# RPCNA Testimony



## BG (Nov 17, 2017)

This is open to anyone but I am hoping to get responses from RPCNA men on this topic. 

What do you disagree with in the testimony, and why?


----------



## Logan (Nov 17, 2017)

The permissability of women deacons is a fairly common one.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## Krak3n (Nov 17, 2017)

Chapter 23 "Of the Civil Magistrate", the rejection noted in paragraph 3.

Why do I disagree with their rejection of it? I don't understand why it is now rejected. Perhaps I should ask in another thread, or someone could just PM me, but as an outsider looking in (Baptist) it seems more like it is a change that flows from a "American" or "democratic" mindset more than a scriptural issue.

If I could get past the baptism issues I think I'd join them (I'm working on it, give me time!), so I may just be misunderstand the reasoning and any historical issues that prompted the rejection.


----------



## Romans922 (Nov 17, 2017)

> 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:
> ...



They reject the underlined because they don't believe the civil magistrate's responsibilities include those of the underlined. Or more specifically some of those things. And it is easier to reject the whole than little portions here and there, where their view on civil magistrate is clarified in other places. Their view isn't dependent upon having an American mindset but rather a mindset that Christ is Mediatorial King over all (including nations/governments).


----------



## Parakaleo (Nov 17, 2017)

_To prevent damage to our neighbor, to provide mutual help in godly living, and to strengthen each other in living a disciplined life it is altogether wise and proper that Christians refrain from the use, sale and manufacture of alcoholic beverages. (26.5)_

How is this not the tradition of men set up as an additional "hedge" to what God has commanded? Also, when this thinking is extended to the Lord's Supper, the result is tragic.

_Many antichrists will be present in the world throughout history. Prior to Christ’s coming the final “man of lawlessness” will be revealed. He will be destroyed by Christ. (25.18)
_
These words, appearing opposite to the WCF's statement on the papacy being the Antichrist, make it plain that the RPCNA sees a future individual (maybe not even a Pope) as the "final Antichrist". The office of the papacy as the revelation of "that man of sin" is basic to the theology of the Second Reformation.


----------



## Krak3n (Nov 17, 2017)

Romans922 said:


> They reject the underlined because they don't believe the civil magistrate's responsibilities include those of the underlined. Or more specifically some of those things. And it is easier to reject the whole than little portions here and there, where their view on civil magistrate is clarified in other places. Their view isn't dependent upon having an American mindset but rather a mindset that Christ is Mediatorial King over all (including nations/governments).



I don't want to hijack this thread, but I appreciate your response. I went back and started reading the "Testimony" side of the RPCNA Constitution (Chapter 23 specifically), and yes, it looks like they cover quite a bit elsewhere. I'll look into this further on my own, thanks again. (I'd like to know what specifically they reject, I'm sure someone has wrote on this somewhere.)



Parakaleo said:


> _To prevent damage to our neighbor, to provide mutual help in godly living, and to strengthen each other in living a disciplined life it is altogether wise and proper that Christians refrain from the use, sale and manufacture of alcoholic beverages. (26.5)_
> 
> How is this not the tradition of men set up as an additional "hedge" to what God has commanded? Also, when this thinking is extended to the Lord's Supper, the result is tragic.



Hey... that's not the whole section: (Emboldening Mine)

"Because drunkenness is so common, and because the intemperate use of alcohol is constantly being promoted by advertising, business practices, and social pressure, Christians must *be careful* not to conform to the attitudes and the practices of the world with regard to alcoholic beverages. To prevent damage to our neighbor, to provide mutual help in godly living, and to strengthen each other in living a disciplined life it is *altogether wise and proper* that Christians refrain from the use, sale and manufacture of alcoholic beverages."

I see in this a warning more than a prohibition. If not... well, I think I'd need to declare an exception upon joining a church. (Though I doubt there would be much opposition for a layman, perhaps an issue as an elder?) If an outright prohibition then I would agree with you, for that is not the stance of Scripture.


