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

RE: [Covenanted Reformation] Re: Covenanter Groups

Expand Messages
  • Mike Grounds
    Susan. You raise a good point, I think! It was 1840, in fact, building off an American heritage in the RPCNA and previously in Scotland, in seed form arguably
    Message 1 of 33 , Jan 9, 2006
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      Susan.  You raise a good point, I think!
       
      It was 1840, in fact, building off an American heritage in the RPCNA and previously in Scotland, in seed form arguably no later than 1681.
      TWO ministers of the day, 1840: Rev. David Steele AND Rev. Robert Lusk
       
      To say 'leading person' would be one characterization. I think you'll find Rev. Lusk had much greater advantage over Rev. Steele prior to their both leaving to form the RPNA, with Lusk having many extra YEARS spent contending . Mr. Lusk had already largely spent his energies contending alone, by the time Mr. Steele came on the scene. With Mr. Steele's later volume of writing and greater RPNA-longevity, he naturally appears more prominent to following generations (as well as his often sharp, possibly even acerbic tone, found in many of his writings; a regrettable aspect, some think). And, I think at 1840, Lusk was already an older man. His death around 1845 resulted in the providential dissolving of that initial RPNA Presbytery (1840-1845).
       
      Some of Mr. Steele's writings - though the particular ones do not come to mind right now - give great detail of his, and Rev. Lusk's contendings, over the many years prior to there feeling no reasonable option left but to separate from the RPCNA. Aside from the 3 years or so prior to their leaving (if memory serves), though aware of one another, their contendings were independent of one another, so you can imagine their joy in fellowship once they knew each other!
       
      You can see their own measured and careful approach in their organizing of 1840, through 1842, and their addressing the Terms of Communion changes/defections of the RPCNA that they had just departed from. Review of this record, should at minimum evidence a good measure of longsuffering, not leaving the RPCNA in some knee-jerk fashion. They employ the same longsuffering in implementing their own renovated 6-Terms of Communion (April, 1842) to the RPNA membership. Of course, as with all men, all these contendings were undoubtedly mixed with sin and error (and in Steele's writings, in his private capacities, perhaps even a distasteful mix of invective!). 
       
      You can see SOME of this at: http://www.covenanter.org/Minutes/minuteshomepage.htm. Naturally, you will want to be careful to make the distinction between Presbyterial records versus those of the Society General Meeting, who recorded in between times of constituted Presbytery (the interested reader will find ample support that, as in the years 1743-1793 at least (USA), Presbytery and Societies COEXISTED). The account of the infamous Rev. James Peoples and his departure, makes for quite a read! It was with People's accession in Fall 1853, the record shows, that the RPNA was able to reorganize in 1854. For a bit of the 'infamous' part, one could read the 'Proceedings' of 1884 - the larger explanations in other 'D. Steele' volumes I do not at this moment recall.
       
      The other key positive ministerial figure aside from Steele/Lusk, has to be Rev. James Fulton, who laboured for many years from divinity student in 1854 to aged death in the early 1900's. Upon Steele's own death in June 1887, Presbytery again understood they had providentially been dissolved (having Ruling Elders but only the one Minister, Rev. James Fulton). He was a full witness and participant to the RPNA of 1854-1887. Rev. Fulton continued ministering to the Societies, until his passing. If you find his Society obituary, if memory serves you'll find he was greatly loved by the people as their shepherd, though he was weak in oratory and bodily strength, such of course not being requisite to faithfulness no matter how desirable in a soldier of the gospel ministry.
       
      You would have to wait until the little window from August 5, 2000 to their voluntary self-destruction of June 8, 2003, to see a Presbytery of the RPNA persuasion and theoretical subjection, again constituted (for those unclear, RPNA stands for, 'Reformed PRESBYTERY in North America'). I suspect there are enough contributors sufficient to the hour, for considering that tiny little window, and proceedings before and since.
       
      Regarding another example of a church courts' self-destruction, you can read Rev. Steele at some length, regarding Synodical-dissolving in his own day. Really, most of what he writes is of the 'pamphlet' variety - it ought not take long reading his relatively few items to find it. IF you have tried, and are still interested, by all means email me, offlist or onlist. But you would have to give me a week or so to dig out my notes.
       
      I see little value in commenting further and trying to get you to read more! This is already 1.5 of full-width screens!  Congratulations (and thanks!) if you got to the end! In closing, I openly give our God thanks for ALL the brethren, and His preserving work in the lives of all His children wherever they are, labouring under the burden of frailities common to flesh. Our God really is merciful, isn't He?
       
      May our unity and fellowship be real, full, and temperate. In our Christ,
      Mike Grounds (Member since 1994, Society of Prince George, BC - of the RPNA persuasion)
       


      From: covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com [mailto:covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of susanandcrew
      Sent: January 9, 2006 8:35 AM
      To: covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com
      Subject: [Covenanted Reformation] Re: Covenanter Groups

      --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, "Edgar A. Ibarra
      Jr." <puritanpresbyterian@y...> wrote:

      "During this defection of the RPCNA, one of their ministers along with
      some other Church Officers protested this defection. When there was no
      desire on the part of the Synod to repent of their Covenant breaking,
      they left the RPCNA to continue the faithful Covenanted Church and
      formed the Reformed Presbytery of North America (RPNA). The leading
      person was David Steele. These officers sought to maintain the
      Covenanted Testimony and to continue to uphold the Covenanted
      Reformation against all defection and back-sliding."

