13977Re: [Covenanted Reformation] Friendly clarifications.
- Sep 6, 2005Parnell,
Again, Matthew, the FPCoS and the FPCU (the one I was confused
about) both speak about separation and belonging to a Faithful
Church and both do NOT claim that every Christian body can call
themselves "Faithful". They are NOT saying that those less faithful
churches are no true churches at all, but rightly discern that there
is a distinction. SO DOES THE RPNA. The RPNA does not say that all
Churches are not true Churches, but that they are less faithful,
some more so than others. The RPNA does state that we are more
faithful in our Faith and Standards than other Protestant chruches.
Read what the FPCoS, from the link Parnell just provided, state to
this effect and how they too claim to be more faithful than others,
which by necessary consequence means more faithful than the Free
Church, of which you are a minister of:
Who We Are
From time to time, we meet with those who ask about the position,
doctrine and practice of the Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland.
The following is an answer for such enquirers, and also to commend
the Church to those who may be interested in joining her fellowship.
It has become common nowadays to hear people say, "What does it
matter which Church one belongs to? They all worship the same God
anyway. They just do it in different ways." The assertion falls
easily from the lips, but what has the Bible to say on the question?
Let it be said, at the outset, that the most important thing is that
one be a member of that Church which is made up of true believers -
those who are born again, and whose sins have been forgiven through
faith in Jesus Christ as the Son of God (Matthew 16:16-18).
***No particular Church on earth dare arrogate to itself the claim
that it alone comprises the true disciples of the Lord Jesus
Christ.*** *** To say, however, that it does not matter which
particular Church one belongs to is not true.*** Scripture requires
us to "prove all things", to "hold fast that which is good" (1
Thessalonians 5:21). ***The choice of one's Church does matter.***
Plainly, a Church that does not, for instance, proclaim a pure
Gospel, or that practises what is inconsistent with the Word of God,
does not deserve our support, for Christ requires the Church to
teach "all things whatsoever I have commanded you".
Our concern, therefore, should be to support a Church that comes
nearest to the New Testament pattern, which is the divine blue-print
for the Church of Christ in this world. If we turn to the Bible we
shall find that certain fundamental principles are laid down for the
conduct and government of the Church on earth. These principles are
not optional - for us to take or leave as we please. They are
stamped with the divine imperative. We are, therefore, bound to
adopt them. ***The Church that does so most faithfully comes nearest
to the New Testament model, and is the Church most worthy of our
allegiance and most likely to promote our spiritual welfare.*** If
we do not take the Holy Scriptures as our standard, in this as in
other religious questions, we will go very far astray in our choice.
God, let it be remembered, is not the author of confusion; He is the
God of order, and His Word cannot sanction contradictory doctrines
I have added the emphasis.
The RPNA goes into more detail as to what all this entails and
fully understands and applys these concepts as they were left unto
us by our Covenanted fore-fathers. There is the True Church and
then there is a distinction of Faithful/a duly constituted church.
Meaning, is her Constitution that she is founded on sound and make
that visible body faithful as to her Standards? The Covenanters of
1638-1649 stated that in order for a Church to be well and
rightfully constituted it needed to subscribe to the Covenants, if
not that Church was a Covenant-breaking Church and hence unfaithful
and that no association can be had with it. This was borne out in
the Protester and Resolutioner controversy of the early 1650's (this
event is a snapshot of what was to come with the Revolution
Settlement and how faithful and consistent Covenanters were to be,
note in the below link how the faithful Covenanters condemn the
Engagement, as the next generation of Covenanters did with the
Therefore, since it is a known fact of history that the
Revolution Church did NOT subscribe to the Covenants and when they
were pressed by the faithful Covenanters to do so, the Indulged and
unfaithful ministers of the Revolution Church rebuke them and
spurred that idea. The necessary conclusion from all this and
keeping in full step with Rutherford, Gillespie, et al, was that the
Covenanters would not join them and declare that the Revolution
Church was unduly Constituted (and many other issues made them such)
and made them an unfaithful and a covenant-breaking body of
believers (which again other things they did/failed to do prove).
To join them is to join them in VIOLATING the 3rd, 5th, & the 9th
Here is how the RPNA describes the situation:
Which has source documentation as well.
Yours in Christ,
--- In email@example.com, "J. Parnell
McCarter" <jparnellm@u...> wrote:
> Thanks, Glenn. I was unable to respond promptly because I wasaway at a
> communion season in Ontario.and the
> Glenn is quite right. People often get confused between the FPCS
> FPCU. The FPCU has the well known Ian Paisley as a minister, andit really
> does not hold onto the original Westminster Stds.
> The FPCS website is http://www.fpchurch.org.uk/EbBI/index.htm .
> - Parnell McCarter
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>