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

Re: [Covenanted Reformation] What does it mean to be "covenanted" in modern day America?

Expand Messages
  • Jim Polk
    Jerry, Thanks for your response. Your answers are very helpful. As for my question regarding the RPCNA . . . I ask only because most of my time as a
    Message 1 of 10 , May 19, 2008
      Jerry,

      Thanks for your response. Your answers are very helpful.

      As for my question regarding the RPCNA . . . I ask only because most of
      my time as a Presbyterian has been focused on the PCA, so I'm at a loss
      on what's good and what's not so good in the RP camp. I also read a
      scathing "letter" (similar to the one that was here this morning)
      addressed to a RPCNA elder on the net that made me think that it would
      be good for me to ask questions.

      I hope you don't mind if I pick your brain again. The Broomall RPC
      (Pennsylvania)has a website that presents a history of the RPCNA, which
      I read all the way through. How does the modern covenanter conduct
      himself under the US government? I'm thinking of the issue of jury duty
      and the like. I ask because I know from my reading that the so-
      called "old lights" and "new lights" split the congregation of the
      First RPC here in Philly over this issue.
    • Jim Polk
      Larry, Thanks for your response. It s funny that you should mention this particualr topic. Back in February when I was still an actice RE, I attended a called
      Message 2 of 10 , May 19, 2008
        Larry,

        Thanks for your response. It's funny that you should mention this
        particualr topic. Back in February when I was still an actice RE, I
        attended a called presbytery meeting in which we were to vote on
        whether or not to send an overture to the GA requesting a study
        committee on female deacons. The vote went in favor of the overture.

        In any case, if that's the RPCNA's biggest problem, I could probably
        live with it.
      • gmw
        Hi Jim, You do well to ask questions! No point in leaving one mess to get yourself into another, if you can avoid that by asking questions first. So, you re
        Message 3 of 10 , May 19, 2008
          Hi Jim,

          You do well to ask questions! No point in leaving one mess to get
          yourself into another, if you can avoid that by asking questions first.

          So, you're in Philly, PA? Maybe we could talk about some of this over
          coffee someday? Or even better, over a "cheese, wit."

          > How does the modern covenanter conduct
          > himself under the US government? I'm thinking of the issue of jury
          > duty and the like. I ask because I know from my reading that the so-
          > called "old lights" and "new lights" split the congregation of the
          > First RPC here in Philly over this issue.

          The answer to this question will depend on what flavor of Covenanter
          you're talking to. In this case, you're talking the the kind that
          thought the RP's had it right early on -- our duty to the U.S.
          Government and the Constitution is to testify against them:

          Samuel Wylie's explanation -- http://tinyurl.com/gge7k

          The RPCNA's former (?) position on the US Constitution --
          http://tinyurl.com/4oxcyv

          The main thrust being that the U.S. Government fails to acknowledge
          Jesus Christ (the King of kings) when they ought to know better
          (having descended from a Protestant and Covenanted nation), and indeed
          the fruit of such is that this government defends all sorts of
          wickedness and punishes those who do well.

          As far as jury duty -- you will be asked to swear to uphold the laws
          of this land, which laws defend all manner of false religion as being
          at least equal to that of the True Religion of Jesus Christ, all
          manner of perversion, the sparing of those who ought to die the death,
          and the murder of the unborn. I fail to see how someone can be loyal
          to King Jesus and swear to this government as a lawful authority.

          http://tinyurl.com/64rez3

          The old position of the RPCNA was also to forbid her members from
          voting or joining the military, for very related reasons.

          Again, I hope this is helpful information.

          gmw.
        • Jim Polk
          Jerry, Thanks. Your answers have been very helpful. The whole covenanter idea is coming together for me now. You said that there is another brand of
          Message 4 of 10 , May 20, 2008
            Jerry,

            Thanks. Your answers have been very helpful. The whole "covenanter"
            idea is coming together for me now. You said that there is another
            brand of covenanter. What does this other type of covenanter look like
            (what do they stand for as "covenanters") -- and if my reading serves
            me well, it appears that "dissenters" (hope I'm using that word
            correctly) probably wouldn't consider them covenanters at all.

