tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6974152599160963369.comments2024-03-12T00:30:45.576-07:00Reformed Presbyterian VeritasRPVhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09812675463969384709noreply@blogger.comBlogger29125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6974152599160963369.post-19638370497642841562015-06-02T23:23:42.517-07:002015-06-02T23:23:42.517-07:00Yes, the P&R churches have some tightening up ...Yes, the P&R churches have some tightening up to do on the 2nd commandment/RPW, but the 2nd is not a creation ordinance like the 4th and the 7th. That was the point per se, not that the P&R were without sin. RPVhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09812675463969384709noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6974152599160963369.post-18145761734334676192015-06-02T11:21:00.304-07:002015-06-02T11:21:00.304-07:00And the one thing that the churches will not do ju...And the one thing that the churches will not do just like the Israelites of old is to repent of their idolatry. If you could ask the average man in attendance at the high places at Dan or Bethel if what they were engaging is is idolatry they would all to a man answer "NO!" Likewise the "reformed" christians of today if asked, are pictures of Jesus idolatry, most would answer "No", is anything you do in church idolatry, again "No." So they continue in sins of Issac Watts that made the church to sin in singing other than the Psalms. They will not depart of the sins of Thomas Welch that made the church to sin with his "wine" that God didn't command. All the while maintaining their innocence. Current culture in the west is just God doing exactly what He said he would do in Romans 1, after following through with doing exactly what He said He would do in the reason annexed to the second commandment. The hypocrisy of reformed Christians who condemn these cultural trends all the while living openly in the sin of idolatry (and Sabbath breaking) is sad, since, it was the Presbyterians in the mainline from 1750s-1790s onward that exchanged the truth of God for a lie, when they put Watts Hymns in places of Christ's Psalms. They gave the first modern expression to Orwellian new-speak when they claimed that "psalms" in WCF 20 meant any religious song. It was they who devised the scheme of the constitution as a living document, and taught civil magistrate how to do it. The reformed churches have for centuries, generation after generation, done that which is evil in the sight of the LORD, departing not from the sins of Isaac Watts that made the church to sin, and are just like the woman of Prov 30:20 "Such is the way of an adulterous woman; she eateth, and wipeth her mouth, and saith, I have done no wickedness." Andrewnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6974152599160963369.post-61408646918511476032008-08-04T08:04:00.000-07:002008-08-04T08:04:00.000-07:00D'oh! I should have consulted the addendum in the ...D'oh! I should have consulted the addendum in the first place! Thanks anyway, Bob!Daniel Hillhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07823511443088751096noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6974152599160963369.post-10762949589344938862008-08-03T13:24:00.000-07:002008-08-03T13:24:00.000-07:00Hi Dan,Upon rereading the addendum to the RPNA's d...Hi Dan,<BR/>Upon rereading the addendum to the RPNA's deed of constitution in 2000 I think I see what you are getting at. Implicitly yes. The RPCI didn't cease to exist nominally, but its practice changed - continuing to associate with the unfaithful Scottish RP according to the addendum - if not the substance of its views - adopting the Scottish testimony but not the terms of communion according to Loughridge - and hence the RPNA refused to to recognize it as faithful. <BR/>Hope that helps. I am far from an expert on these matters. I largely joined the RPNA because it adhered to the original Standards and worship of the same, not on explicitly covenanting grounds or distinctives. <BR/>Bob S.RPVhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09812675463969384709noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6974152599160963369.post-14387281646830687652008-08-03T02:54:00.000-07:002008-08-03T02:54:00.000-07:00Sorry, my comment was not about Paul's Eastern Syn...Sorry, my comment was not about Paul's Eastern Synod, but the remnant majority synod, which, I understand, adopted in 1839/1840 the revised Scottish Testimony instead of the 1761 Testimony. My suggestion was that what Joe on CovRefClub was getting at was that it was this that led the RPNA to regard the RPCI as having ceased in 1839/1840. Does