----------



## Parakaleo (Nov 17, 2017)

Krak3n said:


> I see in this a warning more than a prohibition.



That may be. I'm willing to accept that. Still, it's a warning against something God _never_ warns against (the mere use, sale, and production of alcoholic beverages), and it happens to appear in an authorized standard of a church. If drunkenness is the sin in view, just condemn drunkenness. Like God does.


----------



## BG (Nov 17, 2017)

The section on alcohol is badly written


----------



## Andrew P.C. (Nov 18, 2017)

Romans922 said:


> They reject the underlined because they don't believe the civil magistrate's responsibilities include those of the underlined. Or more specifically some of those things. And it is easier to reject the whole than little portions here and there, where their view on civil magistrate is clarified in other places. Their view isn't dependent upon having an American mindset but rather a mindset that Christ is Mediatorial King over all (including nations/governments).



Their rejection is unwarranted. I’ve spoken to a few RP men including Shawn Anderson on this topic. It seems they reject it for fear of erastian tendencies (which couldn’t be further from the truth). It’s also notable that they reject 31.2.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Andrew P.C. (Nov 18, 2017)

BG said:


> This is open to anyone but I am hoping to get responses from RPCNA men on this topic.
> 
> What do you disagree with in the testimony, and why?



Since you are leaving this open to anyone I’ll respond.

I would reject the entire testimony. I find it unnecessary and quite strange to qualify almost everything in the confession with an extra document that is a part of their constitution. To be honest, they should just be consistent and change the confession to their liking. At least the America Presbyterians were honest with how they felt of the original.

Reactions: Like 1 | Amen 2


----------



## BG (Nov 18, 2017)

Andrew, could you be more specific on what you mean with this post. 


Andrew P.C. said:


> Their rejection is unwarranted. I’ve spoken to a few RP men including Shawn Anderson on this topic. It seems they reject it for fear of erastian tendencies (which couldn’t be further from the truth). It’s also notable that they reject 31.2.


----------



## ADKing (Nov 19, 2017)

I think Andrew has felt out one of the most important problems with the RPCNA's Testimony: It does not understand or fulfill the role that a testimony is meant to fulfill. 

For some background, I adhere to the original Westminster Standards and reject everything in the RPCNA's Testimony that is contrary to them (and especially that outright rejects them). But the problem is more fundamental. 

As Andrew pointed out, the modern testimony seems to function more as a commentary on the WCF and an opportunity to reject portions of it. This was not the original design of what a testimony was for. A testimony was comprised of three parts: Historical (laying out the justification for the positions of a church's stance historically and exemplifying the witness to those principles, distinguishing it from other Christian bodies), doctrinal, and argumentative. The argumentative part was designed to specifically assert positions neglected in the contemporary era or condemn positions that were contrary to those principles in the current era (incorporating testimony from earlier eras, since we may not recede from previous testimonies). For those interested, I strongly urge you to do a little digging on the theology of witness-bearing itself as taught by earlier Covenanters. In fact, Covenanters were not alone in this. Seceders too taught a theology of testimony-bearing. As often happens in church history, churches and people forget the reasons things have been done. When that happens, the outward practice may continue (e.g. having a testimony) but it exists as a mere shell of its former self. 

It is significant to recognize historically that the modern RPCNA testimony came about in the 1980s. This was the culmination of a decades-long process of the church rejecting its former positions (e.g. political dissent, close communion, perpetual validity of covenants and the nature of testimony bearing). The men who agitated for and passed the 1980s testimony not only forgot these positions, but self-consciously rejected them. It was a document culminating an era in which the RPCNA was intentionally changing its character and purpose. One can argue whether it was a period of reform or decline (that is not my purpose). But a period of intentional, substantial change it was. 

