# How to adhere to the RPW in churches that don't?



## CGS (Nov 16, 2022)

I have been a reader of the Puritan Board for quite some time and have learned a great deal from the wisdom on this forum. However, I have just recently joined, and this is my first post. I am seeking advice regarding some RPW issues/church choices that I am currently struggling with.

Some background/assumptions for context…

Positions I hold regarding the RPW:

Exclusive Psalmody (EP)
No instruments/choirs/solos/special music allowed
No observance of a church calendar, Advent/Christmas, Lent, Easter, etc.
Wine only (instead of grape juice) for the Lord’s Supper
No images of Christ, the Holy Spirit (descending dove), etc.
No women serving as deacons (some ARP churches allow this), teachers, etc.
I do not wish to debate whether I am right or wrong about these positions. I know that I am in an extreme minority to hold these convictions. *What I am looking for is advice on how to hold to these convictions in churches that do not. *So, for example, I’m not looking for advice trying to convince me that singing uninspired hymns is not a violation of the RPW…I’m looking for advice for how to be EP in a non-EP church. I have studied both sides of these issues for a long time and these are strongly held convictions. I’m not saying that I am not teachable on these issues, but debating the issues themselves is not the intent of the advice I am looking for.

Assumptions for the advice I am seeking:

These are not hypothetical questions. These are real life decisions that I face every Lord’s Day and struggle to know what to do. We are in the process of visiting churches to find one to join.
There are literally zero churches within a reasonable driving distance from me that hold these positions. I’ve visited ARP, PCA and OPC churches and they all without exception have RPW violations to one degree or another. So…just “finding a better, more ‘pure’ church” is not an option. Moving is also not an option. Therefore, I will have no choice but to join a church that has many practices that I hold to be violations of the RPW, and are therefore sinful.
I hold that violations of the RPW are sinful. For example, assuming the EP position is correct, then it is a sin to sing uninspired compositions. Therefore, for me to sing uninspired hymns or drink grape juice instead of wine, would be a sin.
I am not an office holder in the church, so advice will need to be appropriate/relevant to my place and station.
Some things are within my control, some are not. For example, I can refrain from singing when uninspired hymns are sung, but I can’t stop the organist from playing.
As a side note, the rest of my family (wife, adult children, mother, in-laws) and friends do not share my beliefs about the RPW. For example, they have no issues with singing uninspired hymns, having a choir, using grape juice, or celebrating Advent/Christmas. I am literally all alone in the stand that I am taking on these issues. I am working to educate my family on these issues, but they are not where I am...at least not yet. 
So…with the above context/assumptions in mind…here are my specific questions:

In churches that sing some Psalms, but are not EP…should I sing only the Psalms and refrain from singing the uninspired hymns? And how do I go about this? Do I still stand and hold the hymn book open with my wife, but just remain silent while she sings? Do I remain seated? What if this causes my wife (who is not EP) to feel uncomfortable or embarrassed when others notice that I am not singing? If asked why I don’t sing, how do I respond? If I say that due to my EP position it would be a sin for me to sing uninspired hymns, would that not potentially offend (by implying that the church is in sin for not holding an EP position), be considered divisive, etc.?
What about churches that do sing some Psalms, but sing them to instrumental accompaniment? Is it OK to sing these despite the instruments being a RPW violation?
What about churches that don’t sing any Psalms at all (exclusive hymnody?) …this would mean that I would never sing in corporate worship?
Is it OK for me to worship in churches that have choirs, instruments, solos/special music if I do not actively participate in the choir or play an instrument myself? In these scenarios, which are outside of my control, would the people actually playing the instruments and singing in the choir be the only ones in sin…or would I also be guilty of violating the RPW merely by being there in worship (implying that I condone it by remaining in the meeting place while it is occurring)? In other words, in a church that has a choir…is it only the actual members of the choir who are violating the RPW (and the session that allows it), or is the church as a whole in violation?
What about churches that observe “pretended holy days” (Advent season, Advent wreath/candle lighting ceremonies, trees, and decorations in the place of worship, Christmas Eve/Day services, etc.? Do I just not attend church for the entire month of December (to avoid the candle lighting rituals every Lord’s Day, trees in the meeting place, Christmas carols/sermons, etc.)? When the entire worship service (decorations, music, sermon, Scripture readings, unbiblical rituals, etc.) is centered around the Advent/Christmas theme every Lord’s Day for an entire month…how does one avoid that?
Regarding the use of grape juice (no wine as an option) in the Lord’s Supper, should I refrain from drinking the grape juice, but still take the bread? Or should I refrain from the Lord’s Supper altogether in this scenario (even though the bread is not a violation)? I have heard that both John Murray and B.B. Warfield would refuse to administer/partake of the Lord’s Supper in churches that used grape juice, but I have no quote/source to verify this.
What about images? If the church has images in the meeting place, should I simply avoid that church altogether? Or since I am not an office holder in the church – and therefore have no authority to cover/remove them – can I worship there with a clean conscience (assuming of course that I am not using the images for worship)?
Would any of the above violations be automatic deal breakers/non-starters for churches that we are considering joining? For example, if there is a large stained-glass image of Christ in the meeting place, or if it is an exclusive hymnody church, should those types of violations automatically exclude those churches from consideration? Are some RPW violations worse than others?
I realize that there is no perfect church. And I realize that many who read this post will think that I am being extremely nit picky or over thinking these issues. But these are issues of conscience for me that I struggle with every Lord’s Day when I visit churches in my area. It grieves me to see how many Reformed churches – even in supposedly conservative/confessional denominations – seem to have totally abandoned the RPW. I don’t see how I can be faithful and obedient to our Lord if I willfully sing uninspired hymns, drink grape juice, etc. when I am convinced that these violate the RPW. And I have yet to find any local churches that don’t have multiple RPW violations. So...what is one to do? 

Thank you in advance for any advice you can provide.


----------



## Polanus1561 (Nov 16, 2022)

How far are you willing to drive?

Have you found out which churches uses wine? That is a big one for you, since you cannot 'abstain'. So the churches who use wine would narrow somewhat your list.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Nov 16, 2022)

I hold to all your views as expressed at least, except I grape juice as not so adulterating that when I get it in error I don’t believe I need to go into self flagellation (but I am more careful).

Presbyterians are not separatists (shouldn't be at least). You refrain from what you cannot in conscience do at the best reformed church alternative you can get to under the current circumstances. What other people are doing wrong does not make it sinful for you to do what you can at most options you mentioned. Study James Durham on not separating from the Lord’s Supper due to defects in others or in the preacher; that has wide application to other acts of worship as far as how one does and does not participate in other folks' sins in worship. On posture, stand with your wife; don't remain seated. Make your views clear to the session so everyone understands them and there is no need to do anything unnecessarily provocative in your posture in worship. Don’t attend any special non Lord’s Day service and on the Lord’s Days in December the same general principle noted applies. If you join the church then as a member you can try to address things in accord with your place and station. For instance, if there is an advent candle ceremony, you can start discussions with an elder and make your objections clear. If no church offers a split tray, you need to decide how much a corruption the wine is. If it is too much make a split tray church a priority. Don’t take only one element. If there are no images of Christ or worse in the immediate sanctuary, avoid where they are. If they are in the sanctuary you need to decide if that is a bridge too far. For me, I could not worship regularly at a church that has an image front and center I can’t avoid. Front and center is unusual so hopefully your list of possible churches has more than one that does not. 


