Covenant Presbyterian Church: new denomination

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally posted by Scott Bushey
A presbyterian organization that accepts ordination from the SBC? :candle:

Every Presbyterian denomination that I am aware of does. Isn't that even the case with the RPCGA? Matt wasn't "re-ordained" but rather accepted into the Presbytery, wasn't he?

I'd appreciate anyone who has any information about this group contacting me off-board. I will be in Katy, where one of the congregations is located.
 
Originally posted by fredtgreco
Originally posted by Scott Bushey
A presbyterian organization that accepts ordination from the SBC? :candle:

Every Presbyterian denomination that I am aware of does. Isn't that even the case with the RPCGA? Matt wasn't "re-ordained" but rather accepted into the Presbytery, wasn't he?

I'd appreciate anyone who has any information about this group contacting me off-board. I will be in Katy, where one of the congregations is located.

Matt was re-ordained w/ the RPCGA. I don't believe the RPCGA would accept the SBC ordination.
 
Yeeup. Reordained. And that as a consequence of being in a "reformed" body. They first would require at least an M.Div, or the equivalent before even thinking about accepting someone for ordination or reordination.
 
Originally posted by NaphtaliPress
Paedocommunion?

That appears to be part of it, at least. See here, paragraph 3.

Also, the denomination allows the local church sessions to determine the age of the communicant member, so long as all communicants have made a credible statement of faith by the age of 20. This allows for both paedo and credo communion churches to exist in unity in a denomination committed to the historic faith and presbyterian polity.

[Edited on 6-7-2006 by Pilgrim]
 
What think ye of the lack of division between ruling and teaching elders? This is something that is somewhat common in Reformed Baptist circles, but isn't it, uh, innovative to have such a mingling of the offices in a Presbyterian context?

The difference between this and the typical RB view seems to be that where the RBs tend to lower the office of Minister to some kind of lay-officer, the CPC seems to raise the RE to the same level as the TE.

In my own RB congregation, it seems like we are closer to the CPC here than most other RBs. That's independency for ya.
 
Originally posted by fredtgreco
Originally posted by Scott Bushey
A presbyterian organization that accepts ordination from the SBC? :candle:

Every Presbyterian denomination that I am aware of does. Isn't that even the case with the RPCGA? Matt wasn't "re-ordained" but rather accepted into the Presbytery, wasn't he?

I'd appreciate anyone who has any information about this group contacting me off-board. I will be in Katy, where one of the congregations is located.
I thought of you immediately when I saw that congregation.

I imagine they'll be too busy hiding their light under the bushel of so finely distinguishing themselves from others that they'll have virtually no witness in that community.

My recent thread on Private Interpretation has me mulling over these issues. It was interesting reading Dr. McMahon's article on Theological Traditionalism. It bugs me when people want to adopt the Westminster Standards and the history of the Reformation for their own but reject the core principle that we should be striving toward the unity of the faith. Men like these don't want a historic Church or a real Church that might judge in opposition to the convictions that a few men with a hyper-paternalistic sense of the Scriptures. Instead of submitting they sacrifice everything it means to be Presbyterian and Reformed and start a new body and rob from the tradition they just spat upon.

I didn't quite understand what Dr. R. Scott Clark was saying when he wrote this but I think it might be getting clearer to me:
That said, I think CVT's value is that he re-stated the traditional position, if in more or less idealist vocabulary that is now dated and not always very helpful.

I think that what folk need to read is Franciscus Junius and Amandus Polanus! I suppose most don't read 17th century Reformed theology in Latin. That's why I wrote the essay for the Strimple Festschrift. I tried to save folks time (like 10-15 years of study!) by doing the work for them. To demand that I reproduce it all here for your convenience is unreasonable.

I really don't think I'm passing the buck. I'm trying to redirect the entire discussion. Trading barbs and quotes about G. Clark and CVT seems pretty fruitless since that's been going on since the 1940's and there's been no progress. In the essay I try to explain why there's been no progress and why, on the current terms of the debate, there can be no progress. I argue that the Clarkians and Hoeksema and Gerstner, having rejected a fundamental Reformed distinction on rationalist grounds, cannot agree with CVT without a revolution in their theology.

I contend that there is a well-established method of doing Reformed theology, in which context we need to understand the Clark/Van Til debate. That context is the distinction between theologia archtetypa et ectypa.
I ordered the book (The Pattern of Sound Doctrine) he was referring to above. While the thread was dealing with another thread with Clarkians and Van Tillians going at it, I am starting to understand what R. Scott Clark meant here though not completely yet. After I read Matt's article I started thinking about a recent thread where one of the members here called portions of Chalcedon nonsense with apparently very little trepidation at stepping outside of a pattern of well-established and authoratative doctrine.

I had read previously that the magisterial Reformers never considered themselves to be innovators. In a conversation with Dr. Horton in 2002 he told me he was going to visit Douglas Wilson concerning a controversy brewing that I still had no clue concerning. He said something to the effect that Reformed theology has always considered itself to be in "dialogue" with the Saints of the past concerning doctrine and theological understanding but that, lately, there is a movement of people who learn some logic and classical languages and they're rejecting or recasting long held theological understandings with very little restraint.
 
So was the split from the original body basically driven by the issue of paedocommunion?
 
Apparently, according to one source, and if this is wrong someone please correct it, the departure was over the paedocommunion issue as well as to some degree the Federal Vision issue.
 
Originally posted by NaphtaliPress
Apparently, according to one source, and if this is wrong someone please correct it, the departure was over the paedocommunion issue as well as to some degree the Federal Vision issue.

