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

[Covenanted Reformation] Re: OPC / FPCS / RPNA

Expand Messages
  • Edgar A. Ibarra Jr.
    Yet you are asserting that the OPC is better than the CofS 1690 and afterwards. For those of us who believe in full subscriptionism to the doctrines of the
    Message 1 of 49 , Apr 25, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      Yet you are asserting that the OPC is better than the CofS 1690 and
      afterwards. For those of us who believe in full subscriptionism to
      the
      doctrines of the original WCF, your arguments are not persuasive.

      Finally, we should choose a church to be a communicant member of not
      according to the principle of that "which is best in my local area",
      but
      according to the principle that "which is upholding a sound
      confession".
      That may mean joining with a church that has no local congregation
      in one's
      state.


      Hence, we in the RPNA. Here is where Parnell & I do agree (we agree
      in far more than we would with OPCers)...

      Regards,

      Edgar

      --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, "J. Parnell
      McCarter" <jparnellm@u...> wrote:
      >
      >
      > I am not persuaded the CofS 1660-1690 was worse than the PCUSA
      1890-1930.
      > Around 1900, the PCUSA had added Arminian elements to their
      confession,
      > which the CofS 1660-1690 had not. Furthermore, the PCUSA was
      seriously
      > questioning the infallibility of scripture, which the CofS did
      not. Also,
      > the PCUSA was implicitly rejecting the preservation of God's
      infallible word
      > (as it is found in the Received Text), which the CofS did not.
      Plus, the
      > PCUSA had long before denied the Establishment Principle, which
      the CofS had
      > not. Plus, the worship in the CofS was more sound than in the
      PCUSA.
      >
      > And it is not true that all of the CofS ministers at the time were
      > complacent. Quite a number of them were seeking reform, but they
      wanted to
      > do it from within the CofS. (I disagree with their method, but I
      do not
      > think it is fair to say it is necessarily different from men who
      stayed in
      > the PCUSA 1890-1930.) Yet you require of the CofS 1690 something
      you do not
      > require of men entering the OPC from compromised denominations
      like the
      > PCUSA, etc.
      >
      > Furthermore, the CofS 1690 and afterwards had the original WCF
      (which is far
      > better than the OPC confession), full subscriptionism (which is
      far better
      > than OPC subscriptionism), sound worship, like EP, no musical
      instruments,
      > no holy days, etc. (which is far better than the OPC), belief in
      the
      > infallible word of God and its divine preservation in the Received
      Text
      > (which the OPC does not), belief in 6-day creation (which many in
      the OPC do
      > not, with their heretical Framework Hypothesis), etc. Only those
      ministers
      > that were willing to submit to this regime and swear to this
      subscription
      > were allowed to serve in the CofS 1690 and afterwards.
      >
      > Yet you are asserting that the OPC is better than the CofS 1690 and
      > afterwards. For those of us who believe in full subscriptionism
      to the
      > doctrines of the original WCF, your arguments are not persuasive.
      >
      > Finally, we should choose a church to be a communicant member of
      not
      > according to the principle of that "which is best in my local
      area", but
      > according to the principle that "which is upholding a sound
      confession".
      > That may mean joining with a church that has no local congregation
      in one's
      > state.
      >
      > - Parnell McCarter
      > www.puritans.net - The Puritans' Home School Curriculum
      >
      > -----Original Message-----
      > From: covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com
      > [mailto:covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
      Dan Fraas
      > Sent: Saturday, April 23, 2005 5:09 PM
      > To: covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com
      > Subject: [Covenanted Reformation] Re: OPC / FPCS / RPNA
      >
      >
      >
      > Parnell,
      >
      > We can't storm out of a church at the first hint of compromise
      like
      > some Steelites would have us do. There's a difference between
      > subserviently acknowledging an antichrist as head of Christ's
      church
      > without complaint as the Church of Scotland did 1660-1690, and
      > remaining in a church that is in the process of compromising while
      > vocally and vigorously attempting to reform and call her to
      > repentance. It was for their continual prophetic testimony
      against
      > the sins and lack of discipline in the PCUSA that the founders of
      the
      > OPC got deposed from office. If you ask me, they did the right
      thing
      > by not turning tail as soon as the "Auburn Affirmation" was
      signed.
      > Instead they testified against it and the modernism that spawned
      it,
      > until they were forced out.
      >
      > Riley
      > --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, "J. Parnell
      > McCarter" <jparnellm@u...> wrote:
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > > Riley, one of the main charges against the ministers that stayed
      in
      > the CofS
      > > of 1660-1690 is that they stayed during that time in a
      compromised
      > church (a
      > > charge BTW I agree with). Now my question to you is this: was
      the
      > PCUSA
      > > 1890-1930 less of a compromised church 1890-1930 than the CofS
      of
      > 1660-1690?
      > >
      > >
      > > - Parnell McCarter
      > >
      > > -----Original Message-----
      > > From: covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com
      > > [mailto:covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
      Dan
      > Fraas
      > > Sent: Thursday, April 21, 2005 10:24 PM
      > > To: covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com
      > > Subject: [Covenanted Reformation] Re: OPC / FPCS / RPNA
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > > --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, jparnellm@u...
      > > wrote:
      > > >
      > > > Riley, we are comparing the CofS from 1660-1690 and the PCUSA
      > 1890-
      > > 1930 (out of
      > > > which most OPC ministers came). Was the PCUSA 1890-1930 less
      > > compromising than
      > > > the CofS 1660-1690? When the ministers who left the PCUSA to
      > join
      > > the OPC in
      > > > the 1930s did they put forward a written public list and
      > confession
      > > of sin for
      > > > all their compromises while in the PCUSA?
      > >
      > > I don't know of any OPC ministers who compromised while they
      were
      > in
      > > the PCUSA. After all, they got deposed because they wouldn't
      > > compromise.
      > >
      > > Is the OPC egregiously
      > > > "constitutionally" flawed for not having done this, as you
      allege
      > > the CofS
      > > > post-1690 was, and is the reason you would not join the FPCS?
      > > >
      > > > I am trying to determine if you are being consistent in your
      > > principle which is
      > > > serving as the basis for not joining with the FPCS.
      > >
      > > I'm not saying I wouldn't join with the FPCS. I probably would
      if
      > > there were one nearby. I just think that history mitigates
      against
      > > your claim that the FPCS is the only-rightfully established
      church.
      > >
      > > Riley
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > > Yahoo! Groups Links
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > Yahoo! Groups Links
    • Edgar A. Ibarra Jr.
      Parnell, Thanks for your response, and I will not pursue it as to the reason and respect that as well. I have heard that Houston does have one of the worst
      Message 49 of 49 , Apr 27, 2005
      • 0 Attachment
        Parnell,

