RE: [Covenanted Reformation] Why Stay at Home?
- You met Seth H., one of the first fruits of ministry here. Seth is not only off to seminary, but also convinced of the RPW, EP, Covenant Baptism and the Establishment Principle. Not bad for someone who came to us a dispensational Baptist three years ago. We miss him and are praying for his family's replacement.
J. Glenn Ferrell, Pastor, Sovereign Redeemer Presbyterian Church, Boise, Idaho http://sovereignredeemer.org
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2008 19:40:15 +0000
Subject: Re: [Covenanted Reformation] Why Stay at Home?
Thank you Pastor, if I ever go there I will let you know beforehand!
BTW, I just remembered that I met a member of your congregation at
Puritan Seminary the 1st weekend of Feb. I was there that weekend to
attend the Evangelism conference put on by 1st RP of Grand Rapids. The
speaker was Dr. David Murray of the Fof S-Cont. It was great! But
alas, I met so many people that I forgot his name.
Well, Pastor, stand fast,
--- In covenantedreformati onclub@yahoogrou ps.com, Glenn Ferrell
<jglennferrell@ ...> wrote:
> Thank you Edgar. You have a standing invitation to coffee or ale in
Boise. However, though I wouldn't refuse a Samuel Adams Boston Ale or
one of their other specialty brews, we have better options here in the
Northwest from some fine breweries. Remember, most US hops are gown
here. And, I'd proudly share some of my own home crafted IPA, fondly
designated Idaho Presbyterian Ale, as opposed to India Pale Ale, but
true to the style of the latter. So, plan a visit soon.
> GlennJ. Glenn Ferrell, Pastor, Sovereign Redeemer Presbyterian Church,
Boise, Idaho http://sovereignred eemer.org
> To: covenantedreformati onclub@.. .: puritanpresbyterian @...: Mon, 17
Mar 2008 17:52:46 +0000Subject: Re: [Covenanted Reformation] Why Stay at
> Pastor Ferrell,
> I for one praise God for the work He has had you do there in Idaho. If
I ever were in Boise, I would come and attend public worship at your
congregation. Then I would love to share a pot of coffee with you or a
> You exemplify semper reformanda in action there.
> Yours in Christ,
> --- In covenantedreformati onclub@yahoogrou ps.com, Glenn Ferrell
jglennferrell@ wrote:>> What if one lived in Idaho, a huge state with
few Reformed congregations? I came here to become pastor of Sovereign
Redeemer Presbyterian Church three years ago because of their basic
commitment to confessional Presbyterianism and the Regulative Principle.
We're in a sea of Mormons, Papists, Arminians and Charismatics. This is
mission territory.> > SRPC is part of the OPC and therefore part of a
denomination which by their Directory of Worship seems to permit a
blanket exception to the Confession's [XXI:v] listing of "singing of
psalms with grace in the heart" as an element of worship:> > > "As it is
the aim of public worship to glorify God, prayer and praise should
predominate in congregational singing. Let every member of the church
take part in this act of worship. It should be performed not merely with
the lips but with the spirit and the understanding. Since the metrical
versions of the Psalms are based upon the Word of God, they ought to be
used frequently in public worship. Great care must be taken that all the
materials of song are in perfect accord with the teaching of Holy
Scripture." [OPC DPW III:6]> > to include something other than canonical
songs as the material in sung praise. To their credit, the OPC includes
both the 1946-47 majority and minority reports regarding this issue on
their web site for study, neither of them having been adopted as the
official position. > > http://opc.org/ GA/song.html> > Some would
honestly argue that the content of sung praise is equivalent to prayer
and unspecified, though it should include Psalms, which serve as a model
for other praise. The argument of the 46-47 majority report is
unconvincing to me and is what turned me in the Exclusive Psalmody
direction. However, there are non-EP people who still believe they
adhere to the RPW.> > SRPC's elders are among those. They are not
convinced of EP, yet want to follow the RPW to the best of their
understanding. Therefore, we acknowledge no so called "holy days," have
no choir or special music, and follow a simple and reverential order of
worship. Every service includes at least two selections from the
Scottish Psalter, and one or two from the Trinity Hymnal, these more
often than not being Psalms also. Most Lord's Days all eight sung
selections (at two services) will be all Psalms, but there is no
definite policy of sing EP. We're the closest thing to a RPW
congregation one will find for many miles around. I introduced the
Scottish Psalter after my coming. They're still adjusting to that.> > We
have several people who sing only Psalms. There is a definite commitment
to see that these may in good conscience participate in most of the sung
praise of our public worship, and no expectation they should violate
their conscience. One will not hear preaching opposed to the RPW or EP.
