The Reformed Presbytry of North America

CajunBibleBeliever · #1 (**permalink**) 06-07-2004, 04:03 PM

I was wondering if they are a separate association from the PCA or OPC and how do they differ doctrinally. I checked out the RNA website and saw that they only had 7 churches in all of North America. Is it that small of a group.

From the views of one of their members, they must kick out/excommunicate anybody and everyboy they don't like.

rembrandt · #2 (**permalink**) 06-07-2004, 04:19 PM

Forgive me for posting off subject, but I am sick of small Reformed denominations like this. I was looking at one the other day who broke off of one of the main Presbyterian denominations because they didn't like their understanding of 'common grace.' This is garbage.

On the RPNA website:
[quote:25f7f34b69]No sincere Christian can be content with 'agreeing to disagree' with his brother, when the Spirit of God beseeches us to "all speak the same thing". That great cloud of witnesses pledged, by God's grace, not to be divided from this blessed union by any or persuasion, or to give themselves over to a "detestable indifference or neutrality in this cause which so much concerneth the glory of God".[/quote:25f7f34b69]

How much must they "agree" and "speak the same thing?" We can "never agree to disagree?" There is a level of tolerance that the Church indeed [i:25f7f34b69]can[/i:25f7f34b69] sustain, that is if we are EVER going to be unified. I believe most of these denominations are guilty of snobbery.

From their history page:
[quote:25f7f34b69]unhappy with their existing ecclesiastical connections[/quote:25f7f34b69]

"Unhappy?" There is a certain amount of patience that we are to endure. It is an impossibility to agree on every principle of religion.

This kind of stuff is the precise reason why I would never join a denomination like this.

Paul

[Edited on 6-7-2004 by rembrandt]

py3ak · #3 (**permalink**) 06-07-2004, 04:25 PM

Rembrandt,

I can sympathise with your disgust. One thing to bear in mind, though, is that as long as we are putting up with different things that make us uncomfortable, we have to put up with other people's intolerance, as long as they allow us to do so. It is easy to condemn people for being ungracious --it is much more difficult to be gracious to them. (By the way, this is not aimed specifically at you. This is just something I have been thinking about lately.)

An interesting quote on this subject by Samuel Davies.

He said this in a sermon on Acts 11:26.

"What an endless variety of denominations, taken from some men of character, or from some little peculiarities, has prevailed in the Christian world, and crumbled it to pieces, while the Christian name is hardly regarded?...what party-names have been adopted by the Protestant churches, whose religion is substantially the same common Christianity, and who agree in much more important articles than in those they differ. To be a Christian is not enough now-a-days, but a man must also be something more and better; that is, he must be a strenuous bigot to this or that particular church...
Every man will find that he agrees more fully in lesser as well as more important articles with some particular churches than others; and thereupon it is his duty to join in stated communion with that church; and he may, if he pleases, assume the name which that church wears, by way of distinction from others: this is not what I condemn. But for me to glory in the denomination of any particular church, as my highest character; to lay more stress upon the name of a presbyterian or a churchman than on the sacred name of Christian; to make a punctilious agreement with my sentiments in the little peculiarities of a party the test of all religion; to make it the object of my zeal to gain proselytes to some other than the Christian name; to connive at the faults of those of my own party and to be blind to the good qualities of others, or invidiously to represent or diminish them: these are the things which deserve universal condemnation from God and man; these proceed from a spirit of bigotry and faction, directly opposite to the generous catholic spirit of Christianity, and subversive of it. This spirit hinders the progress of serious practical religion, by turning the attention of men from the great concerns of eternity, and the essentials of Christianity, to vain jangling and contest about circumstantials and trifles. Thus the Christian is swallowed up in the partisan, and fundamentals lost in extra-essentials...
Endeavour to find out the truth, even in these circumstantials, at least so far as is necessary for the direction of your own conduct. But do not make these the whole or principal part of your religion: do not be excessively zealous about them, nor break the peace of the church by magisterially imposing them upon others. 'Hast thou faith in these little disputables,' it is well; 'but have it to thyself before God," and do not disturb others with it. You may, if you please, call yourselves presbyterians and dissenters, and you shall bear without shame or resentment all the names of reproach and contempt which the world may brand you with. But as you should not be mortified on the one side, so neither should you glory on the other. A Christian! a Christian! let that be your highest distinction, let that be the name which you labour to deserve. God forbid that my ministry should be the occasion of diverting your attention to anything else."

Me Died Blue · #4 (**permalink**) 06-07-2004, 04:44 PM

Amen, Paul and Ruben. If it weren't so detestable, it would be humorous how easily some Reformed congregations break off to form a "new" Presbyterian denomination. The funny thing is, that's not really [i:d701e78b59]presbyterian[/i:d701e78b59] at all. They should consider the fact that even the Reformers stayed within, and tried to Reform, the Roman Church for quite some time, as did the Puritans with the Church of England. And the Roman Church and the Church of England that the Reformers and Puritans tried for so long to purify from within - both of those churches had [i:d701e78b59]much[/i:d701e78b59] more error in them than do the large Presbyterian denominations today that small ones break away from.

CajunBibleBeliever · #5 (**permalink**) 06-07-2004, 04:53 PM

Is anybody familiar with them and their practices specifically?