            Thanks for your patience Jerry . . . it's greatly appreciated.
          • Jerry
            Covenanter today is used by various groups from time to time -- from Theonomists, the South Shall Rise Again type Presbyterians, to those convinced the
            Message 5 of 10 , May 20, 2008

              "Covenanter" today is used by various groups from time to time -- from Theonomists, "the South Shall Rise Again" type Presbyterians, to those convinced the British nations and her descendants ~should~ covenant with God and yet ~are not~ under covenant obligation currently, to those in bodies which formerly held to Covenanter distinctives (such as political dissent from tyrannical usurpers, the continuing obligation of the Covenants, etc) but no longer consistently do as a body, to those who fully hold to the Six Terms of Communion of the old Reformed Presbytery (often mocked as Steelites).  I'm sure I'm missing some.

              I'm glad I can be of some help.  Do keep in touch, ask anything you need to, here or privately.  And like I said before, maybe we can talk about this stuff over a philly cheese or a cup of coffee.

              gmw.

              Jim Polk wrote:

              Jerry,

              Thanks. Your answers have been very helpful. The whole "covenanter"
              idea is coming together for me now. You said that there is another
              brand of covenanter. What does this other type of covenanter look like
              (what do they stand for as "covenanters" ) -- and if my reading serves
              me well, it appears that "dissenters" (hope I'm using that word
              correctly) probably wouldn't consider them covenanters at all.

              Thanks for your patience Jerry . . . it's greatly appreciated.


            • nocost2great
              ... Larry, I am struggling with this logic. If there are women who are being recognized as deacons by the authority to which you willing choose to submit to,
              Message 6 of 10 , May 20, 2008
                --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, Larry Bump
                <lbump@...> wrote:
                >
                > > 3. Is there anything wrong with the RPCNA? There are two RPCNA
                > > congregations within 20 minutes of my home, (Philadelphia).
                > >
                >
                > Yes, it is in our standards that women deacons may be ordained.
                > However, this abberance requires no sin on the part of members or
                > officers (since I *won't* do it), so it shouldn't be a deal-breaker.
                >
                > Larry Bump
                > Elder, RPCNA
                >
                Larry,
                I am struggling with this logic. If there are women who are being
                recognized as deacons by the authority to which you willing choose to
                submit to, is that not the same as acknowledging them as being
                lawful? Even as a member, I would consider it participating by
                acknowledging them as officers of the church, and I would consider it
                devisive to be a member and refuse to acknowledge them.
                Not trying to be contentious, just trying to sort it out in my head...

                Dee Dee
              • Larry Bump
                ... My congregation does not have them, so it s a non-problem. Even in one that does, the Deacons are not thought to have *authority* so one cannot fail to
                Message 7 of 10 , May 20, 2008
                  nocost2great wrote:
                  > Larry,
                  > I am struggling with this logic. If there are women who are being
                  > recognized as deacons by the authority to which you willing choose to
                  > submit to, is that not the same as acknowledging them as being
                  > lawful? Even as a member, I would consider it participating by
                  > acknowledging them as officers of the church, and I would consider it
                  > devisive to be a member and refuse to acknowledge them.
                  > Not trying to be contentious, just trying to sort it out in my head...
                  >

                  My congregation does not have them, so it's a non-problem.
                  Even in one that does, the Deacons are not thought to have *authority*
                  so one cannot fail to acknowledge any authority.
                  Deacons are pretty much "trustees" in the RPCNA. That's part of the
                  problem with women deacons, it caused the office to be weakened to the
                  point of uselessness.

                  The fact the a congregation in Kansas has women deacons means absolutely
                  nothing to me, and need not mean anything to anyone in any congregation.

                  As far as being divisive, it is only actions that are divisive. I don't
                  tear "Deacon" name-tags off of them, so it really never comes up.
                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.