Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

5267Re: American Presbyterianism

Expand Messages
  • fraasrd
    Sep 2 2:33 PM
    • 0 Attachment
      Hey Wayne,
      What is an "Erastian" establishment of Presbyterianism?

      Dan of Bethel Park
      --- In covenantedreformationclub@y..., "Wayne Whitmer"
      <Wayne.Whitmer@a...> wrote:
      > I didn't realize until stumbling on this page
      http://www.americanpresbyterianchurch.org/american_presbyterianism.htm
      >
      > That basically the first Presbyterian denomination to arrive in
      America was called the Reformed Presbytery and had as it's essential
      distinctives:
      >
      > Reformed Presbytery:
      > These were the first Covenanters to come to America from Scotland
      and Northern Ireland. They were Reformed Presbyterians. These people
      had suffered greatly during the "killing times" under James II, in
      defense of Presbyterianism. They held to the continuing obligations
      of both the Scottish National Covenant of 1638 and the Solemn League
      and Covenant of 1643. They had refused to accept the "revolution
      settlement" in 1690 that established Presbyterianism in Scotland
      after the Glorious Revolution of 1688. They felt that this settlement
      established Presbyterianism not on a scriptural but on an Erastian
      basis and that the covenants had been ignored.
      >
      > As found when reading the above link, the Reformed Presbytery
      joined the Associate Presbytery and thus gave up the Covenanter
      Testimony of the National and SLC. And if you read down through this
      laundry list it seems as if all American Presbyterian denominations
      are an erosion of the establishmentarianism principle in favor of
      supporting the constitution and government of the United States.
      Their formation in many respects had much to do about politics.
      >
      > So with that all said, to me the choice of what Presbyterian
      denomination/church to choose comes down to
      the "Establishmentarianism" principle and the perpetual obligation of
      the National Covenant and the SLC. If the binding element of these
      covenants can be proved to be in error for me as a US Citizen then I
      would want to avoid the RPNA or any other church or denom which
      unneccessarily binds my conscience with that which is no longer
      binding. OTOH, if I come to embrace the National and SLC as binding
      on me as a US Citizen and my posterity and that it should be a Term
      of Communion, then I have no choice but to become a member of the
      RPNA or another group which upholds these Covenants as Terms of
      Communion.
      >
      > It's as simple as that.
      >
      > Wayne Whitmer
      > http://waynewhitmer.blogspot.com
      > Pittsburgh, PA
    • Show all 3 messages in this topic