I know most here are either PCA or OPC, and more familiar with them than I am.

rembrandt · #6 (**permalink**) 06-07-2004, 05:02 PM

[quote:a6a24889b5]They should consider the fact that even the Reformers stayed within, and tried to Reform, the Roman Church for quite some time, as did the Puritans with the Church of England. And the Roman Church and the Church of England that the Reformers and Puritans tried for so long to purify from within - both of those churches had much more error in them than do the large Presbyterian denominations today that small ones break away from.[/quote:a6a24889b5]

Amen. They should also understand that the Reformer's seperation from Rome, as well as the Puritan's seperation from England, [i:a6a24889b5]was so that they could set a godly example for them in the hope that they would eventually repent[/i:a6a24889b5].

I would even go as far as to say that one day I am going to be reunited with Rome (probably not until heaven though). Just because they misunderstand 'true doctrine', doesn't mean that they are not a 'true church'. I think we need to rethink our ideas of 'orthodoxy' and our toleration levels. Rome and the Church of England are definitely part of the Universal Church.

If this can be tolerated, then certainly denominations within our own theological camp can be as well.

Paul

fredtgreco · #7 (**permalink**) 06-07-2004, 05:17 PM

Run a search on Still Waters Revivals Books or Steelites or RPNA or Solemn League and Covenant on the board.

This group is schismatics that holds all denominations that do not swear to the Solemn League and Covenant to be false churches. They are schismatic and not to be followed.

Me Died Blue · #8 (**permalink**) 06-07-2004, 05:20 PM

[quote:eb8bcac423][i:eb8bcac423]Originally posted by rembrandt[/i:eb8bcac423]
They should also understand that the Reformer's seperation from Rome, as well as the Puritan's seperation from England, [i:eb8bcac423]was so that they could set a godly example for them in the hope that they would eventually repent[/i:eb8bcac423].[/quote:eb8bcac423]

Yeah, really.

[quote:eb8bcac423][i:eb8bcac423]Originally posted by rembrandt[/i:eb8bcac423]
Just because they misunderstand 'true doctrine', doesn't mean that they are not a 'true church'. I think we need to rethink our ideas of 'orthodoxy' and our toleration levels. Rome and the Church of England are definitely part of the Universal Church.[/quote:eb8bcac423]

If you're saying that [i:eb8bcac423]modern[/i:eb8bcac423] Rome is a true church, I would have to disagree with you there. They not only "misunderstand" true doctrine, but grossly mis-practice it as well by all their sinful actions and rituals. While I absolutely agree with you that we need to rethink our notion that one can leave the current church based on the slightest discomfort, I do not think we need to rethink our ideas of orthodoxy. Remaining within a church and acknowledging it as a true church (which I agree that we need to do more) is one thing; but calling it "orthodox" is another. I actually think we grant denominations (i.e. non-Reformed ones) the status of "orthodox" too willingly. I believe we need more tolerance in our view of what is a true church and where we should stay, but regarding our willingness to call churches "orthodox" I think that if anything we need less tolerance.

[quote:eb8bcac423][i:eb8bcac423]Originally posted by rembrandt[/i:eb8bcac423]
If this can be tolerated, then certainly denominations within our own theological camp can be as well.[/quote:eb8bcac423]

Indeed. I assume you're talking about denominations such as the OPC, PCA, RPCNA, EPC, etc. But just for clarification, when I speak of the "large Presbyterian denominations today," I am excluding the PCUSA. They have departed from orthodoxy in my opinion, and it frustrates me that they, being the largest denomination bearing the name "Presbyterian," still label themselves with that name. Before recent years, when you told someone you were a "Presbyterian," that basically clarified your beliefs. But now, thanks to the PCUSA, the term means virtually nothing apart from church government.

In Christ,

rembrandt · #9 (**permalink**) 06-07-2004, 07:41 PM

[quote:c3bb921443]If you're saying that modern Rome is a true church, I would have to disagree with you there.[/quote:c3bb921443]

That will make for another thread... :P

[quote:c3bb921443]I do not think we need to rethink our ideas of orthodoxy. Remaining within a church and acknowledging it as a true church (which I agree that we need to do more) is one thing; but calling it "orthodox" is another. I actually think we grant denominations (i.e. non-Reformed ones) the status of "orthodox" too willingly. I believe we need more tolerance in our view of what is a true church and where we should stay, but regarding our willingness to call churches "orthodox" I think that if anything we need less tolerance.[/quote:c3bb921443]

I am going to be posting a thread on what determines "orthodoxy", mainly to hear people's takes on the issue.

Should we "rethink" orthodoxy? I was referring to how alot of modern "Reformed" people treat orthodoxy. The problem is that people have changed the [b:c3bb921443]criteria[/b:c3bb921443] of orthodoxy, and therefore [i:c3bb921443]they[/i:c3bb921443] are the ones who need to rethink.

I will argue that [i:c3bb921443]standards[/i:c3bb921443] is not another word for orthodox. We have increased our understanding of Scripture and have therefore increased our standards. But it does not follow that if someone didn't uphold those standards, that they are unorthodox. What we must do is [i:c3bb921443]figure out what determines orthodoxy[/i:c3bb921443]. The universal Church must agree for something to be orthodox. [b:c3bb921443]I will stop here and start a NEW thread on this. Please respond on that thread so all can see.[/b:c3bb921443]

Paul

[Edited on 6-7-2004 by rembrandt]