I recommend comparing the present testimony with Reformation Principles Exhibited (the testimony originally adopted in 1806) on the nature of testimony bearing which I have posted below. The differences speak for themselves. Also compare with this article: http://www.covenanter.org/reformed/2016/4/26/historical-testimony
(I know some of you are particularly squeemish of all things "Steelite". I am not here advocating for all those positions, but do encourage you to take the arguments in the article seriously for their own merits). 

REFORMATION PRINCIPLES EXHIBITED: TESTIMONY-BEARING

1. CHRISTIANS are WITNESSES for God among men; and, having in their possession the testimony of God in the Holy Scriptures, it is the duty of the church to apply the doctrines of inspiration in stating and defending truth, and in condemning all contrary errors, bearing witness against all who maintain them.

Isa. 43.10. Ye are my witnesses, saith the Lord. Acts 5.32. And we are his witnesses of these things. Chapter 26.16. I have appeared unto thee for this purpose, to make thee a minister and a witness. Psalm 78.5. For he established a testimony in Jacob. 1 Cor. 1.6. The testimony of Christ was confirmed in you. Chapter 2.1. Declaring unto you the testimony of God. Mark 6.11. And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear you, when ye depart thence shake off the dust under your feet for a testimony against them.

2. The testimony of the church is progressive, in order to oppose and condemn the novel errors which each period may produce; and every generation is to take care that the truth, as stated and defended by their predecessors, shall be maintained and faithfully transmitted, together with the result of their own contendings, to the succeeding generation. {119}

2 Thess. 1.10. Our testimony among you was believed. Rev. 11.3. And I will give power unto my two witnesses, and they shall prophesy one thousand two hundred and threescore days. 7. And when they shall have finished their testimony. Psalm 78.5. For he established a testimony in Jacob, and appointed a law in Israel, which he commanded our fathers, that they should make them known to their children; 7, that the generation to come might know them, even the children which should be born, who should arise and declare them to their children. 43.12. Walk about Zion, and go round about her; tell the towers thereof. 13. Mark ye well her bulwarks, consider her palaces; that ye may tell it to the generation following.

3. The church may not recede from a more clear and particular testimony to a more general and evasive one; but the witnesses must proceed in finishing their testimony, rendering it more pointed and complete, until God shall, according to his promise, overthrow the empire of darkness, and introduce the millennial state, in which the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the Lord, as the waters cover the sea.

Rev. 2.25. But that which ye have already, hold fast till I come. Isa. 8.16. Bind up the testimony, seal the law among my disciples. Rev. 12.17. Which keep the commandments of God and have the testimony of Jesus Christ. Phil. 3.16. Whereto we have already attained, let us walk by the same rule, let us mind the same thing. Rev. 6.9. I saw under the altar, the souls of them that were slain for the word of God, and for the testimony which they held. Chapter 12.11. They overcame him by the blood of the Lamb, and by the word of their testimony. Dan. 7.22. And judgment was given to the saints of the Most High; and the time came that the saints possessed the kingdom. Rev. 20.4. And judgment was given {120} unto them—and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years. Psalm 74.20. _Have respect unto the covenant_. 21. _O let not the oppressed return ashamed_. 22. _Arise, O God, plead thine own cause_. Psalm 72.19. AND LET THE WHOLE EARTH BE FILLED WITH HIS GLORY. AMEN AND AMEN.

We therefore condemn the following _errors_, and testify against all who maintain them:

1. "That the Bible is the only proper testimony of the church."

2. "That a Christian is under no obligation to follow Christ’s witnesses in their faithful contendings."

3. "That it is lawful, in order to enlarge the church, to open a wider door of communion, by declining from a more pointed testimony, to one which is more loose and general.

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 2


----------



## Poimen (Nov 21, 2017)

I would have more problems with the RPCNA Testimony if it _did not_ retain the original Confession as I believe the inclusion of the latter allows the reader to compare the revision with the first work and see how they differ and where they do not. In fact, it was due to my study of the Testimony alongside of the Confession that I came to the conclusions below (that is I agree with the Confession over and against the Testimony where they differ).