CGS said:


> I have been a reader of the Puritan Board for quite some time and have learned a great deal from the wisdom on this forum. However, I have just recently joined, and this is my first post. I am seeking advice regarding some RPW issues/church choices that I am currently struggling with.
> 
> Some background/assumptions for context…
> 
> ...

Reactions: Like 2 | Informative 2


----------



## Jake (Nov 16, 2022)

I would have a conversation with Rev Ben Glaser at Bethany ARP in Clover, SC. My understanding is that he is at least sympathetic to many of the positions you have listed but serves in a church that is not as strict on RPW.


----------



## CGS (Nov 16, 2022)

Polanus1561 said:


> How far are you willing to drive?
> 
> Have you found out which churches uses wine? That is a big one for you, since you cannot 'abstain'. So the churches who use wine would narrow somewhat your list.


The farthest church we have visited was about 35 minutes away in a different state, which is further than I would like. Even though I did not mention it in my post, I do value being in close proximity to where I worship and would prefer that it be in our local community (or at least close to it). However, RPW issues obviously outweigh proximity issues and I would be willing to drive a reasonable distance to find a good church.

At this point, only one of the churches we've visited even had wine as an option (they served both wine and grape juice). The rest have been grape juice only. Unfortunately the one that did serve wine was not a good fit for other reasons.

To clarify...when you say that I cannot abstain...what do you mean by that? Are you saying that I should still participate in the Lord's Supper even if grape juice is the only option?


----------



## Polanus1561 (Nov 16, 2022)

CGS said:


> The farthest church we have visited was about 35 minutes away in a different state, which is further than I would like. Even though I did not mention it in my post, I do value being in close proximity to where I worship and would prefer that it be in our local community (or at least close to it). However, RPW issues obviously outweigh proximity issues and I would be willing to drive a reasonable distance to find a good church.
> 
> At this point, only one of the churches we've visited even had wine as an option (they served both wine and grape juice). The rest have been grape juice only. Unfortunately the one that did serve wine was not a good fit for other reasons.
> 
> To clarify...when you say that I cannot abstain...what do you mean by that? Are you saying that I should still participate in the Lord's Supper even if grape juice is the only option?


I don't abstain if I do not get wine. That is my view, but don't mind me.


----------



## CGS (Nov 16, 2022)

NaphtaliPress said:


> except I grape juice as not so adulterating that when I get it in error I don’t believe I need to go into self flagellation (but I am more careful).



Can you clarify/elaborate on what you mean by this? Is it acceptable and preferable to partake of the grape juice (if wine is not an option) rather than to abstain completely from the Lord's Supper? Is the wine not an essential element of the sacrament, or the grape juice not enough to corrupt it?


----------



## CGS (Nov 16, 2022)

NaphtaliPress said:


> Study James Durham on not separating from the Lord’s Supper due to defects in others or in the preacher; that has wide application to other acts of worship as far as how one does and does not participate in other folks' sins in worship.


Can you please point me to a specific work, book, essay by James Durham to study?


----------



## CGS (Nov 16, 2022)

Jake said:


> I would have a conversation with Rev Ben Glaser at Bethany ARP in Clover, SC. My understanding is that he is at least sympathetic to many of the positions you have listed but serves in a church that is not as strict on RPW.


We recently visited Rev. Glaser's church; however, he was away that day and they had a guest preacher. I read his Parsons Farms blog regularly. In fact, it was one of his older blogs that turned me on to the works of James Begg, whose book of essays on worship has greatly influenced me.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Nov 16, 2022)

CGS said:


> Can you please point me to a specific work, book, essay by James Durham to study?


James Durham, _The dying man's testament to the Church of Scotland, or, A treatise concerning scandal_ (1659; Naphtali Press edition, 1990). Old editions are online at PRDL. If I get time I can get the right place if you don't find it.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Nov 16, 2022)

CGS said:


> Can you clarify/elaborate on what you mean by this? Is it acceptable and preferable to partake of the grape juice (if wine is not an option) rather than to abstain completely from the Lord's Supper? Is the wine not an essential element of the sacrament, or the grape juice not enough to corrupt it?


I would not want to regularly do juice; but if faced with that or never having the Lord's supper, I'm not sure it is that significant of a corruption that it is a sin. It's still grapes. You may come to a different conclusion. But if you have the option for wine, the fact both are offered does not make it a sin for your to partake.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Jake (Nov 16, 2022)

Here is a helpful read on the EP topic: https://web.archive.org/web/20160326223512/http://wasdin.net/jake/main/archives/192

I don't hold all the same positions as you do, but do many of them. I made a decision several years ago to move from a church that was over an hour away (which was very particular in worship) to one in my immediate area, and chose the best option out of those here. I looked for use of Psalms in worship, seriousness in approach to worship, concern for the Confession, regular Lord's Day morning and evening worship and found all of those things, even with areas of disagreement with regard to worship. My ARP church has been reforming and we have been greatly blessed. While there are some discouraging aspects, particularly relating to differences of worship, my general approach is to focus as much as possible on the good. We are blessed with a skilled and able minister who clearly expounds the Word of God and the Gospel goes out, we are able to sing many Psalms each Lord's Day, and have good fellowship with fellow local believers despite areas we would like to see further reformation.

If a song is sung that I do not agree with, I will simply not sing that song. I will take the posture of the congregation but not sing. I've never had an issue with singing while an instrument is singing although I think ideally it should not be used, but I don't have as strong of an opinion on accompaniment as some.

During use of special music/choirs, etc. I pray or read Scripture as I wait for that to conclude.

Church calendar I do not celebrate and struggle with. I don't participate in any extra-worship activities related to this and focus on the good in the prescribed elements. It's still the word of God being read even if it is Matthew 28 on "Easter." I can benefit from a sermon on the resurrection on any Lord's Day, even if I disagree with a special one of emphasis. I don't attend non-Lord's Day services on "holy" days (there are two of these we regularly have).

I think wine is strongly preferable, but am willing to partake of a "fruit of the vine" as long as it is from grapes. This is perhaps the biggest deal on your list if you cannot partake with grape juice, as you would be excommunicating yourself from the table if the church does not use wine and you are unwilling to partake of grape juice.

I don't have to deal with images of any person of God in worship, though once in a while they do seep in elsewhere, in which case I will try to advocate against them. I'm not sure if I could worship in a place with an image of Christ for example behind the pulpit, but if I found myself in this circumstance I would try to not focus on it. I used to attend Covenant College whose chapel had an image of Christ on the cross behind the pulpit of the chapel, but I would sit in places so that I could not see it.

We have no female deacons, but I'm not wholly opposed to them so I'm not the best to speak into this. We also have female teachers of women's groups and children's sunday school classes which I don't object to. If there was someone unqualified teaching a class I would simply not attend or not have my children attend.

I try to be wise in how I bring about areas of disagreement. I have a good relationship with my elders, and have brought many issues to their attention. Of course there are also special areas of influence as a deacon. It's often hard to know what to bring up versus what to keep silent on. In general though I'm respected for having a strong love for the church and the Westminster Standards and have even been able to specifically teach on matters including Psalm singing and Sabbath keeping.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## CGS (Nov 16, 2022)

NaphtaliPress said:


> James Durham, _The dying man's testament to the Church of Scotland, or, A treatise concerning scandal_ (1659; Naphtali Press edition, 1990). Old editions are online at PRDL. If I get time I can get the right place if you don't find it.