        Thanks for your response, and I will not pursue it as to the
        reason and respect that as well. I have heard that Houston does
        have one of the worst air quality in the country, so I could
        understand why anyone with respritory problems would not want to be
        in such an environment.

        > I would simply repeat that I am in agreement with the RPNA (and
        the FPCS)
        > that people not be forced to move in order to join the church they
        in good
        > conscience think is the right church to join. That position is
        consistent
        > with the Apostolic Christian church, the historic CofS, etc. Of
        course,
        > that position typically makes other denominations like the OPC
        upset.
        >
        > - Parnell McCarter


        Exactly, it is consistent. It does bother many other
        denominations, because that action is a excellent testimony against
        their defection and backsliding more than anything else.

        Hence why the faithful Covenanters never joined the Revolution
        Church in 1690 and why this enraged the defecters from the
        Covenanted Reformation and why the faithful were therefore falsely
        labelled "schismatics", "disturbuers of the peace and unity of the
        Church", and other such choice adjectives. Funny, because the
        Covenanters that remained faithful were the ones that were actually
        maintaining the original Presbyterian Standards that Knox, Melville,
        and the entire Presbyterian Westminster Divines and G.A. of Scotland
        maintained. It was they that defected and joined the Revolution
        Church that divided from the few faithful ones and that caused
        schism against the moral person of the faithful Church of
        Scotland/G.A. of 1638-1649, inclusive.

