2/11/06, A Pastoral Plea to All and the Ensuing Discussion

From: Greg Price
To: Pastor Greg Price
Cc: [Church List]
Sent: Saturday, February 11, 2006 11:01 AM
Subject: A Pastoral Plea To All

Dear Brothers and Sisters,

I urge us all to discontinue the public debate that has ensued since the Announcement of the Day of Prayer and Fasting. I see only further wedges and deeper divisions following from further public debate.

I am not judging the motives of any who have participated. Nor do I intend to minimize the seriousness of any concern.

However, it should be apparent to us all that our ongoing public debate is tearing us apart even though we profess to adhere to the same Terms of Communion.

Read more »

2/11/06, A Pastoral Plea and Promise of a Time in the Future to Address Concerns for Reformation

From: Greg Price
To: Pastor Greg Price

Cc: List
Sent: Saturday, February 11, 2006 11:01 AM 2006

Subject: A Pastoral Plea To All

Dear Brothers and Sisters,

I urge us all to discontinue the public debate that
has ensued since the Announcement of the Day of Prayer
and Fasting. I see only further wedges and deeper
divisions following from further public debate.

I am not judging the motives of any who have
participated. Nor do I intend to minimize the
seriousness of any concern.

However, it should be apparent to us all that our
ongoing public debate is tearing us apart even though
we profess to adhere to the same Terms of Communion.

There will be a time to address all concerns in a way
that will promote our reformation. But for the
present, let us each one focus more upon our own sins,
weaknesses, and failures realizing the depth of our
offence against Christ and His infinite love for such
wayward children. Let us likewise spend much time in
humble and sincere prayer for one another (especially
those with whom we may disagree) calling upon the Lord
to reconcile us in love and in the truth. If our
mutual aim is to promote the Cause of Christ by means
of a covenanted reformation, let us not forget that we
are mutually bound in love and truth by covenant
obligation:

"and shall not suffer ourselves, directly or
indirectly, by whatsoever combination, persuasion, or
terror, to be divided and withdrawn from this blessed
union and conjunction" ("Solemn League And Covenant"
Article VI).

With brotherly affection for you all,

Greg L. Price


A reply to the above of 3/12/06 can be found here.

2/10/06, Re: What was attempted: A reconciling path

From: CG

To: NS ; MG

Cc: Pastor Greg Price ; Elder Lyndon Dohms ; Society of Prince George (RPNA) ; [List]

Sent: Friday, February 10, 2006 3:20 PM

Subject: Re: What was attempted: A reconciling path

Dear N,

For reasons that are a mystery to me, the initial post from the PGS inquiring about the fast has provoked some responses from you that are rather obscure in their meaning upon initial reading and which require a sharp mind and several cups of coffee in the early morning in order to be able to understand them. Additionally, you chose to start addressing M as an individual as opposed to the entire society. In case there is a misunderstanding, I would like to clear a few things up.

First of all, all nine communicant members of the PGS consulted together on the email that was sent to the elders. We sent it publicly because we felt we were not the only ones who had these questions and thought that it would save the elders time and answer everyone's questions than if we sent the questions privately. All could benefit from instruction. As M said, this should not have been controversial. And M is not leading us about by the nose.

Read more »

2/10/06, The Nature of the Solemn League & Covenant and its Renovation

[Extracted from some Comments and Answers to Questions about the Solemn League and Covenant and its Renovation from Greg Price, sent: Friday, February 10, 2006.

Question #1 was how can the specific public social covenant called the Solemn League and Covenant be reduced to its general moral principles and still be maintained that it is the same covenant? How does this reconcile with the Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter XXII, Section IV, which states that an oath must be taken "in the plain and common sense of the words, without equivocation or mental reservation?" Isn’t this a change to the sense of the words of the Solemn League and Covenant?

Question #2 was how were two ministers able to renovate (change) the Solemn League and Covenant at Auchensaugh, Scotland in 1712, for all parties concerned, and their posterity as well?

