# Interesting Link about the RPCNA



## BibleCyst (Aug 26, 2012)

rpcna

I was wondering if you could give any insight into what this guy is saying. Is he just blowing smoke, or is there something to it?


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Aug 26, 2012)

There are some people who would rather idolize a past situation (an imagined ideal, and without historic constraints) than live content--bearing with manifold deficiencies and the sins of others--in the present, with its historical constraints.

Since the website's author chooses to remain anonymous, and only vents his deep-dissatisfaction with (presumably) the best church he knows of--the impression he does not fail to leave is of a man who is TOO GOOD for any church in existence today.

Nostalgia replaces religious affinity for some people.


----------



## newcreature (Aug 26, 2012)

This article, on it's own, does not fully explain the accusations being brought forth against the RPCNA. I do not know anything about this denomination and can't speak to the accuracy of the article. But, in my opinion, the writer jumps subjects and does not fully explain his accusations. I do not think the piece is very well written. Furthermore, as pointed out by Bruce, it is anonymous. Why would you anonymously bring accusations against the church? This has closed him from receiving criticism, feedback, or correction.


----------



## Poimen (Aug 26, 2012)

The website is presumably managed and the content written by the gentleman whose name is on the home or head page: here.


----------



## newcreature (Aug 26, 2012)

Thank you!



Poimen said:


> The website is presumably managed and the content written by the gentleman whose name is on the home or head page: here.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Aug 26, 2012)

I looked at a couple of the webpages, and did not see an identification. I stand corrected.

However, the criticism that these people are "too pure" for anyone's company remains uncontested. Such "Steelites" (or related) will not find the best church available, and settle there, and work for the glory of Christ and love of the church. The "church" they love has no physical existence. It is an ideal.

This is a movement of great spiritual pride. We all struggle with pride, and with the balance between conviction that we are true and correct in our doctrine, being promoters of it, and yet loving Christ, his word, and his church, ultimately more than doctrinal expressions (even with the fact that such expressions are vital and irreplaceable). But what we see in this antagonism for any church that has "slipped" in any way, is the greater tragedy than whatever slippage has occurred. This is not love for what was lost (probably before any of the current crop was even born), but pride in "being right" when everyone else is wrong.

Just think, how it be the case that not even EP, non-instrumental, RPCNAers are _sufficiently_ Reformed and Presbyterian for such people. The only connection they can stand is an occasional "religious society" with another lone-ranger type. They usually spend their Sabbaths alone. They bury their talent in the ground, so (they believe) they can return it pristine to their lord.


----------



## Poimen (Aug 26, 2012)

I agree wholeheartedly with your last statement Bruce. I just wanted everyone to note that the author has made his name and contact information known.


----------



## TylerRay (Aug 26, 2012)

There are a few truths and several half truths about the article: 

1. The RPCNA no longer holds to the National Covenant or Solemn League and Covenant
2. The RPCNA allows women deacons (presumably what the author calls feminism)--yet my understanding is that they got to that place not because of feminism, but because they really believe that's what the Bible teaches.
3. Their Testimony essentially alters the Westminster Confession in a similar way to the American revision of the Confession

I don't know if there is anything else true or half-true in the article.

The response I'd give to number one is that we should really take in to consideration whether we _need_ to subscribe to the Covenants. Number two, I can see why someone would have a problem with it (though the RPCNA are convinced they are in line with Scripture). Number three, I agree is a problem, and should be worked out with grace and love. The RPCNA is not a perfect denomination (they are better off than my own denomination), but the article is far from a helpful critique.

