# RP Testimony



## Kaalvenist (Sep 28, 2005)

Anyone else hold to the _Testimony of the Reformed Presbyterian Church of North America?_ If so, do you take any exceptions?


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Sep 28, 2005)

I was a former officer (deacon) in the RPCNA. At the time, I had a rather lengthy list of exceptions to the Testimony. In general, those exceptions/objections had to with 1) issues of Christian liberty and 2) places where the Testimony contradicts the 1646 WCF. I hold to the 1646 WCF without any exceptions.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Sep 28, 2005)

I hold to the Testimony with the exception of areas of Christian liberty which should not be covered in a confession, and some eschatological issues.


----------



## Scott (Sep 29, 2005)

What does the testimony teach regarding Christian liberty? Did your exceptions have anything to do with your Tony Campolo connection? 


[Edited on 9-29-2005 by Scott]


----------



## wsw201 (Sep 29, 2005)

Gabe,

I new you had some eschatological issues!! You're MID-TRIB aren't you!!! 'fess up!


----------



## LadyFlynt (Sep 29, 2005)

Oh, please...no Mid-Tribers!!! 

Curious as to the CL issues and contradictions? Educate me please...


----------



## Puritanhead (Sep 29, 2005)

No I'm a congregationalist and a baptist.


----------



## Arch2k (Sep 29, 2005)

I have recently read the Testimony and have found several areas of disagreement as well. I should go back through and write them out.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Sep 29, 2005)

Here are the exceptions I take in the RPCNA Testimony:

*CHAPTER 10: OF EFFECTUAL CALLING.
6. Evangelism is the proclamation of Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord as He is offered in the Gospel. Christ laid the responsibility upon the whole Church to make this proclamation. The task is not restricted to ordained officers. Each member is to take his share of the responsibility according to the gifts God has given him.
Acts 2:36; Matt. 28:18-20; John 20:21; 1 Cor. 12:4-11; Eph. 4:7-16.* (I HAVE SOME PROBLEMS WITH THE WAY THIS IS WORDED AND WOULD RATHER SAY THAT THE PREACHING OF THE GOSPEL BELONGS TO ORDAINED MINISTERS ALONE, EVANGELISM BELONGS TO APPOINTED EVANGELISTS ALONE, AND THE DEFENSE OF THE FAITH AND WITNESS OF THE GOSPEL BELONGS TO ALL CHURCH MEMBERS.)

*CHAPTER 23: OF THE CIVIL MAGISTRATE.
18. We reject the portion of paragraph 3 after the colon.* _(THAT IS: 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.)_ (I DO NOT REJECT THIS PORTION OF THE WCF.)

*CHAPTER 25: OF THE CHURCH.
8. The permanent officers to be set apart by ordination are elders and deacons. Women as well as men may hold the office of deacon. Ordination is a solemn setting apart to a specific office by the laying on of the hands of a court of the Church and is not to be repeated. Installation is the official constitution of a relationship between one who is ordained and the congregation.* (I REJECT THE UNDERLINED PORTION OF THIS PARAGRAPH.)

*17. 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.
1 John 2:18; 1 John 4:3; 2 Thess. 2:8.* (I BELIEVE THE 'MAN OF LAWLESSNESS' WAS REVEALED IN THE FIRST CENTURY AND THAT JOHN AND Paul SPEAK OF A CONTEMPORARY PROBLEM TO THEIR TIME PERIOD, NOT A PROPHETICAL PREDICTION OF A 'MAN OF LAWLESSNESS' TO COME.)

*CHAPTER 26: OF THE COMMUNION OF THE SAINTS.
5. 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.
Prov. 20:1; Rom. 14:21; 1 Cor. 6:9-10; 1 Cor. 8:13.

6. The use of tobacco is detrimental to health and is to be avoided because of the responsibility to preserve the body which is a temple of God.
1 Cor. 6:19; 1 Cor. 9:24-27.* (I BELIEVE THESE ARE MATTERS OF CHRISTIAN LIBERTY WHEN HANDLED RESPONSIBLY AND DONE BEFORE THE LORD IN HUMILITY WITH RELIANCE UPON HIM TO STAY FAR FROM SINFUL USE AND HABITUAL ABUSE.)

[Edited on 9-29-2005 by WrittenFromUtopia]


----------



## Arch2k (Dec 11, 2005)

I found it interesting that the RPCNA still confessionally subscribes to the The Directory of Publick Worship and the The Form of Presbyterian Church-Government via the The Covenant of 1871:



> 2. That after careful examination, having embraced the system of faith, order and worship revealed in the Holy Scriptures, and summarized, as to doctrine, in the Westminster Confession and Catechisms, and Reformed Presbyterian Testimony, and, as to order and worship, justly set forth in substance and outline in the *Westminster Form of Church Government and Directory for Worship*, we do publicly profess and own this as the true Christian faith and religion, and the system of order and worship appointed by Christ for His own house, and, by the grace of God, we will sincerely and constantly endeavor to understand it more fully, to hold and observe it in all its integrity, and to transmit the knowledge of the same to posterity.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Dec 11, 2005)

I noticed the same whe researching the history of the Directory in American Presbyterianism for my Americanxmas paper.


