Friday, November 17, 2006

11/17/06, CovRefClub Post #15272 [Complete]: Welcome Wayward Covenanters/Read It Yourself If You Think I am Lying

#15272 Covenanted Reformation Club
Bob S.
Date: Fri Nov 17, 2006 :12 am
Subject: Re: Welcome Wayward Covenanters/Read it Yourself If You Think I am Lying
[Abridged version on CRC list, full post below.]

Dear Gerry and Tom,

Appreciate you speaking up on all the current unpleasantness in the RPNA(GM).

> Private actions warrant private discussions: these are public acts.

> This is a public act. Discussing this public act cannot
> be condemned as "airing dirty laundry" or discussing "in-house"
> matters. Public acts, public discussions about those acts.

> "But Paul said unto them, They have beaten us openly uncondemned,
> being Romans, and have cast us into prison; and now do they thrust us
> out privily? nay verily; but let them come themselves and fetch us
> out." -- Acts 16:37.

Excellent choice of Scripture with the last. If the Session of the RPNA(GM) excommunications are both public and just, they ought to be able to bear public examination, as well the oath and the Position Paper on Sessional Authority which led to them. Those in favor of them ought not to fear the light (Eph. 5:13). Let the whole story be told and justice vindicated.

Thursday, November 09, 2006

11/9/06, A Charitable Inquiry of the PPSA

From: Common Concerns
To: Pastor G Price, Elder G Barrow, Elder L Dohms
Cc: [List]
Sent: Thursday, November 09, :16 AM
Subject: A Charitable Inquiry Regarding Elders PPSA

November 8, 2006

Cover Letter

Dear Pastor Price, Elder Barrow, and Elder Dohms,
In the attached inquiry that is before you, many individuals are coming to you with common questions and concerns regarding your position paper on Sessional authority [1] and the events that have transpired since. Here we outline why we are asking these questions of you, along with our reasons for asking in the manner we have chosen.

In light of recent events, some may ask why certain individuals are represented here as signatories. The reason is twofold: first, because we realized in general discussions since June, that at least to some degree these certain individuals shared common concerns; second, because some of these have in recent days been asked numerous questions by peers and superiors, regarding issues with more and less relevance in this common paper. Upon reflection it seemed most fair to all concerned to follow through on this moderate path, recognizing our issues do not represent all issues of any one person, but seek to be generally representative on what we collectively know to be – common concerns on things common in their nature to the scattered remnant.

Wednesday, November 08, 2006

11/8/06, A "Disaffected Brethren" responds to the Elders' Response of 11/4/06

From: Bob S.
To: Lyndon Dohms; Elder Greg Barrow ; Pastor G. Price
Cc: List
Sent: Wednesday, November 08, 2006 1:02 PM
Subject: Re: Session Response Nov. 4

A Disaffected Brother Responds to the
Response to Recent Objections of November 4, 2006
from Pastor Price and Elders Barrow and Dohms

Dear Brethren,

Thank you very much for your “Response to Recent Objections ” of Saturday Nov. 4. In it, you write in the conclusion to Q.5:

Thus, we wait to hear from our disaffected brethren where in God’s Law a temporary extraordinary Session is lawful, but an permanent extraordinary Session is unlawful. This we do not believe they could ever prove from the Word of God (p.12).

If the undersigned qualifies as a “disaffected brethren” and your response is to be taken for its word, allow me to respectfully respond by saying Matt. 18:20 is exactly “ where in God’s Law” an answer is found to the question.

Saturday, November 04, 2006

11/4/06, Standard RPNA(GM) Communication of Excommunication

[This is pretty much the standard Notice of Excommunication that went out from the Session of the RPNA(GM) following the Confidential Oath. The first three waves of excommunication notices numbered respectively ten, fourteen and five members on 11/4/06, 12/23/06 and 1/5/07. More excommunications followed on 2/5/07, 3/8/07, 4/9/07, 4/23/07 and 7/14/07 for a total of 35 out of 88 approximate communicant members or 39% for either refusing the Confidential Oath or disagreeing with previous excommunications. There has also been at the same time 3 excommunications based on requests for termination/resignation of membership and 1 excommunication over a moral issue. See also the Timeline.]