Also, I took an exception to the American amended version of the WCF and
affirmed instead XXIII:3 of the original Confession. Therefore, one will
not hear anti Establishment Principle preaching; and I have no problem
publicly affirming the pope is the Antichrist.> > My stated desire for
SRPC would be for them to sing only canonical content. However, I know
if they don't arrive there themselves such practice will not survive
beyond my pastorate. Therefore, through teaching and positive experience
singing the Psalms, I hope to move them in that direction. Whether this
congregation is able to remain within the OPC with its distinctives, I
don't know. All American Reformed bodies are transitional and future
realignments are inevitable. However, it is interesting that some EP
denominations (RPCNA, RPCI, FCoS, and FCoS-Continuing) maintain
fraternal relations with the OPC.> > I do believe one should be willing
to move, if possible, even a great distance to be part of a sound
church. (My wife, at one point prior to our marriage, moved to Scotland
primarily to be part of an EP/RPW Free Church of Scotland Continuing
congregation. ) If that is not possible, driving a distance to be part of
such periodically is possible. We have one family which drives three
hours to be part of SRPC. Sometimes, they are hindered from travel by
snow in the winter.> > I'm sorry more of you with your convictions would
find yourself hindered from worshiping with or becoming members of SRPC.
You would certainly be welcome and your contribution to the development
of this congregation would be helpful. Starting a faithful congregation
is one option; but reforming one is another, especially when leadership
is open to such reform.> > While I regard the singing of Psalms as
important, it is not an essential. I would find it easier to be part of
a congregation which is in practice, though not yet in principle, EP
than to be part of an EP Dutch Reformed body which acknowledged
Christmas and Easter in public worship. However, if I were traveling,
and the only available congregation was PCA, where they acknowledged the
fifth Sunday of Lent and sung only hymns, I'd still attend and hope to
hear the gospel preached and have opportunity for fellowship with
believers. I find myself in that situation a couple Lord's Days each
year when I'm on vacation. I no longer have young children at home; but
when I did, I had no problem with their occasional exposure to less than
perfect churches. It gave me opportunity to point out and correct
questionable theology and practice, and hopefully made them more
discerning. I wouldn't have exposed them to such on a regular basis. I
have on occasion driven an hour or more to attend an OP church, which
didn't celebrate "holy days," rather than attend the PCA fifteen minutes
away which did. I acknowledge the non "holy day" OP congregations are a
minority these days.> > We certainly have a messed up church situation
in America. I pray Christ will send revival and reformation. In the
meantime, we each must determine how we can best be faithful and make
something of the providence God has given us. But, if any of you do find
yourself in Boise, I hope you will at least have coffee with me and
offer some encouragement. > > Glenn> J. Glenn Ferrell, Pastor, Sovereign
Redeemer Presbyterian Church, Boise, Idaho http://sovereignred eemer.org>
> > To: covenantedreformati onclub@: ragingcalvinist@ : Sun, 16 Mar 2008
22:35:13 -0400Subject: Re: [Covenanted Reformation] Why Stay at Home?> >
> > > I'll let Larry speak for himself, of course. But I wouldn't care
about 1 mile, 10 miles, 100 miles or 1000 miles. If the issue is
principle, distance doesn't make a difference.How can I teach my
children that Exclusive Psalmody is God's way, and then take them to a
pastor that teaches otherwise? Who are they to obey now? Who are they to
believe now? Just something else to consider.gmw. Ic Neltococayotl wrote:
> > > Larry,For the sake of argument, what if a family had no other
choice within100 miles, but to go to a Reformed hymn singing
congregation? Whatwould you counsel?BTW, my sentiments are equal to
yours.Edgar- -- In covenantedreformati onclub@yahoogrou ps.com, Larry Bump
lbump@wrote: >> Jerry wrote:> > Hi Ben,> >> > I "stay at home" because I
want to be a Covenanter, and there are no> > local established
Covenanter churches.>>> I would not attend a service where hymns are
sung. I am not alone in> this conviction, but neither is it the only
position among friends and> even family.> None would *sing* the hymns,
but I believe that attending is still> partaking in the corporate sin.>>
- --- In email@example.com, "benhartmail"
>RPNA or RPNA(GM)? Reformed Presbyterian or pseudo presbyterian?