In the main, the Testimony is sound (as far as content goes), however I did take exceptions to the following points:

Chapter 23: Testimony 18 (Pages A-73-74) where the Testimony rejects the portion of paragraph 3 after the colon. I object to this based on my convictions regarding establishmentarianism.

Chapter 25: Of the Church. Testimony 8 (Page A-87) "_Women as well as men may hold to the office of deacon." _I objected to this based on the belief that scripture does not appoint women to this office.

Chapter 25: Of the Church. Testimony 18 (Page A-90) The Testimony seems to weaken the identification of the Papacy as Antichrist and the man of sin. If so, I agree with the WCF.

Chapter 26: Of the Communion of the Saints. Testimony 6 (A-92) "_The use of tobacco is detrimental to health and is to be avoided because of the responsibility to preserve the body which is the temple of God.” _I objected to this on the basis of Christian liberty.

Reactions: Like 6


----------



## BG (Nov 22, 2017)

Daniel, don’t mean to put you on the hot seat but....

If you believe something is biblically true, historically true and in line with the confession and your personal conviction,what do you do when you come to a passage of scripture that is in conflict with the testimony? 

I am concerned that the testimony is becoming a litmus test and that confessional men are no longer welcome.


----------



## BG (Nov 23, 2017)

Poimen said:


> I would have more problems with the RPCNA Testimony if it _did not_ retain the original Confession as I believe the inclusion of the latter allows the reader to compare the revision with the first work and see how they differ and where they do not. In fact, it was due to my study of the Testimony alongside of the Confession that I came to the conclusions below (that is I agree with the Confession over and against the Testimony where they differ).
> 
> In the main, the Testimony is sound (as far as content goes), however I did take exceptions to the following points:
> 
> ...



Do you take any exceptions to the testimony?


----------



## Poimen (Nov 23, 2017)

BG said:


> Do you take any exceptions to the testimony?



Yes, the exceptions are listed in my post above. I will edit them to make that clearer because, on closer inspection, they appear to be exceptions to the Confession itself.


----------



## Poimen (Nov 23, 2017)

BG said:


> Daniel, don’t mean to put you on the hot seat but....
> 
> If you believe something is biblically true, historically true and in line with the confession and your personal conviction,what do you do when you come to a passage of scripture that is in conflict with the testimony?
> 
> I am concerned that the testimony is becoming a litmus test and that confessional men are no longer welcome.



Right. That is a difficult question and one that I have not completely resolved in my own mind. I have not also received a satisfactory answer from those who would be best positioned to give one.

But note that the conflict is not merely between my convictions and the Testimony (where they differ) because, as an office-bearer, I have taken an oath to:

1) "believe in and accept the system of doctrine and the manner of worship set forth in the Westminster Confession of Faith, the Larger and Shorter Catechisms, _and _(emphasis mine) the Testimony of the Reformed Presbyterian Church, as being agreeable to, and founded upon, the Scriptures?"

As well as

2) "promise subjection in the Lord to the courts of this church, and engage to follow no divisive courses from the doctrine and order which the church has solemnly recognized and adopted; and do you promise to submit to all the brotherly counsel which your brethren may
tender you in the Lord?"

Clearly I have a duty to uphold the peace and unity of the church even while I hold these convictions. It doesn't appear I have the right to simply teach whatever I want without, at least, considering the biblical principle of submission to ecclesiastical authority (not to mention the third commandment) as well.

Currently there are two men in the RP who are under discipline because they hold to positions that run counter to the Constitution and have, as far as I know, publicly stated their positions in some objectionable way. Their convictions are of such a nature that most if not all of us on this board (and presumably yourself) would reject and which contradicts the position of the Confession itself. So please also understand that your concern could also be turned against orthodoxy.


----------

