# Question for RPCNA folk.



## etexas (Jul 5, 2007)

I was looking at your site since a number of you are part of this branch of the Presbyterian Church, (I want to check out some of the online sermons from the site), anyway I just wondered how you are different than the OPC? We have no RPCNA Churches in Texas, closest is Oklahoma........so I'm going to have to take your word for whatever you tell me.


----------



## Theoretical (Jul 5, 2007)

As someone who is not RPCNA, but who is very interested in the denomination, they are uniformly a cappella EP. Distinctive to them is the denomination's Testimony upon the original Westminster Standards. They also hold to a vastly different approach to church-state issues from the PCA/OPC American Presbyterianism. However, since the Testimony explicitly rejects Article XIII.3 from the original WCF, I'm unsure what a covenanted nation like they envision would actually be like (least common denominator??).

RPCNAer's - is this a good summary? Are there/Can any RPCNA officers who take exception to the Testimony on the civil magistrate to adopt the full WCF standard?


----------



## etexas (Jul 5, 2007)

Theoretical said:


> As someone who is not RPCNA, but who is very interested in the denomination, they are uniformly a cappella EP. Distinctive to them is the denomination's Testimony upon the original Westminster Standards. They also hold to a vastly different approach to church-state issues from the PCA/OPC American Presbyterianism. However, since the Testimony explicitly rejects Article XIII.3 from the original WCF, I'm unsure what a covenanted nation like they envision would actually be like (least common denominator??).
> 
> RPCNAer's - is this a good summary? Are there/Can any RPCNA officers who take exception to the Testimony on the civil magistrate to adopt the full WCF standard?


Thank you. I would like to know more about the "vast" church-state issues. I will give this a few bumps until I find a good RPCNA type!


----------



## Arch2k (Jul 5, 2007)

The RPCNA is the oldest faithful denomination in the United States, soon to be 200 years old. We stand on the Westminster Confession doctrinally, however we have a commentary called the "testimony" which is also binding (see the website to read it). The Confession is not the American revised version (1789), but the original (1646), however certain concessions are made in the testimony that rejects few certain parts of the confession as binding.

The RPCNA is known for its Covenanter heritage including Exclusive Psalmody, the Crown Rights of Jesus, but certain things need reformation. Currently, we allow for women deacons, and have battled the view of the teetotaler position which has been the norm for quite some time.

The church I attend does not have either of these problems that I have mentioned. I have a faithful pastor, and am blessed to be under the rule of my session. I pray that the church will continue to reform, and live another 200 years honoring the gospel.


----------



## dcomin (Jul 5, 2007)

Actually, I took exception to the Testimony at that point, and declared my view that the original Confessional position is correct. In fact, as you observe, I also believe that view to be essential to the Biblical ideal of a covenanted nation.


----------



## etexas (Jul 5, 2007)

Jeff_Bartel said:


> The RPCNA is the oldest faithful denomination in the United States, soon to be 200 years old. We stand on the Westminster Confession doctrinally, however we have a commentary called the "testimony" which is also binding (see the website to read it). The Confession is not the American revised version (1789), but the original (1646), however certain concessions are made in the testimony that rejects few certain parts of the confession as binding.
> 
> The RPCNA is known for its Covenanter heritage including Exclusive Psalmody, the Crown Rights of Jesus, but certain things need reformation. Currently, we allow for women deacons, and have battled the view of the teetotaler position which has been the norm for quite some time.
> 
> The church I attend does not have either of these problems that I have mentioned. I have a faithful pastor, and am blessed to be under the rule of my session. I pray that the church will continue to reform, and live another 200 years honoring the gospel.


Please, define Crown Rights of Jesus?


----------



## Arch2k (Jul 5, 2007)

Theoretical said:


> Distinctive to them is the denomination's Testimony upon the original Westminster Standards. They also hold to a vastly different approach to church-state issues from the PCA/OPC American Presbyterianism. However, since the Testimony explicitly rejects Article XIII.3 from the original WCF, I'm unsure what a covenanted nation like they envision would actually be like (least common denominator??).


 
In talking with my pastor about this, he is convinced that they are rejecting a miscaricature of XII.3. The RPCNA wrote the Covenant of 1871 similar to the Solemn League and Covenant.

See here:

http://reformedpresbyterian.org/assets/pdf/Constitution04.pdf


----------



## dcomin (Jul 5, 2007)

I follow Jesus said:


> Please, define Crown Rights of Jesus?



The phrase has to do with the theological concept of the Mediatorial Kingship of Christ, probably most thoroughly developed in the classic book "Messiah, The Prince" by William Symington. The basic idea is that Jesus, as a reward for His finsihed work as Mediator, was given authority over the nations by the Father (see Psalm 2 - "Ask of Me and I will give You the nations for Your inheritance"). Thus, the Kingly authority of Christ extends beyond the spiritual affairs of the Church and He is seen to rule over the nations, whose leaders are required to "Kiss the Son, lest He be angry". 

In the context of Covenanter history, the Scottish Covenanters contended for the authority of Christ over the church and the nation, as opposed to the so-called Divine Right of kings.


----------



## Arch2k (Jul 5, 2007)

I follow Jesus said:


> Please, define Crown Rights of Jesus?