> It's ironic that you, who seem to have such a personal disdain for
> anything RPNA, refuse to let matters drop with them.
Who cares what
> they're doing, as far as you're concerned?Taking a page from you Ben, on one hand I don't. On the other, there
are still people that remained in the group, who seemed to be largely
untaught and were/are being led about by the nose of their tacit
consent. You probably won't agree, but I saw and still see,
FWIW/somewhat of an obligation to warn people about what's up.
My original question was
> regarding issues of unity and separation, and I'd like to keep it atThen keep it at that level please, but you do come with a background and
> that level.
I find your continual harassing of the RPNA--even if
> justified to some level--unedifying and obnoxious.So what? Or should I say, what if I find your comments maudlin,
unedifying and unable to come to a decent conclusion?
You've got a blog
> to take care of your ranting, perhaps you can keep it there.Pot, kettle, black.
> a peaceful question and was hoping for a peaceful discussion.Sorry, Ben, your past behavior and efforts preceded you.
> As far as the Effort is concerned, I didn't even bring it up in the
> first place. Edgar asked how I regard those who've been
> excommunicated by the RPNA and I gave an honest answer. Could you
> tell that I was a little confused in how to regard you and I wasn't
> coming down on a hard-and-fast conclusion?
>Well, praise the Lord. I am glad to see you have some backbone.
> As for being an RPNA clone: have you forgotten who in the RPNA was
> most vociferously against whoever wrote the law advocate email?
> Maybe you'd like to know that that email virtually got me
> excommunicated and is largely why my two girls remain unbaptized.
I was unaware of it.
But one, some of us really were excommunicated and two, that should have
clued you in to what kind of outfit the elders have become and what kind
of sinful wickedness the doctrine of tacit consent would lead to.
Instead, it seems, you waited till they disbanded and let you go. You
protested our pseudo presbyterian Perry Mason, but not the elders.
> Here's some advice from Paul that I think you would do well to heed.Galatians 2:11 But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to
> "I therefore, the prisoner of the Lord, beseech you that ye walk
> worthy of the vocation wherewith ye are called, with all lowliness
> and meekness, with longsuffering, forbearing one another in love;
> endeavouring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace."
the face, because he was to be blamed.
Your dissimulation or confusion might be well meant, but that is still
what it is.
> If you have something edifying to say that will advance my?! No comment.
> understanding of issues of unity and separation, I'd like to hear
> what you've got to say.
Otherwise, it would be best to drop the RPNA
> polemic. You're almost literally beating a dead horse.For someone who defended them and bent over backward to excuse them,
yes, it would be best to drop the matter or tell others to. But I see
lessons still to be learned and some haven't learned them. You have
to get off the dime. Edgar asked you how you see us. You remained in the
group until they let you go, but we were excommunicated from the body of
Christ. So which is it?
That's the point.
But now you're onto something about unity and separation.
Well, respectfully we can be so studious that we avoid the real issues.
That's what I see and have always seen with the objections to the