I think he would do well to review the Larger Catechism:


> Q. 144. What are the duties required in the ninth commandment?
> A. The duties required in the ninth commandment are, the preserving and promoting of truth between man and man, and the good name of our neighbor, as well as our own; appearing and standing for the truth; and from the heart, *sincerely, freely, clearly, and fully, speaking the truth*, and only the truth, in matters of judgment and justice, and in all other things whatsoever; *a charitable esteem of our neighbors*; loving, desiring, and rejoicing in their good name; *sorrowing for and covering of their infirmities*; freely acknowledging of their gifts and graces, defending their innocency; a ready receiving of a good report, and *unwillingness to admit of an evil report, concerning them*; discouraging talebearers, flatterers, and *slanderers*; love and care of our own good name, and defending it when need requireth; keeping of lawful promises; studying and practicing of whatsoever things are true, honest, lovely, and of good report.
> 
> Q. 145. What are the sins forbidden in the ninth commandment?
> A. The sins forbidden in the ninth commandment are, all *prejudicing the truth*, and *the good name of our neighbors*, as well as our own, especially in public judicature; giving false evidence, suborning false witnesses, wittingly appearing and pleading for an evil cause, *outfacing and overbearing the truth*; passing unjust sentence, calling evil good, and good evil; rewarding the wicked according to the work of the righteous, and the righteous according to the work of the wicked; forgery, concealing the truth, undue silence in a just cause, and holding our peace when iniquity calleth for either a reproof from ourselves, or complaint to others; speaking the truth unseasonably, or maliciously to a wrong end, or *perverting it to a wrong meaning*, or in doubtful or equivocal expressions, to the prejudice of the truth or justice; speaking untruth, lying, *slandering*, backbiting, detracting, talebearing, whispering, scoffing, reviling, rash, harsh, and partial censuring; misconstructing intentions, words, and actions; flattering, vainglorious boasting, thinking or speaking too highly or too meanly of ourselves or others; denying the gifts and graces of God; aggravating smaller faults; hiding, excusing, or extenuating of sins, when called to a free confession; unnecessary discovering of infirmities; raising false rumors, receiving and countenancing evil reports, and stopping our ears against just defense; evil suspicion; envying or grieving at the deserved credit of any; endeavoring or desiring to impair it, rejoicing in their disgrace and infamy; scornful contempt, fond admiration; breach of lawful promises; neglecting such things as are of good report, and practicing, or not avoiding ourselves, or not hindering what we can in others, such things as procure an ill name.



P. S., The RPCNA folks are called Covenanters because they are descended from the Covenanters.


----------



## GulfCoast Presbyterian (Aug 26, 2012)

I don't know about the RPCNA issues, but I did kind of like his link on infant baptism. His thoughts mirrored my own to some extent as I went from CB to PB.


----------



## newcreature (Aug 27, 2012)

GulfCoast Presbyterian said:


> CB to PB


What do these acronyms mean? Thanks.


----------



## Somerset (Aug 27, 2012)

newcreature said:


> GulfCoast Presbyterian said:
> 
> 
> > CB to PB
> ...



PB is Paedo Baptism - the idea that babies are baptised.
CB - Credo Baptism - the idea that only those who can make a declaration of faith should be bapitised. Actual minimum age varies between denominations: but I doubt if any would go below 12.


----------



## JonathanHunt (Aug 27, 2012)

Somerset said:


> newcreature said:
> 
> 
> > GulfCoast Presbyterian said:
> ...



Most Baptist ministers I know (myself included) will baptise on profession of faith, regardless of age.

Also, it is perhaps more helpful to state it thus: PB - Paedo Baptism - The position that both believers and their children should be baptised. Credo Baptism - the position that believers only should be baptised.

It sounds a bit picky but it is amazing how many CB are unaware that PB hold to believer's baptism also.

Anyway, off-topic.


----------



## BibleCyst (Aug 28, 2012)

Thanks for all the amazing replies! You guys were very enlightening!


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Aug 28, 2012)

TylerRay said:


> 1. The RPCNA no longer holds to the National Covenant or Solemn League and Covenant
> 2. The RPCNA allows women deacons (presumably what the author calls feminism)--yet my understanding is that they got to that place not because of feminism, but because they really believe that's what the Bible teaches.
> 3. Their Testimony essentially alters the Westminster Confession in a similar way to the American revision of the Confession



I am going to do some checking up on 1 and 3 Tyler to see what level these things are true. I don't believe that our Testimony alters the WCF in a similar way the American does. There are a few disagreements with it noted but they are not slack on how the Government should be in submission to Christ's Crown and Covenant. The deaconess thing is really a strange issue as far as I can tell. You have to remember that we are not Baptists (or Congregationalists) and that a woman does not hold authority over men in this position. She is merely a recognized helper as I see it. I believe there are only a few in the denomination. And if I am not mistaken it might be challenged in future generations because it is an ordained position. I could be incorrect and I am not speaking on behalf of the RPCNA.