From: Lyndon Dohms
To: [Excommunicated parties]
Cc: GPrice, GBarrow and the rest of List
Sent: Saturday, November 04, :30 PM
Subject: Excommunication

Dear Brothers and Sisters,
Attached are announcements of excommunications.
The Session of the RPNA (GM)

(w. 10 pdf excommunications attached as per the sample below)

Announcement from the Session of the RPNA (General Meeting)

November 4, 2006

Dear Brothers and Sisters in Christ,

It is our sad but necessary ministerial duty to announce publicly to those under our oversight, that Mr. ___ ____, of _____, ________, has refused to swear a lawful Oath imposed upon him (October 4, 2006) by this lawful Church Court reaffirming his membership agreement (before being served with charges of sin filed in good order and received by the Court by a member of the RPNA—GM), and in so doing has sinfully excommunicated himself from membership and has shown public contempt for Christ and His Ordinance of a lawful Church Court.

11/4/06, Elders' Response to Recent Objections

From: Lyndon Dohms
To: [List]
Sent: Saturday, November 04, 2006 8:58 PM
Subject: Session Response Nov. 4

"Session of the RPNA (GM)"
Response to Recent Objections November 4, 2006
[Pastor G. Price, Elders G.Barrow and L. Dohms]

Since objections have been raised by some about matters related to excommunication by this Court, we thought it would be helpful to write regarding the manner and matter used by this Court and to respond to these objections/questions. This is not intended to be exhaustive in its content.

1. Why have some who have left the Church not been formally excommunicated?

There are some former Members who have been excommunicated merely by virtue of their own self-excommunication subsequent to their obstinately removing themselves from membership with us. These excommunications occurred during the time in which the Session of the PRCE governed, during the time in which the Presbytery of the RPNA governed, and during the time in which the extraordinary Session of the RPNA (GM) has governed. We believe that the recognition by the Church Court of such self- excommunications is warranted from God’s Word when the apostle John says in regard those who turned away from their association with faithful Churches: "They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us" (1John 2:19). In the Minutes of the faithful Presbytery called the Reformed Presbytery (in the United States), June 2, 1886, it is stated that that Church Court recognized the sinful actions of unrepentant members who voluntarily dismembered themselves from the Church to be a self-excommunication concerning which the Presbytery deemed no further judicial acts to be necessary:

Wednesday, November 01, 2006

11/1/06, Public Reply to Elders' Response to SPG's "Public Protest and Complaint"

From: Bob S
To: Pastor Greg Price; Elder Greg Barrow ; Elder Lyndon Dohms
Cc: List
Sent: Thursday, November 02, 2006 12:30 AM

Subject: Re: Session Response to "Public Protest and Complaint"
November 1, 2006
To Pastor G. Price, Elder G. Barrow, Elder L. Dohms,

Dear Beloved Brethren,
Thank you for your recent untitled letter of Oct. 28 ‘06, which was in response to the Society of Prince George’s "Public Protest and Complaint" of Oct. 18, ‘06 regarding the Confidential Oath of Oct. 4, ‘06. Although I am a member of the Wash./Vancouver Society and not the SPG, I too was served the oath. Respectfully then, a few hopefully brief, but thorough, comments might in order, regarding three of the topics in your letter. They would be:

1. Excommunication.
2. The circumstances surrounding the call for questions on the PPSA.
3. A brief survey of the "arguments from Scripture, history and reason" in the PPSA.

1. Excommunication: Orderly or Out of Order?

To the best of my knowledge, your quote in your Saturday night response (p.14) of the Order of Excommunication and of Public Repentance (1569) was the first time ever for one of your documents in our circles. Is that correct? Two, in that many people as a consequence might not know too much about this document,or your quote from the section entitled: "Offences that deserve public repentance, and 0rder to proceed thereunto," does it not go on to say immediately after your quote that: