REFORMED PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH (COVENANTED)
- Thread starter Bladestunner316
- Start date
- Status
I believe these are the Still Waters schismatics. You can run a search on the board about them.
Bladestunner316
Puritan Board Doctor
will do..
VirginiaHuguenot
Puritanboard Librarian
The Still Waters-affiliated denomination is called the Reformed Presbytery in North America (RPNA). The group that Blade linked to is a separate, independent group led by a man named Jim Dodson. Both groups adhere to much that is historically Reformed and Presbyterian.
However, both hold to Steelite principles regarding the binding nature of the Covenants upon Americans and others outside of Great Britain, and yes, I agree both are schismatic. The fact that these two groups are separate speaks volumes in that regard.
Bladestunner316
Puritan Board Doctor
thanks for the info
Andrew,
What nit is it that causes them to be separate?
"However, both hold to Steelite principles regarding the binding nature of the Covenants upon Americans and others outside of Great Britain, and yes, I agree both are schismatic. The fact that these two groups are separate speaks volumes in that regard."
This view isn't exclusive to "Steelites". David Steele separated from the RPC in the 1840s for other reasons. Both Churches continued to believe the SL&C were binding until this RP distinctive gradually lost favor. In 1871 the RPCNA also made a new covenant, slowly this covenant replaced the SLC in the minds of RPs though I believe both were consider binding for a time. Now the '71 covenant has been almost completely forgotten. I dont know what the official status of the SLC or the '71 covenant is in the RPCNA but practically they mean nothing.
This view isn't exclusive to "Steelites". David Steele separated from the RPC in the 1840s for other reasons. Both Churches continued to believe the SL&C were binding until this RP distinctive gradually lost favor. In 1871 the RPCNA also made a new covenant, slowly this covenant replaced the SLC in the minds of RPs though I believe both were consider binding for a time. Now the '71 covenant has been almost completely forgotten. I dont know what the official status of the SLC or the '71 covenant is in the RPCNA but practically they mean nothing.
VirginiaHuguenot
Puritanboard Librarian
Yes, that's true Peter. For more on David Steele and his separation from the RPCNA see here. The reasons went beyond the issue of the covenants to an alleged deparature from Reformation attainments generally. The issue of the Covenants is an important to explore, but I don't wish to make that the basis of my issues with them. There is some merit in Steele's allegations against the RPCNA, but his separation I think is indicative of the schismatic flavor of the two groups presently being discussed. That they are schismatic I would argue is not based on their view that the Covenants are still binding upon some beyond Great Britain -- which is merely a distinctive position that I highlight for those who are unaware of these groups -- but rather in how they view other Reformed and Presbyterian denominations. See for example Jim Dodson's letter against the RPCNA and Still Waters' statement on the RPCNA:
Their separatism is the big problem that I have with both groups. They dance around the allegation of apostasy towards other groups that while not perfect are among the most Reformed in existence today.
The excommunication of Larry Birger by Immanuel PCA in Norfolk, VA and Larry Birger's written response claiming that the PCA is not a duly constituted church, as well as their attacks on the RPCNA, trouble me greatly. Sympathetic though I am with Steelite convictions in regards to worship, etc., the dangers of their extreme separatistic approach to the body of Christ cannot be overstated, in my opinion.
I used be to affiliated with the Still Waters group and I have first-hand knowledge of their separatistic ways. I also have great respect for their desire to adhere to Reformation principles, but an important principle is that churches are "more or less pure" and separation is to be a last resort, not the a priori principle of inter-denominational relations.
[Edited on 8-13-2005 by VirginiaHuguenot]
VirginiaHuguenot
Puritanboard Librarian
To be honest, I think their division is based more on personality conflicts than anything else. They disagree on issues like headcoverings and that is enough to separate them.
WrittenFromUtopia
Puritan Board Graduate
It's a shame the Covenanter churches can't get along.
VirginiaHuguenot
Puritanboard Librarian
You're welcome, Jeff!
I agree, Gabe.
Some good arguments against the binding nature of the Solemn League & Covenant on the colonies has been presented by some on the Covenanted Reformation board (this is a Steelite dominated chat group) and on the R-F-W board. Look for Matthew Winzer and Larry Bump's posts at the former and Kevin Barrow's posts on the latter. At the very least food for thought on the topic. Links below.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/r-f-w/
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/covenantedreformationclub/
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/r-f-w/
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/covenantedreformationclub/
Interestingly, on the Covenanted Reformation Club yahoogroup a non-Covenanter, Parnell M'Carter (FPCS), I think, correct me if I am wrong, admitted the SL&C were binding but denied that they should be a term of communion.
Rev. Matt Winzer I haven't seen argue against the SL&C but he does do an excellent job arguing in favor of the settlement church against the United Societies.
Rev. Matt Winzer I haven't seen argue against the SL&C but he does do an excellent job arguing in favor of the settlement church against the United Societies.
Peter,
Yes; Parnell wants to be FPCS; but so far I think he still attends the ARP pastored by Ray Lanning, unless that has changed. You may be right that I was confusing posters and combining subjects. Also, to be clear to readers here, none of the men I mentioned are not in favor of the SL&C or covenanting in general; they disagree with various aspects of the subject of holding it as binding in and of itself, making a church duly or unduly constituted based upon whether the SL&C is part of their standards, etc.
Yes; Parnell wants to be FPCS; but so far I think he still attends the ARP pastored by Ray Lanning, unless that has changed. You may be right that I was confusing posters and combining subjects. Also, to be clear to readers here, none of the men I mentioned are not in favor of the SL&C or covenanting in general; they disagree with various aspects of the subject of holding it as binding in and of itself, making a church duly or unduly constituted based upon whether the SL&C is part of their standards, etc.
- Status
Similar threads