----------



## N. Eshelman (Aug 28, 2012)

The RPCNA has been dealing with these types for a long time in our history. 

Look at these quotations from our RPCNA History by William M. Glasgow written in 1888: 



> BRUSH CREEK. This small congregation is situated in Adams County and in the
> southern part of Ohio. The society was first called Chillicothe, and was first visited by
> Rev. John Kell. In 1814, the Rev. Robert Wallace began to give it a part of his time
> which he continued to do for six years. The Rev. Charles B. McKee was the first pastor,
> ...






> DAVID STEELE, D. D.:
> Son of David and Sarah (Gailey) Steele, was born in Upper Creevaugh, County
> Donegal, Ireland, November 2, 1803.* He received his early education in the private and
> night schools of the vicinity, and labored upon the farm until his sixteenth year. In 1820,
> ...



There are real issues in the RPCNA that need to be addressed. We are far from perfect and will not be perfect until the Lord Jesus Christ returns to claim his bride. Much of our history has seen people seeking for the perfect church come and go- and then form smaller (if you can imagine) and more perfect versions of us. Amongst these splinter groups, there are splinters- groups in NY and PA cannot even agree on which splinters to splinter over.... it's all very sad. 

May Jesus build His Church.


----------



## TylerRay (Sep 2, 2012)

PuritanCovenanter said:


> TylerRay said:
> 
> 
> > 1. The RPCNA no longer holds to the National Covenant or Solemn League and Covenant
> ...



Sorry, I should have been more clear. When I said the Testimony alters the Confession in a similar way to the American revision, I was referring to No. 18 of the Testimony on Chapter 23 of the Confession, where it says "We reject the portion of paragraph 3 after the colon."

The paragraph in question:


> III. The civil magistrate may not assume to himself the administration of the Word and sacraments, or the power of the keys of the kingdom of heaven: yet he hath authority, and it is his duty, to take order, that unity and peace be preserved in the Church, that the truth of God be kept pure and entire; that all blasphemies and heresies be suppressed; all corruptions and abuses in worship and discipline prevented or reformed; and all the ordinances of God duly settled, administered, and observed. For the better effecting whereof, he hath power to call synods, to be present at them, and to provide that whatsoever is transacted in them be according to the mind of God.



And on my first point, I mean they aren't Steelites.

By the way, Martin, I'm sure you know a lot more than I do about your own denomination. What I gave is my understanding of the issues addressed in the article.


----------



## Scott1 (Sep 3, 2012)

Trying to put myself in the shoes of someone in the denomination....

The tone of this seems broadly condemning, and without specifics to support it. The generalized examples are vague and subjective. Some are from a time before the author was born. One cannot determine if the examples given are intended as "outliers" or asserted to be normative.

So, I'm not sure of the constructive value of this. Is anything constructive intended?

As an outsider looking in, I'm thinking, what denomination or communion does all the things he says this one does not? And how is that working for them?

All I know is a biblical and reformed denomination, in NAPARC, that shares high fraternal relations with other biblical and reformed communions.


----------



## FCC (Sep 4, 2012)

Christ must be weeping right now! That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. 
(Joh 17:21)
It is so easy to condemn others rather than examine ourselves and repent of the sins of which we are guilty. All of the church should be on their faces before our holy and mighty God repenting in dust and ashes over the sins of our day and sins of our fathers! Without true repentance we will not see the blessings of heaven poured out upon Christ's flock! Examine yourselves and see whether ye be in the faith. 

Rambling thoughts but after reading some of the articles referenced in this thread I turned my meditations to my own sins rather than attempting to censure others, a far harder course to take.


----------