 
In short, it is that Christ is ultimately the King of every nation, and that it is the duty of all nations to recognize that and submit to his authority officially as a nation. In contrast, the US has in essence upheld that Christ is no better than any other God.


----------



## etexas (Jul 5, 2007)

Jeff_Bartel said:


> In short, it is that Christ is ultimately the King of every nation, and that it is the duty of all nations to recognize that and submit to his authority officially as a nation. In contrast, the US has in essence upheld that Christ is no better than any other God.


Wow, I actually agree. You guys going to open a Texas Church.


----------



## dcomin (Jul 5, 2007)

I follow Jesus said:


> Wow, I actually agree. You guys going to open a Texas Church.



Actually, there was an attempt to start a new work in Midland several years ago, but it didn't survive.

But... if you want to get a group together... let's go!


----------



## Theoretical (Jul 5, 2007)

Jeff_Bartel said:


> In talking with my pastor about this, he is convinced that they are rejecting a miscaricature of XII.3. The RPCNA wrote the Covenant of 1871 similar to the Solemn League and Covenant.
> 
> See here:
> 
> http://reformedpresbyterian.org/assets/pdf/Constitution04.pdf



Intriguing  I have read the testimony previously, but do see a different possibility. Is that position in some respects making it explicitly anti-Erastian and that the church is to be truly free from the state or am I thinking on the right track?



dcomin said:


> Actually, I took exception to the Testimony at that point, and declared my view that the original Confessional position is correct. In fact, as you observe, I also believe that view to be essential to the Biblical ideal of a covenanted nation.



Intriguing. I would imagine that exception wouldn't get the same clamor in the RPCNA than taking the original position would garner in the PCA/OPC, especially the PCA.


----------



## etexas (Jul 5, 2007)

dcomin said:


> Actually, there was an attempt to start a new work in Midland several years ago, but it didn't survive.
> 
> But... if you want to get a group together... let's go!


Well we have a little over 80,000 people here. All Presbyterians go to the Liberal Mainline and all conservatives to the OPC and PCA..........alas to much market penetration!


----------



## dcomin (Jul 5, 2007)

I follow Jesus said:


> alas to much market penetration!



Starting to sound a bit church-growthy there Max...


----------



## jolivetti (Jul 6, 2007)

We're actually in the very early stages of looking at planting a church in the college station/bryan area. I'm heading to Texas in early August to speak with a family whose currently a member of our congregation but living in Bryan - they're thinking of pursuing an RP church there. I'm not really involved in the church planting side of things (the midwest presbytery will oversee that); I'm going more for a pastoral visit. 

...sure is a long way from Tyler, though. But do let me know if you know anyone who might be interested.


----------



## Kevin (Jul 6, 2007)

Jeff_Bartel said:


> The RPCNA is the oldest faithful denomination in the United States, soon to be 200 years old.
> 
> Uhmm... Not exactly the oldest. The ARP just had its 203rd annual meeting of Synod...


----------



## Mrs.SolaFide (Jul 6, 2007)

Kevin said:


> Uhmm... Not exactly the oldest. The ARP just had its 203rd annual meeting of Synod...



Actually, the first RPCNA congregation was formed in in the 1743, and our first presbytery in the 1770s (or sometime around there), so we passed the 200-year mark a while back.



Jeff_Bartel said:


> The RPCNA is the oldest faithful denomination in the United States, soon to be 200 years old.



It is our _seminary _ that is almost 200 years old (1810-2010).


----------



## Kevin (Jul 6, 2007)

Mrs.SolaFide said:


> Actually, the first RPCNA congregation was formed in in the 1743, and our first presbytery in the 1770s (or sometime around there), so we passed the 200-year mark a while back.
> 
> 
> 
> It is our _seminary _ that is almost 200 years old (1810-2010).



Our roots go back to (August 1st) 1743 as well. That is the "Reformed" part of the Associate "Reformed" Presbyterian. However The "Associate" branch pre-dates that by 10 years! The seceeders (Erskines and others) formed the Associate presbytry in 1733.

So the roots of the ARP go back to 1733. our 203rd synod is a reference to the united synod (North America) of the 2 branches.


----------



## Arch2k (Jul 6, 2007)

Mrs.SolaFide said:


> It is our _seminary _that is almost 200 years old (1810-2010).


 
I stand corrected!


----------



## x.spasitel (Jul 6, 2007)

Eh, RP history gets tenuous at times. According to some the Reformed Presbyterians are the most pure and direct descendants of the Second Reformation! Of course, with all the splits and splats and Killing Times and periods without any pastors in the whole denomination it gets dangerously close to fading out about three times. The last time that happened was when the ARPs seceded from us and joined the Associate Presbytery, leaving us with just two congregations. The churches were so diminished by that split that really you can't say the Reformed Presbyterian church got back on its feet until 1798...which is when I think the fairest date for beginning the RPCNA is; though 1738 and 1743 work almost as well. (Go ask a Steelite and they'll be even louder about their historical precedence.)

It's important to remember that the RPC is not a homogenous body, just like other churches. As Mr. Comin points out, there are many who reject portions of the church's Testimony; there are others who are still teetotal (number decreasing), and others who reject women deacons (number increasing), as well as a bunch of other controversies.

I recommend, for people interested, Glasgow's History of the Reformed Presbyterian Church in North America, available at http://reformedpresbyterian.org/conv_resources.html


----------

