1. Re IIIb: Mt Nasura argues that "the proposed fraternal relations as distinguished from sister churches brings one into conflict with Art 57 of the Church Order." This is simple fact, as the churches have agreed in this article that "Members of sister churches shall be admitted [to the Lord's table] …," while the proposed fraternal relations would allow members of non-sister churches to the Lord's table. That Synod 2000 instructed deputies to "consider what changes will need to be made to the CO (eg Art 57)" simply proves the point that the decision of Synod 2000 conflicted with the adopted Church Order.
2. Re IVa: Mt Nasura's concern relates to part 3 of the Article 67 decision of Synod 1985, ie, "that our recognition of another Church as being 'true and faithful Church of the Lord Jesus Christ' means, among other things that our church members must join that church, and vice versa, in the case that such church is their nearest church, in accordance with Article 28 of the Belgic Confession." Synod 2000 justified its decision re RCNZ with reference to part 2 of the Article 67 decision. Given that the RCNZ have sister relations with the CRCA, its attestations can be directed also to the CRCA - in contravention of part 3 of Article 67.
3. Re Va: Mt Nasura mentions the practical implications of their point in IVa above. It would indeed amount to an inconsistency (towards our own members) that RCNZ guests could attend the Lord's supper in the CRCA and the FRCA on the same day.

1. Though Mt Nasura quotes from Scripture, it does not clinch its argument that the texts (I.a.) warrant the conclusion that the third party relation between RCNZ & CRCA forms an obstacle toward recognition of the RCNZ as true churches.
2. The texts (I.b.) of Mt Nasura do not clinch their argument that the RCNZ would be wrong in admitting members from the CRCA to its Lord's table. The quote from 1 Corinthians, concerning a local church, is applied in a broader manner by Mt Nasura, but it does not aid their argument, since this letter shows how Paul considers them holy in Christ and enjoins them to show communion at the Lord's table and to be one body, in spite of the problems in the church there (party spirit, lack of discipline, some did not believe in the cardinal teaching of the resurrection, etc). In the letter to the Ephesians Paul also enjoins unity on a church composed of Jews and Gentiles, arguing that there is one body, one faith. Thus its argumentation is not convincing.
3. Re:I.c: the RCNZ have had ongoing discussions about admission to the Lord's Supper. The diversity in their midst means that this matter has been an ongoing discussion. Their struggles have culminated in greater unity. Even Calvin could not achieve all he wished re church practices in Geneva. The reformed church needs to keep reforming itself. Thus, to claim on this basis that RCNZ does not fully reject pluriformity is not warranted. Also, previous synods have not listed the admission to the Lord's Supper as a matter of concern. Thus it is incorrect to raise it now.
4. Re II: The RCNZ does indeed use its sister relation with CRCA faithfully and is not afraid to admonish its close sister. One cannot therefore claim that they bear responsibility for any neglect by the CRCA. To state that the RCNZ does not maintain the mark of discipline because of its sister relation with the CRCA goes too far. Also, one should not issue the call to separate too quickly. The call to reformation must precede it and be pursued with patience.
5. Re III.a: at the 2000 Synod a number of proposals were on the table. It becomes a matter of which proposal is preferred (the furthest reaching proposal is voted on first). It was thus not incorrect to deal with this proposal. This procedure has often been followed by our assemblies.
6. Re III.b: With respect to Art.57 CO, Synod decided to mandate deputies "to consider what changes will need to be made to the CO (eg. Art.57) and other ecclesiastical rules and regulations regarding the establishment of fraternal relations." The churches had the right to appoint deputies to consider amendments to the Church Order, if that was necessary to enter into fraternal relations. The change required would not have been a substantive one. The guests attending the Lord's Supper would come from a true church, and come with an attestation regarding their doctrine and conduct.
7. Re IV. a. & V.a.: The triangular relations, if cemented, could mean that members of the RCNZ go to the CRCA. Synod 2000 did not acknowledge this matter and address it. Since the decision was made in principle, this Synod must deal with this matter if it implements the decision of Synod 2000.
8. Re IV.b: While Synod 1998 considered the third party relationship between the RCNZ and the CRCA an impediment to establishing official relations with the RCNZ, Synod 2000 rightly considered that the impediment of the third party relationship was addressed in the offered rules for fraternal relations.

1. Re Ib: Mt Nasura's concern here is a denominationalist thinking in the RCNZ as displayed in Art 61 of their CO. By allowing to their Lord's Supper table persons from non-sister churches, the RCNZ inherently recognise these other churches as true - even though they have no relation with them.
2. Mt Nasura argues that this is dishonest before the Lord, since the Lord mandates unity not just at the Lord's table but also ecclesiastically (see Article 28, Belgic Confession; cf Art 93, Acts 1998). This is a principle we all embrace. So we need to grant Mt Nasura's complaint.
3. On the other hand, it needs to be noted that the matter of Lord's Supper admission has not been listed by Synod in the past as a matter of concern with respect to the RCNZ. To raise is now, in objection to the movement made by Synod 2000, is not correct.