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

The RPCNA Covenanters

Expand Messages
  • Shawn Anderson
    Bob S. Reese is an up and comer in the RPCNA who pastors the Springs Reformed Church, Col. Springs. Co . It is a little strange though, to find a
    Message 1 of 5 , Jan 26, 2009
      Bob S. >> Reese is an up and comer in the RPCNA who pastors the
      Springs Reformed Church, Col. Springs. Co . It is a little strange
      though, to find a "Covenanter" pastor posting Winzer's critique of
      the SL&C on his church's site, most of which, if not all, is poorly
      argued imo. Others, such as RS Clark, who was the keynote speaker at
      the recent "Recovering the Reformation" Reformation Day conference at
      SRC, deny that God makes national covenants in NT times, however
      fundamental the SL&C was to the Second Reformation and the Westminster
      Standards. I dunno, maybe Reese and the RPCNA need to come clean on
      exactly what they think and renounce the "Covenanter" label everybody
      else gives them.

      Hi Bob,

      Just a few thoughts.

      1) RS Clark is in the URCNA, not the RPCNA (and not RB, Edgar) so his
      views on social covenanting are irrelevant to the RPCNA position,
      though he may influence RPCNA pastors.

      2) The binding nature of the SLC on the US is a secondary issue to the
      primary issue of defending the ordinance of social covenanting in
      general. In fact I'm not aware of any synod or general assembly that
      has declared that the US is bound to the SLC, though I am aware of a
      few that constitutionally uphold the ordinance of social covenanting
      as a biblical ordinance.

      3) It has been my experience that there are a range of views on social
      covenanting in general and the SLC in particular held by ministers and
      elders in the RPCNA. Some hold an inconsistent view from their
      Constitutional statement of social covenanting, but none the less that
      is the current environment of the denomination on this issue.

      For sure the general doctrine of social covenanting needs to be
      revisited and worked out more precisely in the Synod. And they need to
      decide if this is a doctrine that they want to separate from other
      churches over. However, I think that this step should be considered
      before de-Covenanter-ing them.

      Thanks,
      -Shawn Anderson
      First RPC, Grand Rapids, MI

      ps. I'm not interested in a public debate.
    • bob_suden
      ... Hi Shawn ... His affiliation is somewhat immaterial. My point was Reese as a RPCNA Covenanter is not quite promoting covenanting and it would be nice to
      Message 2 of 5 , Jan 27, 2009
        --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, "Shawn Anderson"
        <christ_saves_sinners@...> wrote:
        >
        > Bob S. >> Reese is an up and comer in the RPCNA who pastors the
        > Springs Reformed Church, Col. Springs. Co . It is a little strange
        > though, to find a "Covenanter" pastor posting Winzer's critique of
        > the SL&C on his church's site, most of which, if not all, is poorly
        > argued imo. Others, such as RS Clark, who was the keynote speaker at
        > the recent "Recovering the Reformation" Reformation Day conference at
        > SRC, deny that God makes national covenants in NT times, however
        > fundamental the SL&C was to the Second Reformation and the Westminster
        > Standards. I dunno, maybe Reese and the RPCNA need to come clean on
        > exactly what they think and renounce the "Covenanter" label everybody
        > else gives them.
        >
        Hi Shawn
        >
        > 1) RS Clark is in the URCNA, not the RPCNA (and not RB, Edgar) so his
        > views on social covenanting are irrelevant to the RPCNA position,
        > though he may influence RPCNA pastors.

        His affiliation is somewhat immaterial. My point was Reese as a RPCNA
        "Covenanter" is not quite promoting covenanting and it would be nice to
        find out exactly what is up one way or the other. That's all.

        >
        > 2) The binding nature of the SLC on the US is a secondary issue to the
        > primary issue of defending the ordinance of social covenanting in
        > general. In fact I'm not aware of any synod or general assembly that
        > has declared that the US is bound to the SLC, though I am aware of a
        > few that constitutionally uphold the ordinance of social covenanting
        > as a biblical ordinance.

        Again, Winzer's article/argument takes more than a few shots at SC in
        general even before the specific issue of the SL&C. Fair enough, but I
        find it strange to see it on a RPCNA site. Or maybe not. I don't know.

        > 3) It has been my experience that there are a range of views on social
        > covenanting in general and the SLC in particular held by ministers and
        > elders in the RPCNA. Some hold an inconsistent view from their
        > Constitutional statement of social covenanting, but none the less that
        > is the current environment of the denomination on this issue.
        >
        > For sure the general doctrine of social covenanting needs to be
        > revisited and worked out more precisely in the Synod. And they need to
        > decide if this is a doctrine that they want to separate from other
        > churches over. However, I think that this step should be considered
        > before de-Covenanter-ing them.

        If you are willing to promote anti whatever material, it is a legitimate
        to ask whether somebody is really pro whatever. Again Reese is an up and
        comer in the RPCNA and I find it rather odd for him to be promoting what
        he does. That's all.

