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

Re: Covenanter Groups

Expand Messages
  • gmw
    ... What you are seeing is folks trying not to offend others with whom they one day hope to have fellowship. But be that as it may, there were answers given.
    Message 1 of 33 , Jan 11, 2006
      --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, "Sean McDonald"
      <kaalvenist@y...> wrote:
      > It is interesting for me to note how many non-responses may be
      > furnished as responses to a few simple questions.

      What you are seeing is folks trying not to offend others with whom
      they one day hope to have fellowship. But be that as it may, there
      were answers given.

      > "1. How many different 'Covenanter' groups are there (i.e. groups
      > which hold to the binding obligation of the Solemn League and
      > Covenant)?"

      There are scattered families that for the time being are pretty much
      alone. There are families in PA that together associate with the
      TrueCovenanter group. There is the RPNA. I cannot verify whether or
      not the man responsible for Covenanter.org still believes the things
      promoted on that site.

      > Is that correct? or are there more than the
      > RPNA societies on the one hand, and the society (or societies)
      > associated with the "original Steelite" group? What is that group's
      > name (is it, as stated on the TrueCovenanter.com site, "The
      > Covenanted Reformed Presbyterian Church")?

      I'm not sure who your calling the original Steelites, so that
      questions hard to answer -- the RPCNA used to hold to the doctrines
      that Steele and Lusk sought to maintain when they formed the Reformed
      Presbytery. Dodson did much to get "Steelite" stuff out there for
      folks to read. Maybe you mean that his group were the original
      Steelites? I just don't know how to answer that. But those
      originally associated with Covenanter.org, called themselves the
      Covenanted Reformed Presbyterian Church. After many of us fled from
      Dodson, TrueCovenanter.com took the same name, being essentially the
      same people, believing the same Reformed Presbyterian doctrines, sans
      Dodson and his peculiar sins.

      > How do Jim Dodson, Derek Edwards, and Frank DiLella figure into all
      > of this? Are they associated with any of the groups now in
      > existence, or do any of them today form their own
      > independent "Covenanter" societies?

      Like I said, I don't even know if Dodson maintains the same doctrines
      anymore. You'll have to ask him.

      As for Derek Edwards and Frank DiLella -- several of us from our
      "group" (the TrueCovenanter.com group) have been in contact with the
      both of them. The communication has been positive and encouraging.
      Both Mr. Edwards and Mr. DiLella still maintain Covenanter
      distinctives. Which brings something to mind:


      Fred DiLella is NO enemy of the Covenanted Reformation. Dodson,

      > I was rather surprised to see Ps. 36:1-4 quoted against Mr. Dodson.

      What if I quote 2 TIMOTHY 3:1-7 against him, would that also suprise you?

      > Would it not have been sufficient to say that you disagree with him,
      > or with certain actions of his (I do not know the situation), rather
      > than vilifying him on a public forum, without giving him opportunity
      > to defend himself?

      I speak not about a disagreement, or about a dispute over certain
      actions, but against gross and scandalous sins which deserve the
      punishment of death by the civil magistrate.

      Feel free to email him, or even call him:


      Ask him about what I wrote about him here. If he responds with
      anything other than, "Yes, everything Jerry said is true. He's right.
      Yes, yes, I did that, that's me" or something along those lines, then
      you let me know -- I will drive over and have a talk with him. He
      will then contact you with the correct information after our talk.

    • 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

        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.

        Edmonton, AB

        --- 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
        > understand their position on the two-tiered membership (I've been
        > pointed towards materials to read, which I'll get to when I have
        > I do know that in the past, RP's have given out tokens to those who
        > 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
        > > it to those who are found to be ignorant, scandalous,
        > > 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
        > > 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
        > > 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**
        > >
        > > _
        > > / )
        > > (\__/) ( (
        > > ) ( ) )
        > > ={ }= / /
        > > ) `-------/ /
        > > ( /
        > > \ |
        > > ,'\ , ,'
        > > `-'\ ,---\ | \
        > > _) ) `. \ /
        > > (__/ ) )
        > > (_/*
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > > * 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
        > >
        > >
        > > * 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.