I further quote from the reply by the former consistory as follows: “b) The classis erred when it stated that ‘the first (statement) teaches a general promise of God to all that hear.’
Results 1 to 6 of 6
I further quote from the reply by the former consistory as follows: “b) The classis erred when it stated that ‘the first (statement) teaches a general promise of God to all that hear.’
By omitting the meeting of June 1st, and turning immediately to the meeting of the Consistory of the First Church held on June 23rd, the former Consistory of Kalamazoo simply corrupts and distorts the truth in its answer to the protest of brother Meninga.
I still want to come back to, that sentence of the reply to the protest of brother Meninga by the former consistory of the First Church of Kalamazoo: “And therefore, it may be true, but certainly not the truth.” Camouflage and evasion of the definite truth of Scripture and the Confessions always characterizes heretics. And this sentence surely shows all the earmarks of camouflage and evasion.
The position of the former consistory of the First Protestant Reformed Church of Kalamazoo, according to its answer to the protest of brother Meninga, is that any aggrieved party, aggrieved, that is, by a consistory, classis, or even synod, cannot be bound by such a decision “until” it is proved to be in conflict with the word of God or the Church Order.
From Mr. John Meninga of Kalamazoo, Mich., we received a protest which he had filed w&h his consistory, the former consistory of the First Protestant Reformed Church of Kalamazoo, with the request to publish it together with; the answer he received from that former consistory. This we propose to do, at the same time offering our comment on the answer.