Thank you for the recommendation. Those older editions look a Iittle daunting at close to 500 pages, but I will see what I can find. I also see that there are some "Extracts from Durham on Scandal" on the articles page of the Naphtali Press website. I will probably start there.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Nov 16, 2022)

CGS said:


> Thank you for the recommendation. Those older editions look a Iittle daunting at close to 500 pages, but I will see what I can find. I also see that there are some "Extracts from Durham on Scandal" on the articles page of the Naphtali Press website. I will probably start there.


Rutherford against Separatism is good also which is given there as well.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## CGS (Nov 16, 2022)

Jake said:


> Here is a helpful read on the EP topic: https://web.archive.org/web/20160326223512/http://wasdin.net/jake/main/archives/192
> 
> I don't hold all the same positions as you do, but do many of them. I made a decision several years ago to move from a church that was over an hour away (which was very particular in worship) to one in my immediate area, and chose the best option out of those here. I looked for use of Psalms in worship, seriousness in approach to worship, concern for the Confession, regular Lord's Day morning and evening worship and found all of those things, even with areas of disagreement with regard to worship. My ARP church has been reforming and we have been greatly blessed. While there are some discouraging aspects, particularly relating to differences of worship, my general approach is to focus as much as possible on the good. We are blessed with a skilled and able minister who clearly expounds the Word of God and the Gospel goes out, we are able to sing many Psalms each Lord's Day, and have good fellowship with fellow local believers despite areas we would like to see further reformation.
> 
> ...


Thank you for the link to the read on EP...yes, that is helpful. Also, I appreciate you taking the time to share your experiences and elaborate on how you have chosen to deal with each of these issues in your own church. As a side note, it is my understanding that the ARP denomination may be moving in the direction of doing away with female deacons, but that can be a conversation for another time...


----------



## CGS (Nov 16, 2022)

CGS said:


> I have heard that both John Murray and B.B. Warfield would refuse to administer/partake of the Lord’s Supper in churches that used grape juice, but I have no quote/source to verify this.


By the way...quoting/replying to my own post here...does anyone know if this statement about Warfield and Murray is true, and if so, do you know the actual original sources/writings from these men to back this up. If I recall correctly, I heard the one about Warfield in a lecture on worship given by Dr. Joseph Pipa, Jr. And I think I read the one about Murray here somewhere on the Puritan Board. But neither provided a specific reference or quote to verify that this was actually these men's positions. Not that either of these men would have the final say on the matter, but they are two highly esteemed Reformed theologians...so if they truly did hold this position, then that would add some weight to the argument that grape juice corrupts the sacrament to the point that one should abstain.


----------



## Megs (Nov 16, 2022)

I am currently in a country where most people have never even heard of the RPW and those that have use instruments, praise and worship songs, etc. For background, I currently attend a conservative Mennonite congregation in the morning and meet with one other Reformed family in the afternoon for more Reformed worship. My family is still sorting out our "home church" situation and we might be helping plant a church in this country.

One thing I have found helpful in worship is that if the congregation I am attending is singing a hymn, then I hum the hymn tune and either sing from the Scottish Psalter in my head/heart or read from the Psalms in the scriptures. I often don't hear the words the congregation is singing because I am so focused on the words of the Psalms. So that might be something you could try if you could do so unobtrusively.


----------



## CGS (Nov 16, 2022)

Megs said:


> One thing I have found helpful in worship is that if the congregation I am attending is singing a hymn, then I hum the hymn tune and either sing from the Scottish Psalter in my head/heart or read from the Psalms in the scriptures. I often don't hear the words the congregation is singing because I am so focused on the words of the Psalms. So that might be something you could try if you could do so unobtrusively.


This is something that I will defintely consider trying, but my problem is that I find it hard to focus when there is music playing. The music itself becomes a huge distraction for me. For example, the church we just visited this past Lord's Day started their worship service with several minutes of "quiet" reflection that was supposed to be a time to prepare our hearts for worship by praying and reading/meditating upon Scripture. However, the pianist played music throughout this entire time of "quiet" reflection so there was actually nothing quiet about it. I found it impossible to concentrate on the Word or prayer with the music playing. I have had the same experience at churches that play instrumental music while the bread and wine/juice are being dsitributed for the Lord's Supper. During this time I would like to quietly concentrate on the meaning of the sacrament, meditate on the body and blood of Christ, pray, etc. However, I find it impossible to do so because the music is so distracting.


----------



## Afterthought (Nov 16, 2022)

It will help to talk with your elders (if you haven't yet) about your views and what you could do or not do when preserving the peace of the church. Some hymn singing churches will allow you to be more free with your opinions, though not wanting you to stir up trouble or actively proselytize; others want to keep things on the down low (but are happy for you to answer questions if people ask). Considering the ARP's history, I would be surprised if the elders did not take a more open position, which will help you be secure in whatever scenarios you find yourself. (The closed view is strange to me; I came from non-denom churches where people held all sorts of disagreements quite openly) And who knows? Maybe they would provide some wine in the Lord's Supper distribution.

I used to hold the hymn book when I was in the OPC. I do not do so now when visiting and instead open up a metrical psalm and read it. Some will read the Bible. I do and did assume whatever posture the rest of the congregation was taking.

I would view the instruments as unwelcome noise intruding upon the worship of God: distracting, but not necessarily an indication of approval if one sings psalms while they play.

You should make contact with Greenville Presbyterian Church, so they at least know you exist, if you haven't yet. My denomination has no church plants planned for Charlotte yet, but if there was ever a group big enough and interested, that is a location that has been mentioned as a desirable location for a plant.

Reactions: Like 1 | Love 1


----------



## CGS (Nov 17, 2022)

Afterthought said:


> You should make contact with Greenville Presbyterian Church, so they at least know you exist, if you haven't yet. My denomination has no church plants planned for Charlotte yet, but if there was ever a group big enough and interested, that is a location that has been mentioned as a desirable location for a plant.


It's interesting that you mention this. Reverend McCurley's sermons (via sermonaudio) have been a big influence on me. And just a couple of days ago, I was joking with my son that we should move to Greenville so we could attend his church. I have also found the Free Church of Scotland (Continuing) resource/article web page to have a wealth of great resources (https://www.westminsterconfession.org/resources/worship/).


----------



## CGS (Nov 17, 2022)

NaphtaliPress said:


> James Durham, _The dying man's testament to the Church of Scotland, or, A treatise concerning scandal_ (1659; Naphtali Press edition, 1990). Old editions are online at PRDL. If I get time I can get the right place if you don't find it.


Hey, Chris - I read through some of the Durham excerpts on your website last night, but so far have not found anything specific to the Lord's Supper. I will admit that it was late, I was tired and I did a lot of skimming rather than thoroughly reading it...so I may have just missed it. But the overall gist I got from the portions I read was that Durham was dealing with Romans 14 issues. He was saying that we should not cause scandal or offense, or separate over secondary matters. I take this to mean matters that in themselves are morally indifferent, practices that are not sinful, matters of conscience/Christian liberty. Are you suggesting that some of the RPW issues that we are discussing fall into this Romans 14 category of matters that are secondary/morally indifferent (as opposed to there being clear biblical teaching/commands regarding the use of grape juice vs wine, EP, etc.)? Or am I totally missing both your and Durham's point?