Paedocommunion was definitely one of the issues, as I believe that one of the California churches was forced out specifically over paedocommunion. I don't know if the rest of the churches all believe in paedocommunion, but I think its fair to say that they all believe that the practice should be allowed within a denomination, and that this was one of the things communicated to the RPCGA when they departed.

As for the Federal Vision issue, I hadn't heard anything on that specifically.

An additional issue that I think has a bearing was a disagreement over the how the office of moderator is to function. I notice in their FOCG document that the moderator and presbytery functions look very different than how they operate in the RPCGA.

In looking over the CPC's documents they seems very similar as far as distinctives except for:

1. Paedocommunion
2. How presbyterian polity is practiced by the moderator and the presbytery
3. Education and ordination of elders (no formal degree required).

Those 3 areas (not necessarily in that order) are likely the main reasons for departure.

[Edited on 6-8-2006 by Chad Degenhart]
 
"We didn't want to create a new micro-presbyterian denom... but we were just forced into it. Practically held a gun to our heads, they did!"




Bother. Ditto to Gabe. PLEASE, make it stop.
 
In recalling my discussion with Pastor Steve Walker (of the local CPC to me in Ceres) from several months ago, the issue of paedocommunion was a key issue. Specifically with respect to paedocommunion (which the Ceres church does not practice, but in which some of their elders believe), the Ceres church felt they were misled as they had been welcomed by the RPCGA fairly recently (maybe 2 years ago?), specifically asked about paedocommunion, and were told it was not a disputable issue. Then, this year, the RPCGA reiterated a GA decision made in '96 but not publicized that paedocommunion was *not* an acceptable position in the RPCGA. The Ceres church opted to demit leave the RPCGA.
 
Insteresting. I would sure have asked to review past GA minutes if I were interested in joining a denomination.
 
If your denomination doesn't allow something, and your Confession doesn't allow something, quit being a schismatic baby and submit to the Church.

/rant
 
Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia
If your denomination doesn't allow something, and your Confession doesn't allow something, quit being a schismatic baby and submit to the Church.

/rant

But if the church was told it wasnt a problem and then it is, then is it schismatic to leave? This of course assumes that certain assurances were actually given.

CT
 
Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia
If your denomination doesn't allow something, and your Confession doesn't allow something, quit being a schismatic baby and submit to the Church.

/rant

:ditto:

The Westminster Standards they say they subscribe to clearly prohibit paedocommunion. At least the CREC seems to be more honest in admitting that some of their practices are not confessional and they do not as a federation purport to subscribe to the Westminster Standards.

Many with FV leanings, especially laypersons, are woefully ignorant of the confessions and catechisms. (This ignorance is of course certainly not limited to those in that camp). This is probably because most have only recently come from broad evangelicalism. Once I pointed out to an enthusiastic FV and paedocommunion advocate that paedocommunion is clearly prohibited in the confessions and catechisms and he denied this was the case. When confronted with the truth, he accused the standards of gnosticism at that point! I suppose the sections on assurance would have fit his definition of "gnosticism" as well.

I totally agree with what Dr. Clark is constantly saying: There is much more to Calvinism and the Reformed faith than simply the Five Points.
 
Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia
If your denomination doesn't allow something, and your Confession doesn't allow something, quit being a schismatic baby and submit to the Church.

/rant

I certainly think its better to start a new denomination then to take ordination vows duplicitously, with equivocation, or with mental reservation, seeking to subvert the standards of the church as seems to be the case with many clergy in larger denominations (PCA, PC-USA).
 
Originally posted by Peter
Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia
If your denomination doesn't allow something, and your Confession doesn't allow something, quit being a schismatic baby and submit to the Church.

/rant

I certainly think its better to start a new denomination then to take ordination vows duplicitously, with equivocation, or with mental reservation, seeking to subvert the standards of the church as seems to be the case with many clergy in larger denominations (PCA, PC-USA).
An even better option would be to repent.

I think they end up being duplicitous by continuing to call themselves Presbyterian and Reformed.
 
Originally posted by SemperFideles
An even better option would be to repent.

I think they end up being duplicitous by continuing to call themselves Presbyterian and Reformed.

True. But we cant ask them to transgress conscience though.

Anyone in a church who teaches contrary to the plain, historical meaning of a church's standards should be excommunicated. Anyone who believes contrary should voluntarily leave.
 
Originally posted by Peter
Originally posted by SemperFideles
An even better option would be to repent.

I think they end up being duplicitous by continuing to call themselves Presbyterian and Reformed.

True. But we cant ask them to transgress conscience though.

Anyone in a church who teaches contrary to the plain, historical meaning of a church's standards should be excommunicated. Anyone who believes contrary should voluntarily leave.
Peter,

I respectfully disagree. If the idea of transgressing conscience was an involiable rule in all cases then there would be no room for Church discipline whasoever.

Suppose their issue was polygamy for example. We wouldn't permit the idea that: "Well you shouldn't violate conscience if you believe this sinful behavior is Biblical...." We would demand they repent and, if they don't, they don't have the Biblical authority to start a new Church and grant themselves Ecclesiastical authority.

Things get a bit more complicated when a major denomination is apostasizing but I think their approach is not Reformed or Presbyterian. The Church has the right to tell you in many cases: "You are wrong in your interpretation." In most cases we have the Biblical obligation to submit, pray, and reconsider even when we don't completely understand or agree with it.

Not always a cut and dry issue but I think in this case it is much easier to see a schismatic spirit whereas the point at which when to leave a Church is much more difficult to ascertain.

It's kind of like their vows to submit to the rule of the Church were: "We vow to submit to your authority until we disagree with it...."

Huh?

Of course they'll probably demand submission to their self-vested Ecclesiastical authority.

[Edited on 6-9-2006 by SemperFideles]
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top