      Is this stated correctly? David Steele and the other officers started
      the RPNA?? That was not my understanding. I thought the RPNA came into
      being much, much later.

      Susan

    • forisraelssake
      Guys, I see better now what Christopher s point was all along. It is not that we have (like in Bacon s church) a practice of differing requirements for the
      Message 33 of 33 , Jan 21, 2006
      View Source
      • 0 Attachment
        Guys,

        I see better now what Christopher's point was all along. It is not
        that we have (like in Bacon's church) a practice of differing
        requirements for the Lord's supper depending on whether you are a
        member, elder, or non-member, but that we have a distinction between a
        member of our church and a member who has sustained their examination
        to come to the Lord's supper. Whether we have erred in this respect or
        not, I am not certain.

        But I do know that if you allow children of members to be considered
        members of our church and under the love, fellowship, oversight, and
        discipline of the church, and able to be baptized, and receive family
        visits by the elders, all while being in a state of ignorance and not
        able to sustain their examination to come to the Lord's table...

        then it seems that as long as a person is like a child in the faith,
        even though in secular respects an adult, they can be members of a
        church but not ready to come to the Lord's table and partake on the
        sacrament. An obedient child lives a blameless life, and is working
        towards attaining the knowledge and understanding needing to come
        worthily to the Lord's supper; the seeking of that state is a moral
        duty of all Christians.

        "I fed you with milk, not solid food, for you were not ready for it."
        1 Corinthians 3:2

        "For though by this time you ought to be teachers, you need someone to
        teach you again the basic principles of the oracles of God. You need
        milk, not solid food, for everyone who lives on milk is unskilled in
        the word of righteousness, since he is a child." Hebrews 5:12-13

        Christ's elders have to minister to all sorts of people, the weaker
        and the stronger, and the children on the one hand and the men in the
        faith on the other. Maybe this won't satisfy you, especially if you
        think historical testimony of the Church of Scotland in her faithful
        days is against us. And maybe the RPNA has erred and needs to reform.
        But I don't totally see that.

        Can a recent adult convert out of heathenism be baptized and under the
        authority of the elders without being a member of the church? It
        doesn't make much sense to me. But surely we don't withhold baptism
        or formal elder oversight until the person is brought up to speed on
        the Reformation from Popery, the Westminster Standards, the nature and
        practice of covenanting, and why our church keeps itself separate from
        all the denominations? It seems pretty clear to me that the church
        takes these people in as like unto children and trains them up in the
        way they should go.

        Hope this helps.

        Chris
        Edmonton, AB
        RPNA

        --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, gmw
        <raging.calvinist@v...> wrote:
        >
        > Christopher,
        >
        > I'm not in the RPNA, and as I mentioned in previous posts, I don't
        quite
        > understand their position on the two-tiered membership (I've been
        > pointed towards materials to read, which I'll get to when I have
        time).
        > I do know that in the past, RP's have given out tokens to those who
        have
        > been examined and found worthy of partaking. This assumes that some
        > members may not be admitted to the Lord's Table for reasons touched on
        > in the Catechism questions provided. But outside of that, I guess I
        > have the same question that you have. What is this initial membership
        > that is not communicant membership? Is it like being a Catechumen in
        > the early church? I'm still trying to figue this all out myself.
        >
        > gmw.
        >
        > trygvesson@a... wrote:
        >
        > > *In a message dated 1/21/2006 9:12:48 AM Eastern Standard Time,
        > > raging.calvinist@v... writes:*
        > > "This is why some Churches "fence" the Table, and refrain from
        serving
        > > it to those who are found to be ignorant, scandalous,
        impenitentand/or
        > > hypocrites. To do so, requires some examination.
        > >
        > > gmw."
        > >
        > >
        > > *Gerry,*
        > >
        > > *Perhaps you will be able to answer this. Now, I agree with fencing
        > > the table and session controlled communion, and in an age when the
        > > standards of the church are more distinct from other denominations
        and
        > > we do not have similar or duplicate denominations as we do now [take
        > > the RPCNA, RPCS, and the RPCI for example] I agree with close
        communion. *
        > > **
        > > *What I do not understand is, if I am reading recent posts rightly,
        > > how can an adult be interviewed and admitted to membership in the
        RPNA
        > > but that same adult membership not also be communicant membership?*
        > > **
        > > *I was under the impression that the standards for adult admission to
        > > the membership of the church were the same as those for communion.*
        > > **
        > > *~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
        > > Christopher Coombes
        > > Lynchburg Reformed Presbyterian Fellowship,
        > > Lynchburg, VA
        > > Member, Triangle RPC
        > > RPCNA**
        > >
        > > _
        > > / )
        > > (\__/) ( (
        > > ) ( ) )
        > > ={ }= / /
        > > ) `-------/ /
        > > ( /
        > > \ |
        > > ,'\ , ,'
        > > `-'\ ,---\ | \
        > > _) ) `. \ /
        > > (__/ ) )
        > > (_/*
        > >
        > >
        ------------------------------------------------------------------------
        > > YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
        > >
        > > * Visit your group "covenantedreformationclub
        > > <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/covenantedreformationclub>" on
        > > the web.
        > >
        > > * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
        > > covenantedreformationclub-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
        > >
        <mailto:covenantedreformationclub-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>
        > >
        > > * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
        > > Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>.
        > >
        > >
        > >
        ------------------------------------------------------------------------
        > >
        >
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.