that seem right to you?Daniel Hillhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07823511443088751096noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6974152599160963369.post-67686983829772474152008-08-02T21:26:00.000-07:002008-08-02T21:26:00.000-07:00Sorry Dan, I'm behind on this. I don't kno...Sorry Dan, I'm behind on this. I don't know if that is the upshot or not. Paul pretty much repudiated the modified Scottish Testimony and/or the AD&t of 1761 when he left the RPCI Synod it seems to me. Again a better place to ask is on <A HREF="http://groups.yahoo.com/group/covenantedreformationclub/" REL="nofollow"> CovRefClub</A>RPVhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09812675463969384709noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6974152599160963369.post-816943262051146672008-07-30T03:55:00.000-07:002008-07-30T03:55:00.000-07:00Thanks for this, Bob. Is the idea that the RPCI ce...Thanks for this, Bob. Is the idea that the RPCI ceased to exist because `Synod adopted the Testimony of the Scottish<BR/>Church' instead of the Act, Declaration, and Testimony of 1761? That makes sense. Thanks!Daniel Hillhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07823511443088751096noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6974152599160963369.post-15644756199634600582008-07-29T19:56:00.000-07:002008-07-29T19:56:00.000-07:00Dan, Check this post, #16467 on CovRefClub. I thi...Dan, Check this <A HREF="http://groups.yahoo.com/group/covenantedreformationclub/message/16467" REL="nofollow"><BR/>post</A>, #16467 on CovRefClub. I think it answers your question.RPVhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09812675463969384709noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6974152599160963369.post-18705830122597565592008-07-29T19:47:00.000-07:002008-07-29T19:47:00.000-07:00Hi Dan, Possibly there were repercussions in the R...Hi Dan, <BR/>Possibly there were repercussions in the RPCI from Steele's split, but I wouldn't know one way or the other.RPVhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09812675463969384709noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6974152599160963369.post-39490602877826191822008-07-29T14:59:00.000-07:002008-07-29T14:59:00.000-07:00It has just occurred to me that it may be because ...It has just occurred to me that it may be because the RPCI didn't recognize David Steele's Covenanter church, when it seceded from the larger American body in 1840. Does that seem right to you?Daniel Hillhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07823511443088751096noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6974152599160963369.post-13573009571733959772008-07-28T21:24:00.000-07:002008-07-28T21:24:00.000-07:00Don't know. Will post to Cov Ref Club for an answe...Don't know. Will post to <A HREF="http://groups.yahoo.com/group/covenantedreformationclub/" REL="nofollow"><BR/>Cov Ref Club</A> for an answer.RPVhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09812675463969384709noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6974152599160963369.post-67345995023433098002008-07-28T06:34:00.000-07:002008-07-28T06:34:00.000-07:00Why did the Synod Of The Reformed Presbyterian Chu...Why did the Synod Of The Reformed Presbyterian Church In Ireland cease to exist in 1839?Daniel Hillhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07823511443088751096noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6974152599160963369.post-26177764750158092782008-04-23T21:30:00.000-07:002008-04-23T21:30:00.000-07:00Uh, right anonymous. That sounds like a real argum...Uh, right anonymous. That sounds like a real argument to me. <BR/>But here's another no brainer.<BR/><BR/>Five verses after Peter confesses Jesus is the Son of God in Matt 16:16 and Jesus replies saying, 'upon this rock I will build my church', Jesus turns and says to Peter: <BR/><BR/>"Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men."<BR/><BR/>Now if Peter is the first pope like Rome says he is, he must also be Satan or the antiChrist like the Protestant reformers said he was. Or Jesus is responding to something Peter said in both instances. But then Peter is not the pope.<BR/><BR/>In other words, you need to spend a lot more time reading your bible and praying than trolling comboxes, my friend.<BR/><BR/>cordiallyRPVhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09812675463969384709noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6974152599160963369.post-20606950158475198602008-04-23T17:07:00.000-07:002008-04-23T17:07:00.000-07:00"Yes the Pope is the antiChristand you are a dense..."Yes the Pope is the antiChrist<BR/>and you are a dense dunce and a troll. Hopefully one day you will learn the difference between an assertion and an argument."