobiographical in that my current
> stance is largely pragmatic and ad hoc. But you asked, so here goes.
> As you know, I was a member of the RPNA(GM)--I say "was" because the
> court has formally dissolved, thereby releasing me of my membership
> vows. I have no plan on rejoining the church any time soon, not due
> to having a positive disagreement with them over doctrine, but
> because the stakes of joining that kind of church are higher than my
> current understanding can allow. One must be *very* well read on and
> *very* convinced of their doctrines to maintain a separation from
> other churches when one has no church fellowship locally and I
> satisfy neither of those criteria at present. Accordingly, I let the
> doctrines that are more clearly right to me be the ones that guide my
> choice of what to do regarding finding a church in the area. It is
> clearer to me that we should go to church than avoid impure churches
> (especially in the present state of affairs of the church in America)
> and so I'm currently looking for the closest church to where I live
> that I can attend in good conscience. What does that look like?
> Something like this: Psalm-singing, presbyterian, regularity of
> ordinances, little to no membership vows (so I can finally get my
> children baptized), and close to home. I know, the standards are
> low, but then again, I don't profess to have much of a conviction on
> separation principles yet, so it would be irrational for me to
> separate over doctrines I'm not convinced so -- doubly so since I
> don't have the particular doctrines well-worked out over which I
> would separate, nor do I have the separation principle worked out
> yet. So to summarize, I'm looking for the closest church I can put
> up with! :D
> So that's the very short version of where I'm at. I'm sure that I
> could add a few qualifications and clarifications here and there, but
> that's the gist of it. How about yourself? What kind of a principle
> are you working from? In particular, I'm interested in why
> covenanters separate from other presbyterians in the current state of
> the church. I'm reading Alexander Shields' essay on church communion
> (which he wrote after Informatory Vindication) and according to him,
> present context is vital to answer why we do or don't separate from a
> particular church at a time. Sheilds gets a lot of mileage out of
> stressing that separation is only necessary in a broken and
> backslidden state of the church. This raises a question: suppose a
> church has attained a level of purity in 1900, which we can for sake
> of argument quantify to be a purity level of 10. Then in 1950, they
> backslide to a purity level of 2. But now, there's been progress,
> and in 2000, they've retained some of their backslidings and are up
> to a 7 level of purity. Why not join them? They're reforming and so
> going in the right direction, aren't they? Why should we wait until
> they return to the level of 10 before we rejoin?
> Again, I'm interested in hearing from covenanters or anyone who
> separates from other denominations, but especially those who have
> been in situations where you worship alone and don't have regular
> fellowship with "unfaithful" Christians in your area.
> Thanks for your response, Edgar. It's good to hear from you. I sure
> do miss the congregation we had years ago in Albany, before all of
> this stuff happened. C'est la vie.
> Take care and God bless.
> --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "Ic Neltococayotl"
> puritanpresbyterian@ wrote:
> > Hi Ben!
> > How do you answer both questions for your situation, seeing that you
> > have been/are in them?
> > Peace,
> > Edgar
- --- 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