> The Reformed Presbyterian Church of North America adopted a new directory for worship in 1945, and its ambiguity allowed observance of days to spread in that church, though some still contend against the practice. This occurred despite the fact that the RPCNA Covenant of 1871, which they affirm is still binding, requires adherence to the original Westminster Directory. [94]
> 
> 
> > [94] The Constitution of the Reformed Presbyterian Church of North America Being Its Standards Subordinate to the Word of God The Confession of Faith, the Larger and Shorter Catechisms, the Testimony, the Directory for Church Government, the Book of Discipline, and the Directory for the Worship of God. Together with Official Vows and Forms (Pittsburgh: RPCNA Board of Education and Publication, 1989).


----------



## Peter (Dec 11, 2005)

Thanks Jeff and Chris. My minister is on the Synod's committe to revise the directory for worship. I will alert him to this.

in my opinion finding out what the RPCNA exactly believes is very difficult. To my knowledge officially the RPCNA still holds the SL&C and NC and one RP website I found affirms this, yet ask most RP ministers and they will say no. In this respect I think the RPCNA is much like the Roman Catholic Church; having a very precise canon law yet such wide and various "interpretations" which make it virtually irrelevent.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Dec 11, 2005)

Years ago when the FPCR session was investigating the RPCNA our pastor marked up a copy of the Testimony with all the problems he found in it (some of those noted and some more serious), and sent it to one of the pastors. Never got any answers back as I recall, nor the marked up copy.


----------



## Arch2k (Dec 11, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Peter_
> Thanks Jeff and Chris. My minister is on the Synod's committe to revise the directory for worship. I will alert him to this.
> 
> in my opinion finding out what the RPCNA exactly believes is very difficult. To my knowledge officially the RPCNA still holds the SL&C and NC and one RP website I found affirms this, yet ask most RP ministers and they will say no. In this respect I think the RPCNA is much like the Roman Catholic Church; having a very precise canon law yet such wide and various "interpretations" which make it virtually irrelevent.



Peter,

Can you tell me what website you found that states the PRCNA holds to the SL&C and NC?


----------



## Peter (Dec 12, 2005)

http://www.bright.net/~covvie/who.html

Also, I have a copy of the old RP testimony (Reformation Principles Exhibited) dated 1911. In some form or another I believe this was the constitution of the church until 1980 when the current one was adopted. Term 4 of the Terms for Ecclesiastical Communion is "An acknowledgement of ... the obligation upon this church of the covenant entered into in 1871, in which are embodied the engagements of the NC of S and of the SL&C, so far as applicable in this land."


----------



## Arch2k (Dec 12, 2005)

Thanks Peter.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Dec 12, 2005)

I find this 1949 Term of communion in the RPCNA:
5. An acknowledgment that public covenanting is an ordinance of God to be observed by churches and by nations; that the obligations of such covenants are perpetual; and that the Covenant entered into in 1871 is binding upon the Reformed Presbyterian Church in North America.
The Constitution of the Reformed Presbyterian Church of North America, (Synod of the RPCNA, 1949) "Terms of Communion", 333.


----------



## Peter (Dec 12, 2005)

So it seems the Covenants were gradually tucked under the carpet and forgotten by the RPCNA (the "Covenanters") However, I don't think they've ever been officially repudiated and I believe this is the same situation with the church's stance on political dissent and voting. It would be interesting to see if there was ever any discussion of this at the Synod.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Dec 12, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Peter_
> So it seems the Covenants were gradually tucked under the carpet and forgotten by the RPCNA (the "Covenanters") However, I don't think they've ever been officially repudiated and I believe this is the same situation with the church's stance on political dissent and voting. It would be interesting to see if there was ever any discussion of this at the Synod.



My understanding is that the RPCNA's historic position on political dissent and contra voting was overturned at the 1967 Synod (Minutes of Synod, pp. 72-74). This is also reflected in the 1980 Testimony, Chap. 23, sec. 29 "When participating in political elections..." I know one of the primary individuals who advocated for the change. When I was an officer in the RPCNA I dissented from the new position on dissent.


----------



## Peter (Dec 12, 2005)

The Testimony seems pretty ambiguous to me (purposely so I'm sure). Do you know if the Minutes of that Synod are online Andrew? Thanks.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Dec 12, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Peter_
> The Testimony seems pretty ambiguous to me (purposely so I'm sure). Do you know if the Minutes of that Synod are online Andrew? Thanks.



I don't belive those Minutes are online and Crown & Covenant doesn't have them that far back, but if you were to contact Crown & Covenant or RPTS or post on the Covie-Net, you could probably get a copy of the 1967 Minutes. I have contacts who could probably help too.


----------

