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

Re: The RPCNA Covenanters

Expand Messages
  • simon_padbury
    ... How many Presbyterians does it take to change a lightbulb? -- What, chaaange?! ... strange ... critique of ... poorly ... speaker ... conference ...
    Message 1 of 5 , Jan 30, 2009
      --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, "Ic Neltococayotl"
      <puritanpresbyterian@...> wrote:
      >
      > Can't we all just like...get along???
      >
      >
      > No?
      >
      > Ok...
      >
      >
      > I will ask the new Prez to send in a peace envoy...you know he is
      > bringing change to a store near you...
      >
      >
      > ....YAWN!!....
      >
      >

      How many Presbyterians does it take to change a lightbulb?
      -- What, chaaange?!

      > --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, "bob_suden"
      > <bsuden@> wrote:
      > >
      > >
      > > --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, "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
      strange
      > > > though, to find a "Covenanter" pastor posting Winzer's
      critique of
      > > > the SL&C on his church's site, most of which, if not all, is
      poorly
      > > > argued imo. Others, such as RS Clark, who was the keynote
      speaker
      > at
      > > > the recent "Recovering the Reformation" Reformation Day
      conference
      > at
      > > > SRC, deny that God makes national covenants in NT times,
      however
      > > > fundamental the SL&C was to the Second Reformation and the
      > Westminster
      > > > Standards. I dunno, maybe Reese and the RPCNA need to come
      clean on
      > > > exactly what they think and renounce the "Covenanter" label
      > everybody
      > > > else gives them.
      > > >
      > > Hi Shawn
      > > >
      > > > 1) RS Clark is in the URCNA, not the RPCNA (and not RB, Edgar)
      so
      > his
      > > > views on social covenanting are irrelevant to the RPCNA
      position,
      > > > though he may influence RPCNA pastors.
      > >
      > > His affiliation is somewhat immaterial. My point was Reese as a
      RPCNA
      > > "Covenanter" is not quite promoting covenanting and it would be
      nice
      > to
      > > 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
      to
      > the
      > > > primary issue of defending the ordinance of social covenanting
      in
      > > > general. In fact I'm not aware of any synod or general assembly
      that
      > > > has declared that the US is bound to the SLC, though I am aware
      of a
      > > > few that constitutionally uphold the ordinance of social
      covenanting
      > > > as a biblical ordinance.
      > >
      > > Again, Winzer's article/argument takes more than a few shots at
      SC in
      > > 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't
      know.
      > >
      > > > 3) It has been my experience that there are a range of views on
      > social
      > > > covenanting in general and the SLC in particular held by
      ministers
      > and
      > > > elders in the RPCNA. Some hold an inconsistent view from their
      > > > Constitutional statement of social covenanting, but none the
      less
      > that
      > > > 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
      need
      > to
      > > > decide if this is a doctrine that they want to separate from
      other
      > > > churches over. However, I think that this step should be
      considered
      > > > before de-Covenanter-ing them.
      > >
      > > If you are willing to promote anti whatever material, it is a
      > legitimate
      > > to ask whether somebody is really pro whatever. Again Reese is an
      up
      > and
      > > comer in the RPCNA and I find it rather odd for him to be
      promoting
      > what
      > > 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
      like
      > > the RPNAGM and the Effort Meeting. (Incidentally just for
      affidavit
      > > purposes, are you now or have you ever been a member of the Not
      Quite
      > > Dutch Reformed (Enough) Society in Grand Rapids? Parnell is
      probably
      > a
      > > member, if he did not instigate it to begin with, but I don't
      really
      > > know because it is, you know, a secret society.) Of course, as
      long as
      > > you delete this whole message as soon as you read it, if not
      before,
      > the
      > > Advocate for Law won't have chance to come out of retirement.
      > > And that's a good thing.
      > >
      > > cordially
      > > Bub Sudden
      > >
      >
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.