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Nov 17, 2022)

CGS said:


> Hey, Chris - I read through some of the Durham excerpts on your website last night, but so far have not found anything specific to the Lord's Supper. I will admit that it was late, I was tired and I did a lot of skimming rather than thoroughly reading it...so I may have just missed it. But the overall gist I got from the portions I read was that Durham was dealing with Romans 14 issues. He was saying that we should not cause scandal or offense, or separate over secondary matters. I take this to mean matters that in themselves are morally indifferent, practices that are not sinful, matters of conscience/Christian liberty. Are you suggesting that some of the RPW issues that we are discussing fall into this Romans 14 category of matters that are secondary/morally indifferent (as opposed to there being clear biblical teaching/commands regarding the use of grape juice vs wine, EP, etc.)? Or am I totally missing both your and Durham's point?


Sorry; yes, while he does deal with things indifferent I had in mind the passage below. It is not direct but one may draw parallels to other corruptions and how we do and do not partake of other men's sins. That was my thinking in adducing him. He refers to the other then standard works against separatism which deal maybe more specifically with corruptions in worship (such as in the churches prior to the Second Reformation and Engish Civil War).
*Part Two, Chapter Four. When Church Officers are Defective in Their Duty*
_Duty of private persons when church-officers spare such as are scandalous_

ASSERTION THREE. Upon supposition that the defect is true, yet private professors are to continue in the discharge of the duties of their stations, and not to separate from the communion of the church, but to count themselves exonered in holding fast their own integrity. It’s true, it cannot but be heavy to those that are tender, and, if it become scandalously excessive, may give occasion to them to depart and go where that ordinance of discipline is more vigorous. And concerning that, there is no question, it being done in due manner. Yet, I say, that that can be no ground for withdrawing from <the> ordinances of Christ, as if they or their consciences were polluted by the presence of such others. For 1., that there were such defects in the church of the Jews cannot be denied, and particularly appears in the instance of Eli’s sons, who made the ordinances of the Lord contemptible with their miscarriages. Yet that it either was allowable to the people to withdraw, or faulty to join in the ordinances, can no way be made out.



If it is said, ‘There was but one church then, therefore none could separate from the ordinances in it?’ Answer. (1) This confirms what is said, to wit, that the joining of scandalous persons in ordinances, does not pollute them to others. For if so, the Lord had not laid such a necessity upon those that were tender, that they behooved to partake of polluted ordinances, or to have none. And if it did not pollute them then, some reason would be given that evidences it now to do so.



(2) If there is an unity of the church now, as well as then, then the consequence must be good. Because <so> wherever folks communicate, those many that communicate anywhere are one bread, and one body, as the Apostle speaks (_1 Cor. 10:17,_ compared with _12:13_). And so by communicating anywhere, we declare ourselves to be of the same visible church and politic body, with those who communicate elsewhere, even as by baptism we are baptized into one church, and into communion with all the members of the body anywhere. And therefore, if this is considered, it will not be enough to eschew pollution (if the objection is true and well grounded) to separate from one society, or one particular congregation, except there is a separation from the whole visible church; for so also the Jews might have separated from particular synagogues, or have chosen times for their offerings and sacrifices distinct from others. Famous Cotton of New England, <in his _Holiness of Church-members, _page 21 [John Cotton, _Of the Holiness of Church-Members_ (London, 1650), p. 21.], grants that there were many scandalous persons in the church of the Jews. [2] He says that that was by the priests’ defect, for they ought not to have been retained. And [3], though he says that that will not warrant the lawfulness of admitting scandalous persons to the church, yet he asserts that it may argue the continuance of their church estate notwithstanding of such a toleration; and if so, then it approves continuing therein, and condemns separation therefrom. Consequently a church may be a church having the ordinances in purity, and to be communicated in, notwithstanding of the former fault.



(3) What has been marked out of learned writers, for paralleling the constitution of the church under the gospel, with that under the law in essential things overthrows this objection. For now separation is as impossible as formerly.



2. This defect is to be observed in several of the primitive churches, as we may particularly see in the second and third chapters of the _Revelation._ Yet it is never found that any upon that account did withdraw, or were reproved for not doing so, even when the officers were reproved for defect. Yea, on the contrary, these who kept themselves pure from these scandals, though continuing in that communion, are commended and approved, and exhorted to continue as formerly. Now if continuing in communion in such a case is of itself sinful, and personal integrity is not sufficient to professors where the defect is sinful to the officers, even though in other personal things and duties of their stations they were approvable, how can it be thought that the faithful and true witness should so sharply reprove the one, and so fully approve the other at the same time?



3. The nature of church communion confirms this, because such influence has the scandalousness of one to make another guilty, as the approved conversation of the other has to make the ordinances profitable to him that is scandalous, for we can no otherwise partake of the evil than of the good of another in church communion. But it is clear, that the graciousness of one cannot sanctify an ordinance to one that is profane, and therefore the profanity of one cannot pollute the ordinance to one that is tender. And as he that examines himself, partakes worthily in respect of _himself_ and his own condition, but does not sanctify communicating to another, so he that partakes unworthily, eats and drinks damnation to _himself,_ and not to another, and for that cause is both the precept and the threatening bounded, _Let a man examine himself, etc. For he that eats and drinks unworthily, eats and drinks damnation to himself,_ for upon doing or omitting of duty in himself, follows worthy or unworthy communicating to him. And if in the most near conjugal fellowship, the company of a profane husband may be sanctified to a gracious wife, even when hers is unsanctified to him (because that depends upon the person’s own qualification and way of making use of God’s ordinance of marriage), much more may it be here. This last might be a distinct argument of itself.



4. If continuance in communion with such persons is sinful, then it must either be because communion with such as are profane indeed, whether we know or think them to be so or not, is sinful; or it must be because we know them, or think them to be such. But neither of these can be said. Not the first, because so to keep communion with an hypocrite, or a believer in a carnal frame, were sinful, although we thought them to be sincere, which cannot be pleaded. Nor can it be said it is because we know them to be so, because: (1) if we knew a man to be so and another knew not, in that case the ordinances were polluted to one and not to another at the same time, though possibly both were exercising the same faith, and having examined themselves, were in the same frame, which is absurd. Yea (2), if it depended on our knowledge of it, then our very supposing it to be so, although it were not so, would pollute the ordinance, and what confusion would be there, may be afterward hinted. Nor can it be said, it is because we think so, because, supposing some to think otherwise, it would be still an ordinance to them and a duty to continue in it, and not to us, which is the former absurdity. And this does not flow from the binding nature of an erroneous conscience (which may be alleged in other cases), but from the difference of person’s light, charity, or other apprehensions of things, whereby one is induced to esteem that scandalous, which another does not.