        > ps. I'm not interested in a public debate.
        >

        I know. Me neither. It comes from hanging around secret societies like
        the RPNAGM and the Effort Meeting. (Incidentally just for affidavit
        purposes, are you now or have you ever been a member of the Not Quite
        Dutch Reformed (Enough) Society in Grand Rapids? Parnell is probably a
        member, if he did not instigate it to begin with, but I don't really
        know because it is, you know, a secret society.) Of course, as long as
        you delete this whole message as soon as you read it, if not before, the
        Advocate for Law won't have chance to come out of retirement.
        And that's a good thing.

        cordially
        Bub Sudden
      • puritanone
        ... As a member of the Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland, I have promised not to be a member of freemasonry or like secret society. - Parnell McCarter
        Message 3 of 5 , Jan 28, 2009
          --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, "bob_suden"
          <bsuden@...> wrote:
          >

          > Parnell is probably a
          > member, if he did not instigate it to begin with, but I don't really
          > know because it is, you know, a secret society.)



          As a member of the Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland, I have
          promised not to be a member of freemasonry or like secret society.

          - Parnell McCarter
        • Ic Neltococayotl
          Can t we all just like...get along??? No? Ok... I will ask the new Prez to send in a peace envoy...you know he is bringing change to a store near you... ... at
          Message 4 of 5 , Jan 28, 2009
            Can't we all just like...get along???


            No?

            Ok...


            I will ask the new Prez to send in a peace envoy...you know he is
            bringing change to a store near you...


            ....YAWN!!....


            --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, "bob_suden"
            <bsuden@...> wrote:
            >
            >
            > --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, "Shawn Anderson"
            > christ_saves_sinners@ wrote:
            > >
            > > Bob S. >> Reese is an up and comer in the RPCNA who pastors the
            > > Springs Reformed Church, Col. Springs. Co . It is a little strange
            > > though, to find a "Covenanter" pastor posting Winzer's critique of
            > > the SL&C on his church's site, most of which, if not all, is poorly
            > > argued imo. Others, such as RS Clark, who was the keynote speaker
            at
            > > the recent "Recovering the Reformation" Reformation Day conference
            at
            > > SRC, deny that God makes national covenants in NT times, however
            > > fundamental the SL&C was to the Second Reformation and the
            Westminster
            > > Standards. I dunno, maybe Reese and the RPCNA need to come clean on
            > > exactly what they think and renounce the "Covenanter" label
            everybody
            > > else gives them.
            > >
            > Hi Shawn
            > >
            > > 1) RS Clark is in the URCNA, not the RPCNA (and not RB, Edgar) so
            his
            > > views on social covenanting are irrelevant to the RPCNA position,
            > > though he may influence RPCNA pastors.
            >
            > His affiliation is somewhat immaterial. My point was Reese as a RPCNA
            > "Covenanter" is not quite promoting covenanting and it would be nice
            to
            > find out exactly what is up one way or the other. That's all.
            >
            > >
            > > 2) The binding nature of the SLC on the US is a secondary issue to
            the
            > > primary issue of defending the ordinance of social covenanting in
            > > general. In fact I'm not aware of any synod or general assembly that
            > > has declared that the US is bound to the SLC, though I am aware of a
            > > few that constitutionally uphold the ordinance of social covenanting
            > > as a biblical ordinance.
            >
            > Again, Winzer's article/argument takes more than a few shots at SC in
            > general even before the specific issue of the SL&C. Fair enough, but I
            > find it strange to see it on a RPCNA site. Or maybe not. I don't know.
            >
            > > 3) It has been my experience that there are a range of views on
            social
            > > covenanting in general and the SLC in particular held by ministers
            and
            > > elders in the RPCNA. Some hold an inconsistent view from their
            > > Constitutional statement of social covenanting, but none the less
            that
            > > is the current environment of the denomination on this issue.
            > >
            > > For sure the general doctrine of social covenanting needs to be
            > > revisited and worked out more precisely in the Synod. And they need
            to
            > > decide if this is a doctrine that they want to separate from other
            > > churches over. However, I think that this step should be considered
            > > before de-Covenanter-ing them.
            >
            > If you are willing to promote anti whatever material, it is a
            legitimate
            > to ask whether somebody is really pro whatever. Again Reese is an up
            and
            > comer in the RPCNA and I find it rather odd for him to be promoting
            what
            > he does. That's all.
            >
            > > ps. I'm not interested in a public debate.
            > >
            >
            > I know. Me neither. It comes from hanging around secret societies like
            > the RPNAGM and the Effort Meeting. (Incidentally just for affidavit
            > purposes, are you now or have you ever been a member of the Not Quite
            > Dutch Reformed (Enough) Society in Grand Rapids? Parnell is probably
            a
            > member, if he did not instigate it to begin with, but I don't really
            > know because it is, you know, a secret society.) Of course, as long as
            > you delete this whole message as soon as you read it, if not before,
            the
            > Advocate for Law won't have chance to come out of retirement.
            > And that's a good thing.
            >
            > cordially
            > Bub Sudden
            >
          • simon_padbury
            ... How many Presbyterians does it take to change a lightbulb? -- What, chaaange?! ... strange ... critique of ... poorly ... speaker ... conference ...
            Message 5 of 5 , Jan 30, 2009
              --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, "Ic Neltococayotl"
              <puritanpresbyterian@...> wrote:
              >
              > Can't we all just like...get along???
              >
              >
              > No?
              >
              > Ok...
              >
              >
              > I will ask the new Prez to send in a peace envoy...you know he is
              > bringing change to a store near you...
              >
              >
              > ....YAWN!!....
              >
              >