<BR/><BR/>Apparently, you don't know the difference either. Continuing to twist the scriptures to your own interpretation will not gain you favors in Heaven. Jesus loves you enough to want you to become part of his Church. The Catholic Church awaits your decision.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6974152599160963369.post-65667024784001461912008-04-09T21:23:00.000-07:002008-04-09T21:23:00.000-07:00Nope, but I blocked sender and his rants get delet...Nope, but I blocked sender and his rants get deleted/rejected here.RPVhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09812675463969384709noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6974152599160963369.post-55504600559670610922008-04-09T14:07:00.000-07:002008-04-09T14:07:00.000-07:00Does anyone happen to know how the stupid farm boy...Does anyone happen to know how the stupid farm boy, (his name for himself not mine!) is managing to send all his comments from here, by private email to folks with a yahoo notify service?<BR/><BR/>Dennis, please stop being a menace!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6974152599160963369.post-64196895699641471022008-04-07T17:31:00.000-07:002008-04-07T17:31:00.000-07:00Hi Dennis,Yes the Pope is the antiChristand you ar...Hi Dennis,<BR/>Yes the Pope is the antiChrist<BR/>and you are a dense dunce and a troll. Hopefully one day you will learn the difference between an assertion and an argument. Until then you belong on the farm feeding the hogs and shoveling cow manure.<BR/>Have a good day.<BR/>cordially yrs,RPVhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09812675463969384709noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6974152599160963369.post-75682149379273301632008-04-06T18:09:00.000-07:002008-04-06T18:09:00.000-07:00Nope, Dennis, you still can't figure it out. Nobod...Nope, Dennis, you still can't figure it out. Nobody had a beef per se with the preaching. That wasn't it at all. <BR/>Rather we had a problem binding our consciences to the cobbled together 'pig's breakfast'(your term) of arguments in the PPSA which supposedly justified a standing out of town international long distance telephone presbytery masquerading as a session.<BR/><BR/>Neither did anybody deny that the elders were lawful officers. We just had problems with changing the terms of membership/communion and conjuring up a court out of the supposed explicit announcement of it on June 14, '03 after the fact. All the rest was pretty much icing on the cake.<BR/>Like I said, get a grip on the facts.<BR/><BR/>As regards what we in America call hogslop, I used the term to describe Self Righteous in the Cave with Asinine and one of the elders didn't know what I was talking about. Maybe I should have realized that was a heads up. Oh well.RPVhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09812675463969384709noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6974152599160963369.post-11376356286097997922008-03-31T22:11:00.000-07:002008-03-31T22:11:00.000-07:00No, Mr. Grutzmacher, your most recent of 9:35 AM....No, Mr. Grutzmacher, your most recent of 9:35 AM. today is not good enough. <BR/><BR/>Yes the Pope is Antichrist<BR/>and yes, we all know who the troll is. (That's why your previous comment was deleted.)<BR/><BR/>cordially,<BR/>Bob S.RPVhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09812675463969384709noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6974152599160963369.post-40600018065574237042008-03-30T21:08:00.000-07:002008-03-30T21:08:00.000-07:00Dear Dennis, You need to respectfully get a gri...Dear Dennis,<BR/><BR/> You need to respectfully get a grip.<BR/> Why?<BR/> Your answers are what are termed "nonresponsive" in the sense that you don't really respond or reply to my questions or answers. Much more you fail to demonstrate where/that they are erroneous/immaterial. You can only and merely declare them to be so vehemently and condemn them - which is in itself popish behaviour.<BR/> In other words, you fail to demonstrate what you so adamantly assert. But I am supposed to believe it on your say so. All in the context of implicit faith and the antichrist. How ironic.<BR/> In other words, when it comes to 'entering into a discussion' with me about whatever, you have yet to do so substantively and this is your fifth post/comment on the matter.<BR/> Can you possibly understand why someone is not interested in continuing this kind of "dialogue"?<BR/> I can and until you can do better, executive privileges will be exercised in regard to your comments.