Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
The civil magistrate may not assume
to himself the administration of the
Word and sacraments, or the power
of the keys of the kingdom of heaven:
yet he hath authority, and it is his duty,
to take order, that unity and peace be
preserved in the Church, that the truth
of God be kept pure and entire; that
all blasphemies and heresies be suppressed;
all corruptions and abuses in
worship and discipline prevented or
reformed; and all the ordinances of
God duly settled, administered and
observed. For the better effecting
whereof, he hath power to call synods,
to be present at them, and to provide,
that whatsoever is transacted in them
be according to the mind of God.
They reject the underlined because they don't believe the civil magistrate's responsibilities include those of the underlined. Or more specifically some of those things. And it is easier to reject the whole than little portions here and there, where their view on civil magistrate is clarified in other places. Their view isn't dependent upon having an American mindset but rather a mindset that Christ is Mediatorial King over all (including nations/governments).
To prevent damage to our neighbor, to provide mutual help in godly living, and to strengthen each other in living a disciplined life it is altogether wise and proper that Christians refrain from the use, sale and manufacture of alcoholic beverages. (26.5)
How is this not the tradition of men set up as an additional "hedge" to what God has commanded? Also, when this thinking is extended to the Lord's Supper, the result is tragic.
I see in this a warning more than a prohibition.
They reject the underlined because they don't believe the civil magistrate's responsibilities include those of the underlined. Or more specifically some of those things. And it is easier to reject the whole than little portions here and there, where their view on civil magistrate is clarified in other places. Their view isn't dependent upon having an American mindset but rather a mindset that Christ is Mediatorial King over all (including nations/governments).
This is open to anyone but I am hoping to get responses from RPCNA men on this topic.
What do you disagree with in the testimony, and why?
Their rejection is unwarranted. I’ve spoken to a few RP men including Shawn Anderson on this topic. It seems they reject it for fear of erastian tendencies (which couldn’t be further from the truth). It’s also notable that they reject 31.2.
I would have more problems with the RPCNA Testimony if it did not retain the original Confession as I believe the inclusion of the latter allows the reader to compare the revision with the first work and see how they differ and where they do not. In fact, it was due to my study of the Testimony alongside of the Confession that I came to the conclusions below (that is I agree with the Confession over and against the Testimony where they differ).
In the main, the Testimony is sound (as far as content goes), however I did take exceptions to the following points:
Chapter 23: Of the Civil Magistrate. WCF 23.3 & Testimony 18 (Pages A-73-74) where the Testimony rejects the portion of paragraph 3 after the colon. I object to this based on my convictions regarding establishmentarianism.
Chapter 25: Of the Church. Testimony 8 (Page A-87) "Women as well as men may hold to the office of deacon." I objected to this based on the belief that scripture does not appoint women to this office.
Chapter 25: Of the Church. WCF 25.6 & Testimony 18 (Page A-90) The Testimony seems to weaken the identification of the Papacy as Antichrist and the man of sin. If so, I agree with the WCF.
Chapter 26: Of the Communion of the Saints. Testimony 6 (A-92)
“The use of tobacco is detrimental to health and is to be avoided because of the responsibility to preserve the body which is the temple of God.” I objected to this on the basis of Christian liberty.
Do you take any exceptions to the testimony?
Daniel, don’t mean to put you on the hot seat but....
If you believe something is biblically true, historically true and in line with the confession and your personal conviction,what do you do when you come to a passage of scripture that is in conflict with the testimony?
I am concerned that the testimony is becoming a litmus test and that confessional men are no longer welcome.