5. If communion with profane persons, that are such to our knowledge, is sinful, and pollutes ordinances, then these things may be inquired, which will infer diverse absurdities: (1) Ought persons to try all those that they keep communion with, whether they are profane or not? For if any profane person is in that communion which they might have known if they had tried, then their ignorance cannot excuse. (2) It may be inquired, what degree of trial and search does sufficiently exoner, because possibly a further trial might have discovered some to be profane? (3) It may be inquired, what evidences may demonstrate persons to be scandalous, and make them to be so accounted of? If only something seen by themselves, or if something reported by others; and that whether it is judicially made out or only asserted? And how manies [_many’s_] report is to be taken for proof; > or if any that are so reported of, are so to be accounted? (4) What sort of scandals are to be inquired in to make a person such as pollutes the ordinances? If it is any kind of scandal, or but scandals of such a nature? If one scandal is sufficient, or if there must be many? And how many are to be laid weight upon in this? And some satisfying grounds how, and where to fix the difference, are to be laid down? (5) It may be asked, if one scandalous person alone pollutes the ordinances? Or if there must be more? And if so, how many? (6) Suppose such a scandal were known to us alone. Charity, and Christ’s command say, it is not to be published. Conscience says in that case, the ordinance is polluted. Time straits either to communicate doubtingly, or with offense to abstain and hide the cause, or contrary to charity to signify the same. These and many such like things are requisite to satisfy one, upon this supposition, that communion in such a case is sinful. Therefore it is not to be admitted.



6. If the ordinance is polluted to one that is clean, then it is either the deed of the church officers that pollutes it, or the deed of the scandalous person that does communicate. But neither of these can be said. Not the first, for that would suppose that all the ordinances were polluted, although no scandalous person were present actually, because they were not actually excluded, and though they were absent, yet there being no impediment made to them by church officers, as to their guilt, it is the same. Nor the second, because, supposing a person not to be debarred, it is his duty to communicate. And can it be said, that he in doing his duty upon the matter, should make that not to be a duty to us, which lies on by a joint command, which requires eating from him and from us, as it requires praying?



7. The Lord’s ordering it so in his providence, that he admits unsanctified officers to administrate his ordinances, and yet withal, accounting them officers, and the ordinances in their hands to be his ordinances; and that even when they are known to be unsound (till in his own way they be removed), demonstrates this, that pollution in joint worshippers does not pollute the ordinances to others. For if any did pollute them, then most of all scandalous officers; but these do not. _Ergo, etc._ We may see it, (1) in the scandalousness of priests under the law, for we must either say that there were no scandalous priests, or that the people did then offer no sacrifice and join in no worship, or that sinfully they did it: all which is absurd. (2) We see in Christ’s time, the Scribes and Pharisees were pointed out by him as scandalous (_Matt. 23:3_). Yet even there he requires continuance in the ordinances administrated by them, notwithstanding. (3) Does not Paul speak of some that preached out of envy (_Phil. 1:15_), which is a most gross scandal, and of others who sought their own things, and not _the things of Christ _(_Phil. 2:21_)? Both which are gross, and clearly evidenced by his testimony. Yet is he content that people continue, yea, he supposes that they may profit in communion with them, which he would not, had the ordinances been polluted by them to others. And the same may be said of several churches in these second and third chapters of the _Revelation,_ where both grossness of ministers, and of many professors, is notified by Christ to the church; yet it cannot be supposed that that might have been made the ground of separation afterward from them, more than not doing of it was reproveable before.



8. If known evil in any that communicates, pollutes the ordinances in themselves, then how can a believer communicate with himself? Because (1), he has corruption. (2) He has as full knowledge of it as of any other man’s, yea, that which may make him think it more than what he knows of any other man. (3) That corruption is as near him as the corruption of any. (4) Law more particularly strikes against corruption in him as to himself, than that which is in any other. Yea (5), this corruption certainly, in so far, pollutes the ordinance to him, and makes him guilty. Now the same grounds that say he may communicate with a good conscience, notwithstanding of his own corruptions, will also say he may communicate notwithstanding of that which is in another, much more, because the sins that follow his corruption are his own sins, which cannot be said of the sins of others. And if repentance for his own sin, resting upon Christ, protesting against the body of death (which yet are but the acts of the same person, in so far as renewed, differing from himself as unrenewed); if, I say, such acts may quiet his conscience, and give him confidence to partake, notwithstanding of his own corruption, and that even then when he as unrenewed may be accounted guilty, may they not much more give him confidence in reference to the sins of another, which are not so much as his deeds.



9. In that directory which Christ gives (_Matt. 18_), this is implied, because he warrants an offended brother to bring obstinate offenders to the church, as the last step of their duty, and as their full exoneration. _Tell the church,_ says he, and no more is required of him after that, but conforming of his carriage to the church’s sentence in case of obstinacy. And none can think, upon supposition that the church did not their duty, that then they were from that [point] forth, not to join in that church, but to separate from them, as from heathens and publicans. Because so a particular person might excommunicate a church, whom yet Christ will not have to withdraw from communion with a private member, till obstinacy and the church’s censuring intervene. Yea, by so doing, a private person might account another a heathen and publican without any public censure, which is contrary to Christ’s scope, which subjoins this withdrawing of communion from him to the church’s censure. This will bind the more if we consider that Christ’s words have an allusion (as is commonly acknowledged) to the Jewish Sanhedrin, which being but one, could not admit of any separation from its communion, though there had been defect in this. What may be done in abstaining of personal communion in unnecessary things, is ever to be acknowledged. Yet if separation in such a supposed case, were called for as a duty, that direction would not be a sufficient direction for an offended brother. Because it leaves without direction in the last step. Yet Christ’s progress so particularly from one step to another says that it is otherways intended.



Who would have more full satisfaction in this may look [at] the learned treatises that are written against separation, which will hold consequentially in this, and therefore we may here say the less, and shall only add the consideration of one Scripture.



_A particular consideration of 1 Corinthians 11:17ff_



For confirming of this assertion then, we may take more particular consideration of one place which seems more especially to relate to this purpose, that is, _1 Cor. 11,_ from the _17th_ verse forward. Where it appears, 1. that there were divisions among that people, even in respect of communicating together at the Lord’s Table, so that some of them would not communicate with others, for that there were divisions is clear. Now, these divisions are expressed to be in the church when they came together to eat the Lord’s Supper (_v. 18 & 19_): some did communicate at one time, and some at another, without tarrying one for another, as is expressed in _v. 33._



2. We may also gather what might be the reason of this divided communicating, or, at least, what some might allege why they would not communicate jointly with others. For it is likely they fell in[to] this irregularity deliberately, as thinking they did well when they communicated apart, and not with others. So much is insinuated in the Apostle’s expostulation (_v. 22_)_, What, shall I praise you in this? I praise you not._ Now these reasons might be alleged, to justify their divided communicating: (1), that the ordinances were not reverently administered, nor with that gravity and discerning of the Lord’s body, as was fit. (2) That many unworthy persons were admitted to communion, even such as were drunken, (_v. 21_ etc.), and therefore it might be alleged by them that joint communicating with such was to be abstained [from].