              How many Presbyterians does it take to change a lightbulb?
              -- What, chaaange?!

              > --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, "bob_suden"
              > <bsuden@> wrote:
              > >
              > >
              > > --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, "Shawn Anderson"
              > > christ_saves_sinners@ wrote:
              > > >
              > > > Bob S. >> Reese is an up and comer in the RPCNA who pastors the
              > > > Springs Reformed Church, Col. Springs. Co . It is a little
              strange
              > > > though, to find a "Covenanter" pastor posting Winzer's
              critique of
              > > > the SL&C on his church's site, most of which, if not all, is
              poorly
              > > > argued imo. Others, such as RS Clark, who was the keynote
              speaker
              > at
              > > > the recent "Recovering the Reformation" Reformation Day
              conference
              > at
              > > > SRC, deny that God makes national covenants in NT times,
              however
              > > > fundamental the SL&C was to the Second Reformation and the
              > Westminster
              > > > Standards. I dunno, maybe Reese and the RPCNA need to come
              clean on
              > > > exactly what they think and renounce the "Covenanter" label
              > everybody
              > > > else gives them.
              > > >
              > > Hi Shawn
              > > >
              > > > 1) RS Clark is in the URCNA, not the RPCNA (and not RB, Edgar)
              so
              > his
              > > > views on social covenanting are irrelevant to the RPCNA
              position,
              > > > though he may influence RPCNA pastors.
              > >
              > > His affiliation is somewhat immaterial. My point was Reese as a
              RPCNA
              > > "Covenanter" is not quite promoting covenanting and it would be
              nice
              > to
              > > find out exactly what is up one way or the other. That's all.
              > >
              > > >
              > > > 2) The binding nature of the SLC on the US is a secondary issue
              to
              > the
              > > > primary issue of defending the ordinance of social covenanting
              in
              > > > general. In fact I'm not aware of any synod or general assembly
              that
              > > > has declared that the US is bound to the SLC, though I am aware
              of a
              > > > few that constitutionally uphold the ordinance of social
              covenanting
              > > > as a biblical ordinance.
              > >
              > > Again, Winzer's article/argument takes more than a few shots at
              SC in
              > > general even before the specific issue of the SL&C. Fair enough,
              but I
              > > find it strange to see it on a RPCNA site. Or maybe not. I don't
              know.
              > >
              > > > 3) It has been my experience that there are a range of views on
              > social
              > > > covenanting in general and the SLC in particular held by
              ministers
              > and
              > > > elders in the RPCNA. Some hold an inconsistent view from their
              > > > Constitutional statement of social covenanting, but none the
              less
              > that
              > > > is the current environment of the denomination on this issue.
              > > >
              > > > For sure the general doctrine of social covenanting needs to be
              > > > revisited and worked out more precisely in the Synod. And they
              need
              > to
              > > > decide if this is a doctrine that they want to separate from
              other
              > > > churches over. However, I think that this step should be
              considered
              > > > before de-Covenanter-ing them.
              > >
              > > If you are willing to promote anti whatever material, it is a
              > legitimate
              > > to ask whether somebody is really pro whatever. Again Reese is an
              up
              > and
              > > comer in the RPCNA and I find it rather odd for him to be
              promoting
              > what
              > > he does. That's all.
              > >
              > > > ps. I'm not interested in a public debate.
              > > >
              > >
              > > I know. Me neither. It comes from hanging around secret societies
              like
              > > the RPNAGM and the Effort Meeting. (Incidentally just for
              affidavit
              > > purposes, are you now or have you ever been a member of the Not
              Quite
              > > Dutch Reformed (Enough) Society in Grand Rapids? Parnell is
              probably
              > a
              > > member, if he did not instigate it to begin with, but I don't
              really
              > > know because it is, you know, a secret society.) Of course, as
              long as
              > > you delete this whole message as soon as you read it, if not
              before,
              > the
              > > Advocate for Law won't have chance to come out of retirement.
              > > And that's a good thing.
              > >
              > > cordially
              > > Bub Sudden
              > >
              >
            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.