Question #3 was how do we know the intention of the original parties who swore to the Solemn League and Covenant, and that their intention was that the Solemn League and Covenant would remain applicable throughout time and therefore self-renovating? Covenant renovation then becomes a mere formality and renovation is unnecessary in order to make changes to the Solemn League and Covenant.

Read more »

2/10/06, Others' Knowledge of SPG's Concerns/Questions

[As another party from PG pointed out at the time, it was only after this post, that TE Price requested people to cease and desist for the time being. Just a coincidence or more than that?]

From: CG
To: NS; MG
Cc: Pastor Greg Price ; Elder Lyndon Dohms ; Society of Prince George (RPNA) [Rest of Church List]
Sent: Friday, February 10, 2006 3:20 PM
Subject: Re: What was attempted: A reconciling path


Dear Nick,

For reasons that are a mystery to me, the initial post from the PGS inquiring about the fast has provoked some responses from you that are rather obscure in their meaning upon initial reading and which require a sharp mind and several cups of coffee in the early morning in order to be able to understand them. Additionally, you chose to start addressing Mike as an individual as opposed to the entire society. In case there is a misunderstanding, I would like to clear a few things up.

First of all, all nine communicant members of the PGS consulted together on the email that was sent to the elders. We sent it publicly because we felt we were not the only ones who had these questions and thought that it would save the elders time and answer everyone's questions than if we sent the questions privately. All could benefit from instruction. As Mike said, this should not have been controversial. And Mike is not leading us about by the nose.

The elders are also aware that for almost two years now we, as a society, have had some questions and concerns before them, some of which have to do with the nature of our ecclesiastical government. You knew this in part I know, from a conversation you and I had shortly after the elders were here in Prince George the summer of 2004, when you told me some of the things you had been told about us by one of the elders [emphasis added]. We were served the Lord's Supper that weekend, and those of us who attended again in Edmonton last summer. Combining this with the fact that we were taking direction from the elders concerning the recent fast and had asked questions that would make it more profitable for us should make it self evident that we have NOT cast off their governance nor are we out of fellowship with our brethren in the societies, nor are we seeking to be. These requests for affidavits are downright silly imho, and display a grievous suspicion of mind towards all the members of the PGS on your part, which surprises me greatly, considering the affection, love, and respect we have tried to show them on many occasions. I would hope that you would know this of me personally.

Secondly, what we as a society in Prince George have been doing, has been done without consulting outside our society. If Mr. S and the Everson society have concerns that appear to be similar in nature, this is not because we had been consulting back and forth or seeking to influence one another. We did do much to encourage one another regarding common concerns when Presbytery dissolved summer 2003, and since, even as we communicated to the elders, in our efforts to encourage one another during a trying time. Both of our societies had Pastor Edwards scheduled for visits in the weeks following the dissolving. To my knowledge, this is the first time that anyone from our society has acknowledged publicly that we have been corresponding with the elders on questions and concerns that have been raised by us. What Mr. S related to us last month in their record of society concerns from over a year ago, was the first time any of us in Prince George knew what they in Everson had asked. Though they may speculate what we have asked, they have not seen nor been invited to consult with us, as we have sought to maintain confidentiality as best we can. [emphasis added] We did this because we are seeking to be orderly and apply mature judgement in our actions for love of the elders AND the brethren as well as obey fifth and ninth commandment duties.

Do we own Bob S's opinions? We own Bob S didn't you know?! BWA HA HA! We keep him in a closet and feed him Samuel Adams when he is good, and Coors Lite when he is bad. He has been drinking a lot of Coors Lite lately. [ducks and runs]

Seriously though, Bob raised some interesting points that I am sure raised questions in the minds of not a few, me included. So tell me Nick, in light of the official evidence that we have from the elders' own correspondence, what do you believe concerning how our socieities are governed? Was the presbytery dissolved? Has it been re-formed? Though we have been commended for our willingness to hear their biblical and historical reasoning and have been promised a written and comprehensive answer as their highest priority (excluding emergencies and other necessary familial and ministerial duties) we have yet to receive these. It may be that you are privy to these answers where we are not. You appear to have some ideas on this based on your questions. I, for one, would be happy to hear what they are.

Yours and His,
Cheryl