3. It is evident also, that notwithstanding of these grounds, the Apostle condemns their practice, and presses them to joint communicating, as appears from _v. 22_ and _33_. From which this clear argument arises: if the members of the Church of Corinth, who separated from the ordinances because of the sinfulness of these that did jointly partake with them, were condemned by Paul, and required to communicate jointly, and if it is made clear by him how they might do so and not be guilty, then separation in such a case cannot be a duty, but a sin. But the former is true. Therefore, etc. I know nothing can be objected against this argument, but either to say that the Apostle’s scope is, in that eating together, to regulate their love feasts and to condemn their practice in these; or that he commends joint communicating simply, but not in such a case, because it is not clear whether any of them did scruple upon that ground or not. (1) For the removing of these, we say to the first, that the main scope of the place is to regulate them in going about the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper. Therefore it is that [which] the Apostle so clearly and plainly insists in clearing the institution thereof, thereby to bring them back to the way that was laid down and delivered to him by the Lord. And for any other sort of eating or drinking, the Apostle sends them to their houses (_v. 22_), and more expressly he repeats that direction, that if any man hunger and desire to eat his ordinary meat, _let him do it at home_ (_v. 34_). So that no direction for the time to come can be interpreted to belong to common eating in the church, or in the public meetings thereof, but such as is sacramental only.



(2) To the second, to wit, if the Apostle dips in this question with respect to that objection of the impurity of joint communicants, we propose these things for clearing of the same.



[1] We say, that whether they actually objected that or not, yet there was ground for them to object the same if it had weight, as the text [makes] clear. Neither could the Apostle, knowing that ground, and having immediately mentioned the same, have access to press them all indifferently to communicate together, if his direction met not the case. For this might still have stood in the way, that many of them were such and such, and therefore not to be communicated with. And if it is a sufficient reason to keep them from joint communicating, then the case being so circumstantiated, it would also be a sufficient reason to keep him from imposing that as a duty upon them, at least, so long as the case stood as it was.



[2] We say, that it is not unlike[ly] there were such hesitations in some of them, and that (whatever was among them) it is clear, that the Apostle expressly speaks to this case, and endeavors to remove that objection out of the way, to wit, that men should not scar at [_be afraid of_] the sacrament because of the profanity of others. And that therefore they might without scruple as to that, communicate jointly, and tarry one for another, which is his scope (_v. 33_). This will appear by considering several reasons whereby he presses this scope, for that (_v. 33_),_ wherefore my brethren, when ye come together, tarry one for another,_ is the scope laid down as a conclusion from the former grounds which he has given. Now, when he has corrected their first fault, to wit, their irreverent manner of going about the ordinance, by bringing them to Christ’s institution (_v 23–27_), he comes in the last place to meet with this objection: ‘What if others be present who palpably cannot discern the Lord’s Body, and so cannot communicate worthily?’ Can it be safe to communicate with such? Or, is it not better to find out some other way of communicating apart, and not together with such? The Apostle gives several answers to this, and reasons, whereby he clears that their division was not warrantable upon that ground (from _v. 28_), and so concludes (_v. 33_), that notwithstanding thereof, they might tarry one for another.



REASON ONE. The first reason is (_v. 28_),_ But let a man examine himself and so let him eat._ Which shows first, that a man’s comfortable preparation for this duty, is to examine himself, and that the fruit may be expected, or not expected, accordingly as it shall be with himself. Otherways, it were not a sufficient direction for preparation, to put him to examine himself. Again secondly, these are knit together: _Let a man examine himself, and so let him eat._ Which is in sum this, when a man has in some sincerity looked upon his own condition, and has attained some suitableness to the ordinances as to his own private case, then (says the Apostle) _Let him eat,_ without respecting the condition of others. Otherways, a man having examined himself, yet could not eat, though his own disposition were as it should be, if the case of others might hinder him in eating. And we conceive, it is a main part of the Apostle’s scope, by knitting these two together (to wit, a man’s eating with the examining of himself), purposely to prevent such a debate.



REASON TWO. The second reason which he gives will confirm this also, for says he (_v. 29_),_ He who eats and drinks unworthily, he eats and drinks unto himself damnation,_ or judgment. Which is in sum this: a man that has examined himself may eat of the sacrament, though many persons communicate unworthily with him, because (says he) he that eats unworthily does not bring damnation or judgment upon others, nor is his sin imputed to them that communicate with him; but he brings it upon _himself,_ and therefore no other has cause to be afraid of the ordinance because of that, if he has examined himself. This reason he again confirms from experience (_v. 30_),_ For this cause _(says he)_ many are sick, and many among you are weak,_ etc. That is, not because they did communicate with those who are scandalous, being in good case themselves; but for this cause, says he, many are sick, etc., and have brought upon themselves great plagues, because by not examining of themselves, they did communicate unworthily, and so by their own sin, brought these strokes upon themselves.



REASON THREE. He gives a third reason for making out of his scope (_v. 31_),_ for if we will judge ourselves, we should not be judged._ That is, men need not be anxious in this case, whether others judge themselves or not. For, says he, God’s absolving or judging of us, does not depend upon what they do, but upon what we ourselves do. And therefore presses them still to look to themselves, because the judging and humbling of ourselves before God, is the way not to be judged by him, even in reference to that ordinance, whatever others do.



Now when he has fully cleared the reasons and, as it were, made out this proposition, that if a man is right in his own frame, the sin of another joint communicate cannot be hurtful to him or be ground to mar him in eating; and when by an interserted parenthesis, he has obviated a doubt (_v. 32_), he concludes (_v. 33_),_ Wherefore, _says he, _my brethren,_ (seeing it is so) _tarry one for another_ and be not anxiously <feared> to communicate jointly. Now seeing all along the Apostle has been giving such grounds as may clear a conscience in that case, and in these words lays down the direction of tarrying one for another, or of joint communicating, as a conclusion drawn from the former grounds, it cannot be thought, but that purposely he intended these reasons to be grounds for the quieting of consciences, to obey that direction in such a case, and that therefore it cannot be warrantable to separate upon that ground.

Reactions: Like 1 | Love 1


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Nov 17, 2022)

NaphtaliPress said:


> I hold to all your views as expressed at least, except I grape juice as not so adulterating that when I get it in error I don’t believe I need to go into self flagellation (but I am more careful).


I don't know if you were being funny.... I still laughed over your need NOT to go into self flagellation. We hold to the same stuff. That is weird.



CGS said:


> have been a reader of the Puritan Board for quite some time and have learned a great deal from the wisdom on this forum. However, I have just recently joined, and this is my first post.


Wow, what a first post Charles. Welcome to the Puritanboard.


----------



## CGS (Nov 17, 2022)

PuritanCovenanter said:


> Wow, what a first post Charles. Welcome to the Puritanboard.


Thank you...glad to be here. And, yes...maybe I shoud have eased into it with a shorter, and less weighty topic for my first post.

Reactions: Funny 2


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Nov 17, 2022)

CGS said:


> It's interesting that you mention this. Reverend McCurley's sermons (via sermonaudio) have been a big influence on me. And just a couple of days ago, I was joking with my son that we should move to Greenville so we could attend his church. I have also found the Free Church of Scotland (Continuing) resource/article web page to have a wealth of great resources (https://www.westminsterconfession.org/resources/worship/).


I've seen the value of, if at all possible, moving to be near a confessional and reformed work that one can put one's whole heart into without conscience issues (no perfect church, of course!) It's not just for the sake of one's own peace of mind and well-being, but for the good of Christ's cause and church and the strenghtening and support of the advancement of sound doctrine, and the plea for reformation and revival in our churches.


