Re: The RPCNA Covenanters
- --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "Ic Neltococayotl"
>How many Presbyterians does it take to change a lightbulb?
> Can't we all just like...get along???
> I will ask the new Prez to send in a peace envoy...you know he is
> bringing change to a store near you...
-- What, chaaange?!
> --- In email@example.com, "bob_suden"strange
> <bsuden@> wrote:
> > --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "Shawn Anderson"
> > christ_saves_sinners@ wrote:
> > >
> > > Bob S. >> Reese is an up and comer in the RPCNA who pastors the
> > > Springs Reformed Church, Col. Springs. Co . It is a little
> > > though, to find a "Covenanter" pastor posting Winzer'scritique of
> > > the SL&C on his church's site, most of which, if not all, ispoorly
> > > argued imo. Others, such as RS Clark, who was the keynotespeaker
> > > the recent "Recovering the Reformation" Reformation Day
> > > SRC, deny that God makes national covenants in NT times,
> > > fundamental the SL&C was to the Second Reformation and theclean on
> > > Standards. I dunno, maybe Reese and the RPCNA need to come
> > > exactly what they think and renounce the "Covenanter" labelso
> > > else gives them.
> > >
> > Hi Shawn
> > >
> > > 1) RS Clark is in the URCNA, not the RPCNA (and not RB, Edgar)
> > > views on social covenanting are irrelevant to the RPCNA
> > > though he may influence RPCNA pastors.RPCNA
> > His affiliation is somewhat immaterial. My point was Reese as a
> > "Covenanter" is not quite promoting covenanting and it would benice
> > find out exactly what is up one way or the other. That's all.
> > >
> > > 2) The binding nature of the SLC on the US is a secondary issue
> > > primary issue of defending the ordinance of social covenanting
> > > general. In fact I'm not aware of any synod or general assemblythat
> > > has declared that the US is bound to the SLC, though I am awareof a
> > > few that constitutionally uphold the ordinance of socialcovenanting
> > > as a biblical ordinance.SC in
> > Again, Winzer's article/argument takes more than a few shots at
> > general even before the specific issue of the SL&C. Fair enough,but I
> > find it strange to see it on a RPCNA site. Or maybe not. I don'tknow.
> > > 3) It has been my experience that there are a range of views on
> > > covenanting in general and the SLC in particular held by
> > > elders in the RPCNA. Some hold an inconsistent view from their
> > > Constitutional statement of social covenanting, but none the
> > > is the current environment of the denomination on this issue.
> > >
> > > For sure the general doctrine of social covenanting needs to be
> > > revisited and worked out more precisely in the Synod. And they
> > > decide if this is a doctrine that they want to separate from
> > > churches over. However, I think that this step should beconsidered
> > > before de-Covenanter-ing them.up
> > If you are willing to promote anti whatever material, it is a
> > to ask whether somebody is really pro whatever. Again Reese is an
> > comer in the RPCNA and I find it rather odd for him to be
> > he does. That's all.
> > > ps. I'm not interested in a public debate.
> > >
> > I know. Me neither. It comes from hanging around secret societies
> > the RPNAGM and the Effort Meeting. (Incidentally just foraffidavit
> > purposes, are you now or have you ever been a member of the NotQuite
> > Dutch Reformed (Enough) Society in Grand Rapids? Parnell isprobably
> > member, if he did not instigate it to begin with, but I don't
> > know because it is, you know, a secret society.) Of course, aslong as
> > you delete this whole message as soon as you read it, if notbefore,
> > Advocate for Law won't have chance to come out of retirement.
> > And that's a good thing.
> > cordially
> > Bub Sudden