<BR/><BR/> Thanks again,<BR/> Bob S.RPVhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09812675463969384709noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6974152599160963369.post-78774211178320394322008-03-30T19:55:00.000-07:002008-03-30T19:55:00.000-07:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6974152599160963369.post-88585390922929830452008-03-30T17:31:00.000-07:002008-03-30T17:31:00.000-07:00Mr. Beuzekom,But what bone are the two dogs fighti...Mr. Beuzekom,<BR/><BR/>But what bone are the two dogs fighting over? Whether the excommunications, much more the court responsible, are valid? <BR/><BR/>And God has poured scorn on the RPV for saying so?<BR/><BR/>Please explain. Judgment day is not yet upon us, nor has RPV declared anyone apostate or reprobate.<BR/><BR/>Even further, the RPV speaks for no one but myself.<BR/><BR/>Thank you.<BR/><BR/>Bob SudenRPVhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09812675463969384709noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6974152599160963369.post-15722999338490119682008-03-30T17:20:00.000-07:002008-03-30T17:20:00.000-07:00Dennis,1.Matt. 6:1-4 does not rule out you telling...Dennis,<BR/>1.Matt. 6:1-4 does not rule out you telling us if you have given money to the elders, since you are making a point of it. If you did, what matters is your intention at the time and now, not that you fess up to it. <BR/>2. You mistake the tree for the forest, or if you prefer as a farmboy, the furrow for the field. The excommunications in the RPNA(GM) were not over birth control, immodesty, tattoos, surrogate elders or whatever. Those items were only indicative of the competence or lack thereof, much more an exacerberation of the issues in the church. Rather the excommunications were over whether people acknowledged the court and the justification for it in the PPSA. The SPG had asked about the “Session” as early as July, if not Oct. ‘04 and received no real answer. Nevertheless the elders say in the PPSA Q.3 that no one asked, taking communion was tacit approval of the court.<BR/>Again the excommunications were about whether people could sign on in good faith to a cobbled together mish mash of logic, history and Scripture. The Position Paper on Sessional Authority in the main appealed to an implicit gloss of Matt. 18 to mean ‘gathered together over the phone’ and an appeal to a plurality of ministers in Acts 15 which was a presbytery of presbyteries, a national or international synod. Yet the outcome of Acts 15 was for the ministers and elders to accompany the technology of the day, a hand written letter with their personal and bodily presence to personally visit and teach the binding sentence of synod. But the RPNA(GM) does not have a plurality of ministers, is not a synod and did not care to make the rounds of the societies with their PPSA to explain and defend it on top of all that went before in the group. <BR/>Perhaps they do have a court. But their justification for it was something no child of God could or should bind their conscience to. But binding consciences unbiblically is a mark of the papal antichrist, is it not?<BR/>3. Even further, a witness against the papal antichrist is not the sole distinguishing mark of the church. Neither does it follow that by denying the legitimacy of the RPNA(GM) court, one denies that the pope is the antichrist. That some may go on to deny whatever, if not actually have, is not logically or necessarily implicit in the denial of the RPNA(GM) court however one may care to vigorously assert it.RPVhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09812675463969384709noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6974152599160963369.post-74244235687014259052008-03-30T05:29:00.000-07:002008-03-30T05:29:00.000-07:00I say, brethren, that if we seek God’s blessing fo...I say, brethren, that if we seek God’s blessing for the mere extension of our<BR/>denomination, we shall seek it from a wrong motive. We must seek it for<BR/>God’s glory, and for that only, for the Lord will bring down our high looks<BR/>as well as the high looks of other people, and the more he loves us the<BR/>more will he be sure to do this, for what he will not tolerate in sinners he<BR/>will not bear in his saints.<BR/>(C.H. Spurgeon on Isaiah 2:17.<BR/><BR/>When 2 dogs are fighting for the same bone, none will win.