----------



## CGS (Nov 17, 2022)

NaphtaliPress said:


> Sorry; yes, while he does deal with things indifferent I had in mind the passage below. It is not direct but one may draw parallels to other corruptions and how we do and do not partake of other men's sins. That was my thinking in adducing him. He refers to the other then standard works against separatism which deal maybe more specifically with corruptions in worship (such as in the churches prior to the Second Reformation and Engish Civil War).
> *Part Two, Chapter Four. When Church Officers are Defective in Their Duty*
> _Duty of private persons when church-officers spare such as are scandalous_
> 
> ...


Thank you for providing this, Chris...this was definitely a very helpful read that has application to several of my questions. However, I do have a follow-up question. If I'm understanding Durham correctly - and applying his thought to the Lord's Supper - he is saying that "unsanctified officers" who administrate the Lord's Supper do not pollute it. He's also saying that even if the folks in the pews next to me partake in an unworthy manner it does not corrupt the sacrament for me (assuming I am taking it worthily). Therefore the worthiness of the officers administrating it, nor the worthiness of those in the congregation taking it with me, can cause the sacrament to be corrupt for me. Have I got it right so far? But my question is not so much about the corruption of the people serving/participating in the Lord's Supper, but rather about the element itself (grape juice) being corrupted. If the elements are to be bread and wine - as clearly taught in God's Word and our confessions - then by what authority do we change the element to grape juice? If adherence to the RPW calls for wine, and violating the RPW is sin, then how is drinking the grape juice not sinful? And if it is sinful, then should we not refuse the grape juice?

And again...not looking to debate whether or not grape juice is a violation of the RPW. I have come to the conclusion that it is. So if that is my conviction, can I still partake of the Lord's Supper when the only option is grape juice? Would Durham argue that it is OK for me to do so since the determination to use grape juice was made by the officers of the church, and therefore I am not culpable for their decision? Am I somehow relieved of the requirement to only use wine since according to my "place and station" I have no say in the matter?


----------



## CGS (Nov 17, 2022)

Jeri Tanner said:


> I've seen the value of, if at all possible, moving to be near a confessional and reformed work that one can put one's whole heart into without conscience issues (no perfect church, of course!) It's not just for the sake of one's own peace of mind and well-being, but for the good of Christ's cause and church and the strenghtening and support of the advancement of sound doctrine, and the plea for reformation and revival in our churches.


I can definitely see the value of that as well. However, moving is not really an option for me at this time. I have elderly parents/in-laws who would need to go wherever I go, an adult child living at home who commutes to college, 19 years invested at my current job, etc. Moving would involve uprooting/relocating 3 different families/homes, my son changing schools, and my wife and I both finding new jobs. And as I mentioned, I'm really the only one in my family who is fully committed to the classical/historic Reformed view of worship, so it would be a hard sell to convince my entire family to move just so we could attend a church that actually adheres to the RPW. In addition, I do think there is something to be said for being content at where God has providentially placed me at this time and working for reform in a local church...or at least attempting to work for reform.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Nov 17, 2022)

Yes; you got the gist of the how other members or corrupt officers administering do not pollute the sacrament to another rightly partaking (how one answers that is basically the difference between Presbyterianism and a separatist mindset). On conscience, if you are convinced grape juice is sin, the decision of the officers to the contrary does not absolve your conscience, whether correct or erroneous, because as Durham goes into it elsewhere, it is a sin to violate your conscience. 


CGS said:


> Thank you for providing this, Chris...this was definitely a very helpful read that has application to several of my questions. However, I do have a follow-up question. If I'm understanding Durham correctly - and applying his thought to the Lord's Supper - he is saying that "unsanctified officers" who administrate the Lord's Supper do not pollute it. He's also saying that even if the folks in the pews next to me partake in an unworthy manner it does not corrupt the sacrament for me (assuming I am taking it worthily). Therefore the worthiness of the officers administrating it, nor the worthiness of those in the congregation taking it with me, can cause the sacrament to be corrupt for me. Have I got it right so far? But my question is not so much about the corruption of the people serving/participating in the Lord's Supper, but rather about the element itself (grape juice) being corrupted. If the elements are to be bread and wine - as clearly taught in God's Word and our confessions - then by what authority do we change the element to grape juice? If adherence to the RPW calls for wine, and violating the RPW is sin, then how is drinking the grape juice not sinful? And if it is sinful, then should we not refuse the grape juice?
> 
> And again...not looking to debate whether or not grape juice is a violation of the RPW. I have come to the conclusion that it is. So if that is my conviction, can I still partake of the Lord's Supper when the only option is grape juice? Would Durham argue that it is OK for me to do so since the determination to use grape juice was made by the officers of the church, and therefore I am not culpable for their decision? Am I somehow relieved of the requirement to only use wine since according to my "place and station" I have no say in the matter?


----------



## CGS (Nov 17, 2022)

NaphtaliPress said:


> On conscience, if you are convinced grape juice is sin, the decision of the officers to the contrary does not absolve your conscience, whether correct or erroneous, because as Durham goes into it elsewhere, it is a sin to violate your conscience.


Then this would seem to put me (and all others in similar circumstances with similar convictions) in the unfortunate position of being "forced" to sin no matter what I choose. Either I sin against my conscience by drinking the juice (assuming the church I join does not have wine as an option and no churches in my area do), or I sin by never participating in the Lord's Supper. But then again, if I go with the grape juice, am I really even participating in the Lord's Supper since it is not being administered with the properly prescribed elements? Seems to be an unsolvable conundrum. Fortunately, we have our great high Priest to cover even the sins we commit in worship.

"These are but a few of the many iniquities that are to be found in our holy things (Ex. 28:38). It is good we have a high Priest to bear them. O what if all our sins were reckoned, how heinous would they be! And what a sum will they come to, if our performances of holy duties have so many sins in them! And, when the sins of a Sabbath are counted, how many will they be! Hundreds of diverse sorts, in praying, hearing, and praising; and multiply those to every loose thought, and every declining or wavering of the heart, how many times may they be multiplied! Ah how many unholy words do we let slip! And then, consider all the Sabbaths and sermons, prayers and praises we have had, how many hundred thousands will they amount to! It is sad that men should lie under all these with few or no challenges, or without minding repentance, or thinking of the necessity of employing the high Priest for doing them away; therefore we should accept these challenges, and give him employment, who only can bear the iniquity of our holy things. If this [does not] bring down self-righteousness, and convince you of the necessity of a Mediator, what will do it?" - James Durham (https://www.naphtali.com/articles/james-durham/the-second-commandment/)


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Nov 17, 2022)

CGS said:


> Then this would seem to put me (and all others in similar circumstances with similar convictions) in the unfortunate position of being "forced" to sin no matter what I choose. Either I sin against my conscience by drinking the juice (assuming the church I join does not have wine as an option and no churches in my area do), or I sin by never participating in the Lord's Supper. But then again, if I go with the grape juice, am I really even participating in the Lord's Supper since it is not being administered with the properly prescribed elements? Seems to be an unsolvable conundrum. Fortunately, we have our great high Priest to cover even the sins we commit in worship.
> 
> "These are but a few of the many iniquities that are to be found in our holy things (Ex. 28:38). It is good we have a high Priest to bear them. O what if all our sins were reckoned, how heinous would they be! And what a sum will they come to, if our performances of holy duties have so many sins in them! And, when the sins of a Sabbath are counted, how many will they be! Hundreds of diverse sorts, in praying, hearing, and praising; and multiply those to every loose thought, and every declining or wavering of the heart, how many times may they be multiplied! Ah how many unholy words do we let slip! And then, consider all the Sabbaths and sermons, prayers and praises we have had, how many hundred thousands will they amount to! It is sad that men should lie under all these with few or no challenges, or without minding repentance, or thinking of the necessity of employing the high Priest for doing them away; therefore we should accept these challenges, and give him employment, who only can bear the iniquity of our holy things. If this [does not] bring down self-righteousness, and convince you of the necessity of a Mediator, what will do it?" - James Durham (https://www.naphtali.com/articles/james-durham/the-second-commandment/)