        The heirs of that schism continue today with the same choice
        adjectives, when they really are the schismatics. We in the RPNA
        are the heirs, in substance and in practice, of the Westminster
        Divines, the Church of Scotland/General Assembly (1638-1649), and
        faithful Covenanters during the Killing Times. Everyone else just
        gives lip service to our faithful fore-fathers and continue to
        remove the ancient landmarks and walk on a new path...contrary to
        wisdom and the Word of God. I pray that the schimatics will one day
        repent and return unto the good old path and restore the ancient
        landmarks they have foolishly removed.

        In Christ,

        Edgar

        --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, "J. Parnell
        McCarter" <jparnellm@u...> wrote:
        > Edgar, this venue would not be appropriate to relate some aspects
        of the
        > reason. (btw- it has nothing to do with the church itself in
        Houston, which
        > I very much like) But one aspect I can mention is that a 4-season
        climate
        > (like here in MI) is better for my sons' asthma than the Houston
        > environment.
        >
        > I would simply repeat that I am in agreement with the RPNA (and
        the FPCS)
        > that people not be forced to move in order to join the church they
        in good
        > conscience think is the right church to join. That position is
        consistent
        > with the Apostolic Christian church, the historic CofS, etc. Of
        course,
        > that position typically makes other denominations like the OPC
        upset.
        >
        > - Parnell McCarter
        >
        > -----Original Message-----
        > From: covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com
        > [mailto:covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
        Edgar A.
        > Ibarra Jr.
        > Sent: Wednesday, April 27, 2005 4:49 PM
        > To: covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com
        > Subject: [Covenanted Reformation] Re: OPC / FPCS / RPNA
        >
        >
        >
        > Parnell,
        >
        > I will assume that you are aware of the FPCS congregation in
        > Texas. Why would you not consider relocating there?
        >
        > Just wondering out loud,
        >
        > Edgar
        >
        > --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, jparnellm@u...
        > wrote:
        > >
        > > Quoting Dan Fraas <fraasrd@y...>:
        > >
        > > >
        > > >
        > > > Hey Parnell,
        > > >
        > > > How's it going? I'm glad we're having this discussion.
        > > > Ecclesiastical issues get very complicated quickly. So you're
        > no
        > > > longer a member of the ARP, but not yet a member of the FPCS?
        > So
        > > > then I take it you're not a member of Christ's visible
        church?
        > Did
        > > > you have yourself erased? That seems more than a little
        > troublesome
        > > > to me. It seems you've excommunicated yourself from Christ's
        > > > church.
        > > >
        > >
        > >
        > > Riley, I am not sure what you want me to do. I could not remain
        > in good
        > > conscience an elder and communicant member of the ARP, but it
        did
        > not mean the
        > > very same day I could join the FPCS. Perhaps I may be faulted
        for
        > taking a
        > > number of years to join the FPCS, but all I can say is that
        various
        > > complicating factors have slowed the process for me. The fact
        > that there was
        > > no FPCS church in my area has tended to slow things down as
        well.
        > But it has
        > > never been my intention to be in perpetual limbo if I can help
        it.
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > > > Also, I don't quite understand the logic that says you can
        join
        > with
        > > > the ARP'ers in worship but not in accountability. If the ARP
        is
        > > > walking schismatically, not heeding or giving countenance to
        the
        > > > rightful ecclesiastical authority, as I understand you
        believe,
        > > > aren't you bound to treat them as a "heathen and publican"?
        > (Matt 18)
        > > >
        > >
        > >
        > > Riley, I think the issue you bring up is that of "occasional
        > hearing". While I
        > > agree with the RPNA view concerning occasional communion (so I
        do
        > not partake
        > > of communion in the ARP), I have not been persuaded by their
        view
        > on occasional
        > > hearing, when it comes to other Protestant churches (ie,
        corrupted
        > and
        > > schismatic Protestant churches). However, I do think it is
        wrong
        > to attend the
        > > idolatrous Mass, but I make a distinction between that and
        > schismatic
        > > Protestant churches.
        > >
        > > - Parnell McCarter
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        > Yahoo! Groups Links
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.