<BR/>God has proved in time to put everything to scorn which he never planted. This happened with the RPNA and with those of Reformed presbyterian veritas<BR/><BR/>Ronald Beuzekom<BR/>Breda<BR/>The NetherlandsAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6974152599160963369.post-30959822141756980002008-03-30T02:46:00.000-07:002008-03-30T02:46:00.000-07:00Edgar Ibara on Covenantedreformationclub message 1...Edgar Ibara on Covenantedreformationclub message 16359<BR/>'To be more specific, the RPCNA, the OPC, the URC, and the Free Church of Scotland-Continuing have all received our brothers that were so tyrannically cast out by your former elders into their role of membership. '<BR/>-----<BR/>RPCNA: http://reformedpresbyterian.org/assets/pdf/Constitution04.pdf, p95 testimony,<BR/>'18. Many antichrists will be present<BR/>in the world throughout history. Prior<BR/>to Christ’s coming the final “man of<BR/>lawlessness” will be revealed. He will<BR/>be destroyed by Christ.<BR/>1 John 2:18; 1 John 4:3; 2 Thess. 2:8.'<BR/><BR/>-----<BR/>OPC: http://opc.org/documents/CFLayout.pdf, p128<BR/><BR/>'6. There is no other head of the church but the Lord Jesus Christ.n<BR/>Nor can the pope of Rome, in any sense, be head thereof.o'<BR/><BR/>-----<BR/>URC: http://www.covenant-urc.org/urchrchs.html<BR/>No Westminster Standards in their creeds but nice churchservices and facilities for the children.<BR/>----<BR/>Free Church of Scotland-Continuing: http://www.freechurchcontinuing.org/ (links), http://www.puritanseminary.org/pages/Full-Time+Faculty, http://www.stornowayfreenews.com/End%20Time%20Rd.html (citation hereunder)<BR/><BR/>'c. Antichrist (Dan.7:25; 2 Thess.2:3-4)<BR/>This commenced fulfilment in events associated with the first coming of Christ. The Roman Emperor Titus and his legions entered Jerusalem and it’s Temple with banners containing images of the emperor for worship. Secular and ecclesiastical antichrists continue to be revealed throughout the ages (1 Jn.2:18). But these are only precursors and anticipations of THE climactic Antichrist. The antichristian principle at work in the days of Paul and John will reach its highest power towards the end of the world, being concentrated in a single individual, the embodiment of all wickedness. The Antichrist will arise out of the apostasy and intensify the apostasy (2 Thess.2:3, 9-10).'<BR/>-----<BR/>SWRB: www.swrb.com<BR/>"Your... CD's of Reformation and Puritan authors are a great boon to studies in the Reformed-Puritan experiential tradition. Receive our hearty thanks for your invaluable work in making so many rare gems accessible to thousands." (Joel Beeke, President of Puritan Reformed Theological Seminary).<BR/><BR/>listen to http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=2903214820 minutes 19-21 and 30-34 where he is very clear about how he thinks about the subject of the papal antichrist. <BR/><BR/>In a personal mail Dr. Reg Barrow, president of Still Water Revival Books, asked me to pray the Dr. Beeke will in future come to the understanding of this particular truth that the pope of Rome is antichrist.<BR/>-----<BR/>Regarding your first point, dear Reformation Veritas, I kindly refer you to Matthew 6v1-4.<BR/><BR/>The public facts indicate that the RPNA(GM) has split over a gnat of presbyterian government, clothing of the daughter of an elder, using condoms, and tattoos. But that both sides in 2008 show that treading on the blood of the martyrs and denying the witness of Daniel, 2 Thess 2, and Revelation on the subject of the papal antichrist is less important than the subjects over which they split their church. John Owen has said in his definition of a protestant that without the witness against Rome their can be no protestantism.<BR/><BR/>I hope that I as a stupid farmboy, will not have taken too much of your time, that you again have to waste 10 minutes of your precious time in writing a response of about 8 full lines ! I know you have better things to do than defending the witness against the papal antichrist. Perhaps thinking about whether it is lawful according to Rutherford to visit a church where a woman is a deacon, or how Gillespie would think on the subject of whether the Solemn League and Covenant is applicable to West-Kazachstan, or how I can bake a cake, or how I can have a barbecue evangelistic meeting on sunday afternoons having theological discussion at the same time, or to continue studying wordly philosophy on university, or visiting biblestudies and churches where somehow the Prophets and the book of Revelation have disappeared in order to think about our marriage, our children, ourselves, and our worldy enjoyments ! But if we can have family and church, we will again have sweet communion with one another, and if we don't like it, we will split again over a gnat using the old paths as our justification for defending our own pathetic self-righteousness.<BR/>Hypocrites, and whited walls on both sides !<BR/><BR/>Dennis Grutzmacher, Breda, The NetherlandsAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com