Pray that the church accommodates you; it works the other way frequently; many accommodate juice for those convicted against real wine. Offer to bring the bottle.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## CGS (Nov 17, 2022)

NaphtaliPress said:


> (how one answers that is basically the difference between Presbyterianism and a separatist mindset)


And, yet it seems clear that Presbyterians have no problem separating over some issues (although in Durham's argument, the corruptions must be "excessive" to warrant separation). But it seems as if the Reformation itself was one big separation from the RCC, and then further division into all the various Protestant branches. And even looking solely at the Presbyterian family tree makes one dizzy with all the separations. It's almost impossible to even trace the history of it there are so many branches, separations, reunions, etc...and that's just in America since the 1700s...I'm looking at the diagram/family tree of American Presbyterianism on the last page of "Seeking a Better Country" by Hart and Muether. Easy to get lost tracing all the different paths...


----------



## Northern Crofter (Nov 17, 2022)

CGS said:


> Some background/assumptions for context…
> 
> Positions I hold regarding the RPW:
> 
> ...


In all sincerity, I feel your pain, brother. I have inserted my thoughts above in bold. My background: I attend an RPCNA congregation with my family but we cannot join because of their departures from the Confession and the Covenants. It is a 40 minute drive. We have been examined and welcomed to join at the Lord's Table based on our profession of faith. The RPCNA allows for 'adherents" - I'm not sure that is Biblical, but they allow it, so I cannot neglect it (my conscience compels me to seek the closest union I can with my brothers and sisters in Christ). However, we have no standing to petition the Session (though they are very gracious and willing to listen when we raise an issue). The closest church I could/would join in 6 hours away. We once had a mission work with another church but that has folded. We remain hopeful another will take its place, but if not I will consider moving at some point. No church is perfect, but that does not mean we have to settle and/or compromise without voicing our objections. Search your heart. Flee to the Word: "For from the least of them, even unto the greatest of them, everyone is given unto covetousness, and from the Prophet even unto the Priest, they all deal falsely. They have healed also the hurt of the daughter of my people with sweet words, saying, Peace, peace, when there is no peace. Were they ashamed when they had committed abomination? nay, they were not ashamed, no neither could they have any shame: therefore they shall fall among the slain: when I shall visit them, they shall be cast down." (Jeremiah 6.13-15)


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Nov 17, 2022)

CGS said:


> And, yet it seems clear that Presbyterians have no problem separating over some issues (although in Durham's argument, the corruptions must be "excessive" to warrant separation). But it seems as if the Reformation itself was one big separation from the RCC, and then further division into all the various Protestant branches. And even looking solely at the Presbyterian family tree makes one dizzy with all the separations. It's almost impossible to even trace the history of it there are so many branches, separations, reunions, etc...and that's just in America since the 1700s...I'm looking at the diagram/family tree of American Presbyterianism on the last page of "Seeking a Better Country" by Hart and Muether. Easy to get lost tracing all the different paths...


This is true; and one of the worst splits happened as Durham began his ministry in Glasgow in 1651 and was the thing that sparked the book which he finished on his death bed; hence the interesting title _A Dying Man's Testament_. Durham is one of those 17th Century Scots that influenced Presbyterianism significantly. He certainly had an impact on me at least; first book in published (1990) and here after 32 years I am starting editing the one remaining work of his that has not been issued in a new edition. So, personal favorite may not be an overstatement.


----------



## CGS (Nov 18, 2022)

Northern Crofter said:


> In all sincerity, I feel your pain, brother. I have inserted my thoughts above in bold. My background: I attend an RPCNA congregation with my family but we cannot join because of their departures from the Confession and the Covenants. It is a 40 minute drive. We have been examined and welcomed to join at the Lord's Table based on our profession of faith. The RPCNA allows for 'adherents" - I'm not sure that is Biblical, but they allow it, so I cannot neglect it (my conscience compels me to seek the closest union I can with my brothers and sisters in Christ). However, we have no standing to petition the Session (though they are very gracious and willing to listen when we raise an issue). The closest church I could/would join in 6 hours away. We once had a mission work with another church but that has folded. We remain hopeful another will take its place, but if not I will consider moving at some point. No church is perfect, but that does not mean we have to settle and/or compromise without voicing our objections. Search your heart. Flee to the Word: "For from the least of them, even unto the greatest of them, everyone is given unto covetousness, and from the Prophet even unto the Priest, they all deal falsely. They have healed also the hurt of the daughter of my people with sweet words, saying, Peace, peace, when there is no peace. Were they ashamed when they had committed abomination? nay, they were not ashamed, no neither could they have any shame: therefore they shall fall among the slain: when I shall visit them, they shall be cast down." (Jeremiah 6.13-15)


Thank you so much for taking the time to share your own struggles/experiences, to respond point by point to each of my questions, and for the words of encouragement. Your advice is very helpful.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Eyedoc84 (Nov 18, 2022)

Northern Crofter said:


> because of their departures from the Confession and the Covenants.


Not to derail the thread, but can you elaborate?


----------



## Northern Crofter (Nov 19, 2022)

Eyedoc84 said:


> Not to derail the thread, but can you elaborate?


(1) They constitutionally ( https://2rp.church/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/Constitution2017.pdf ) reject (via their "Testimony":

WCF 23.3: "We reject the portion of paragraph 3 after the colon." 
WCF 24.4: "We reject the last sentence in paragraph 4 of the _Confession of Faith_."
WCF 31.2: "We reject paragraph 2 of the _Confession of Faith_."
(2) They maintain their 1871 Covenant in their Constitution but have departed from it in places. For example, it states "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..." (2) and yet they have rejected parts (see WCF examples above) or replaced them wholesale (everything else).


----------



## Eyedoc84 (Nov 19, 2022)

Northern Crofter said:


> (1) They constitutionally ( https://2rp.church/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/Constitution2017.pdf ) reject (via their "Testimony":
> 
> WCF 23.3: "We reject the portion of paragraph 3 after the colon."
> WCF 24.4: "We reject the last sentence in paragraph 4 of the _Confession of Faith_."
> ...


You cannot join because they won't let you or because you feel conscience-bound on those points?


----------



## Northern Crofter (Nov 19, 2022)

Eyedoc84 said:


> You cannot join because they won't let you or because you feel conscience-bound on those points?


Both...I had previously taken an oath to support and defend the original Westminster Standards as an elder when part of a different church. I asked if I could state exceptions to the RPCNA constitution and join. I was told no (apparently only church officers are allowed to do that - something I have witnessed - though there is no mention of allowing or not allowing exceptions for anyone in their constitution).


----------

