Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Originally posted by fredtgreco
I believe these are the Still Waters schismatics. You can run a search on the board about them.
Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot
Originally posted by fredtgreco
I believe these are the Still Waters schismatics. You can run a search on the board about them.
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.
Originally posted by fredtgreco
Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot
Originally posted by fredtgreco
I believe these are the Still Waters schismatics. You can run a search on the board about them.
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.
Andrew,
What nit is it that causes them to be separate?
Originally posted by Peter
"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.
As there are varying degrees of faithfulness, heresy, etc., so are there varying degrees of apostasy (i.e. falling away). By this we mean that the RPCNA, as a body (based on her corporate public testimony), has fallen away from the truth to such an extent that they now lack the lawful form of the visible church (cf. Calvin's Institutes 4.2.12). They are no longer a church as to "well-being" (bene esse; compare WCF 25:2 [which deals with the "being" of the visible church] with WCF 25:3 [which deals with the "well-being" of the visible church]).
Originally posted by fredtgreco
Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot
Originally posted by fredtgreco
I believe these are the Still Waters schismatics. You can run a search on the board about them.
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.
Andrew,
What nit is it that causes them to be separate?
Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot
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-denomational relations.
Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel
Andrew, thanks so much for that info. I have been curious about them for some time now.
Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia
It's a shame the Covenanter churches can't get along.