The Covenanted Reformation Club
Dear Gerry and Tom,
Appreciate you speaking up on all
the current unpleasantness in the RPNA(GM).
> Private actions warrant
private discussions: these are public acts.
> This is a public act.
Discussing this public act cannot
> be condemned as "airing dirty laundry"
or discussing "in-house"
> matters. Public acts, public discussions about
> "But Paul said unto them, They have beaten us openly
> being Romans, and have cast us into prison; and now do they
> out privily? nay verily; but let them come themselves and
> out." -- Acts 16:37.Excellent choice of Scripture with
the last. If the Session of the RPNA(GM) excommunications are both public and
just, they ought to be able to bear public examination, as well the oath and the
Position Paper on Sessional Authority which led to them. Those in favor of them
ought not to fear the light (Eph. 5:13). Let the whole story be told and justice
But not now and not here? Where then? There was no orderly
hearing in the RPNA(GM) and those complaining now, did not say boo then. If we
dont like that or cant handle that, then we need to re-examine some of those
things that put us in to the spotlight in the first place.
Just in case we
dont know, for the record it is one thing to excommunicate somebody from your
own little private club and neck of the woods. It is entirely another to kick
somebody out of the visible Church into the abyss and, barring repentance, a
free fall that is supposed to end up in the lake of fire.
In other words, if
we can't run with the footmen, how will we keep up with horses
Thanks also Gerry, for posting some of the official documents
- the Position Paper on Sessional Authority of June 4, 03, the Sessions
Response of Oct. 28th and the excommunication notice of Nov. 4th.
the end that public discussion might be done according to
> knowledge, and
so people's mouths can be closed about my reading
altered/filtered/adulterated materials, I will be posting, in this
groups file section, the RPNA (gm)'s own document defending their
extraordinary "session" which they believe is ok to call a presbytery,
and which they admit is not a general meeting though they still shall
call themselves a general meeting. . .
> The Covenanted Reformation Club's
file section can be seen here:
should be enough for starters, there is more of course/unfortunately - the
Oct. 4th oath alone or with the accompanying letter and a second/further Response
to Recent Objections of Nov. 4th which immediately
preceded the announcements of excommunication.
> It is clearly a duty
to publicly protest unlawful public acts and
> say, "not in our name." Not
only are these acts not a Reformed or
> Presbyterian, they are not even
biblical Christianity: these are
> further acts of tyranny and oppression
done under color of law.
> They are to be opposed.Exactly, but sad
to say, one big reason for objections to publicly protesting these acts from
what I can tell, seems to be that many(?) in the RPNA(GM) don't have much of a
background in presbyterianism and the reformed faith. Rather all they might seem
to know on both counts is tied up in their acquaintance with the three elders of
the former RPNA. Consequently to question, dissent or disagree with these
brethren, is to be automatically and categorically irreverent, disrespectful and
rebellious of all lawful authority and to
irrevocably damn one before any real discussion can even begin.
they mistake compromise and not rocking the boat for genuine piety, love and
holiness. But again, if we want to assume the privilege, authority and power to
excommunicate people from the visible Church and hand them over to Satan, it
behooves one to take care just how they exercise that option. Granted, those who
truly deserve to be excommunicated will stop at nothing to justify themselves,
which is how I am sure some will take my comments. But so likewise will those
who administer excommunications sinfully or improperly in seeking to cover up
and suppress the truth of the matter. Eph. 5:13 is again to the point: But all
things that are reproved are made manifest by the light: for whatsoever doth
make manifest is light.
Yet where have we heard this before regarding
government? That RPs deny or refuse to own just any civil magistrate is enough
said and conclusive proof that they deny all civil magistrates, if not the
ordinance itself and are obviously incorrigible Anabaptists and rebels at heart?
So too at least the opinion of the Session itself. Those that balk at the oath,
the PPSA and the authority of the Session automatically and categorically
oppose all lawful ecclesiastical
authority. Hence the self excommunications post haste. But this really is to
take too much to oneself (Num. 16:3). It is a non sequitur. It does not follow.
To oppose or question the authority of one court is not to oppose all
And lets not delude ourselves either. Self excommunications are
just an excuse to avoid following due process and good order. Or was due process
followed in the RPNA(GM)?
But the buck stops somewhere and it generally stops
with those in charge. At least in the real world. And in the real reformed
presbyterian world. Are we really there yet? In the RPNA?
> It appears
from the public record that the leadership sincerely
> believe they are
doing the right thing, but I believe they are in
> serious error and doing
an incredible amount of damage, even if
and unfortunately, all too true.
Again, those who will not swear an oath
to recognize the authority of the Session of the RPNA(GM) and its judicial acts,
particularly the recent Position Paper on Sessional Authority of June 4, 06
which is the Session' s justification for its existence, are essentially and
presumptuously considered by the elders of the former RPNA to be rebellious and
disobedient to all lawful authority of Christ in his church and are therefore to
be excised immediately, if not sooner. Hence the self justifying rationale and
circular reasoning for " self excommunications."
> The "Reformed
Presbytery of North America
> General Meeting" is NOT a Presbytery, not
even a real session, and not
> a general meeting (yes, I read the defense
of the name and of the
> government in the current circumstances, and
found it to be pretty
> poor). I never joined them or owned them as
The PPSA comes almost three years to the day after the Reformed
Presbytery of NA was dissolved June 6, 03. It is the supposed argument from
Scripture, history and reason alone to justify said session - the RP subordinate
standards being essentially, if not totally AWOL, a telling as well as
devastating omission. As a Petitio Principii of Sessional Authority it is well
named though. The PPSA "begs the question" and assumes the existence of a
lawfully constituted, as in electronically, - by way of "the Internet and modern
phone technology (PPSA, p.9)" - and lawfully named extraordinary permanent
Presbyterian court. It presumes that under the name of a session - the "essence or "being" of which is a local congregational court - the body in
question has both international, i.e. synodical powers, as well as those of a
presbytery or common court. But that is just it. Extraordinary or not, only a
local court preserves the essence or being of an ordinary session. An
extraordinary out of town permanent session doesnt qualify. To electronically
constitute the court over the phone qualifies as an innovation at least. Will
public worship and the administration of the sacraments via video conference be
next? High speed internet a pre requisite to enter the kingdom of God? Also,
both of the higher or broader courts, a presbytery or synod, presume a plurality
of ministers, which at one time the officers in the former RPNA to their credit,
admitted they did not have (June 14,03). Those days seem to be long gone. .
. . .
But not to run on too long.
My further comments are here.
In short, I say no more than what you have already said
Again my appreciation and thanks.
cordially in our Lord Jesus Christ,
Sole Member of the
RPNA Society of "Disaffected