10/7/04, Questions From The "Session" to the Society of Prince George

[See also: 9/24/04, PG Society to Elders re. Draft to Societies at Large]

From: Greg Price
Sent: October 7, 2004 5:08 PM
To: rpna_pg@. . ; Greg Barrow; Greg Price; Lyndon Dohms
Cc: [Members of PGS]
Subject: Questions From The Session (October 7, 2004)


October 7, 2004

Dear Brothers and Sisters of the Prince George Society,

We have been blessed indeed to have known your love and faithfulness to the truth for the past ten years.
You have been willing to count the cost in following our good Shepherd where He has led you by His Word and Spirit. We express our love and appreciation for you in your continued support and encouragement of us as your Elders.

As we expressed in our email to you (dated September 30, 2004), We appreciate the general tone of the letter and the desire you have to be in communication with the Societies to the edification of the whole body and to the help and encouragement of your Session. However, we do have a few questions we would ask you before you send your proposed letter out to the Societies at large. If our questions are vague in your opinion, please feel free to ask us for further clarification.

1. On page 3 of your Draft Letter to the Societies (dated October 1, 2004), you state under #1:
In the matters before us, we are NOT [your emphasis] contemplating anything of a JUDICIAL [your emphasis--though written in italics in the original letter] character. Consistent with the Word of God and RPNA subordinate standards relevant to the subject of Society management, ends contemplated are strictly of a NON-JUDICIAL [your emphases--though written in italics in the original letter] quality. We abhor rebellions.

In your opinion, what are matters of a judicial and non-judicial character? When do matters move from being non-judicial to judicial in character?

2. On page 4 of your Draft Letter to the Societies (dated October 1, 2004), you state:
By way of example, to the person, we in Prince George, BC, confess it was only this last July we understood our Elders had extraordinarily constituted as a Session! Other than informal appraisals re: a possible Albany Session, our last communication on the matter was a broadcast email from our three Elders (June 14, 2003), noting they were NOT [your emphasis--though written in italics in the original letter] a Session.

In your opinion, did we say in our letter (dated June 14, 2003) that we were "NOT a Session"? What does it mean for us to say in our letter of June 14, 2003 that we are not a regularly organized Session"? Does the historical example cited from the Second Book of Discipline [7:10] in our letter of June 14, 2003 ( but we think three or four, more or fewer, particular kirks may have one eldership common to them all, to judge their ecclesiastical causes ) indicate that such Sessions were not regularly organized Sessions, but were extraordinary Sessions? How does the historical example cited from the Second Book of Discipline (where one Session was formed from Elders of several congregations) differ in substance from our own circumstance? In your opinion, is it a fair reading of our letter of June 14, 2003 to say that we were declaring we were NOT a Session (in any sense), or were we declaring we were not a regularly organized Session with all of the Teaching Elders and Ruling Elders coming from one Session?

Additionally, we would ask why you have represented us (the Session) as saying that we are "NOT a Session", when we verbally explained to you (when we were in Prince George) what we meant in that general letter to all of the Societies (June 14, 2003)--namely that we are, in fact, an "extraordinary Session". In short, after we have explained to you what we meant in our letter, why do you represent and interpret our words as meaning something completely different than our stated explanation and intention? We do not wish to presume your reasons for doing this, so we are simply asking for an explanation.

3. In your opinion, how should differences with the Session (as now constituted) concerning their rulings and decisions be handled by Societies and General Meetings?

4. In your opinion, is it optional or mandatory for a particular Society to meet at the General Meeting level?

5. In your opinion, how much should the demands of each one s family, work, etc. be taken into account in considering matters related to participation in a General Meeting?

6. In your opinion, how much work do you envision being required of those at the Society level in order to participate in a General Meeting?

7. In your opinion, what role will women play in the Societies and General Meetings as it relates to decisions and voting since no decision has yet been rendered by the Session on this issue?

8. In your opinion, who can participate in a General Meeting within the RPNA? Can members in good standing (within the RPNA) be prevented from participation in a General Meeting? If so, for what reasons?

Thank you for taking the time to answer these questions that were raised in our minds. We may yet have some follow-up questions that we would like to ask after we receive your response to our questions.

The Lord be with you all,

Greg Barrow
Lyndon Dohms
Greg L. Price

9/24/04, PG Society to Elders re. Draft to Societies at Large

[See also:10/7/04, Questions From The "Session" to the Society of Prince George both of which were released by the Prince George Society on 10/23/06.]

From: RPNA Society of PG
Sent: September 24, 2004, 11:30 PM
To: Greg Barrow ; Greg Price ; Lyndon Dohms
Cc: [PGS Members]
Subject: PG Society ELDER CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT
Attachments: PG Society CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT .pdf

Dear Pastor Price, Elder Barrow and Elder Dohms,

As discussed and agreed the early morning of July 2, 2004 (Mark C, Mike G and Rod S with Pastor Price and Elder Barrow), we are pleased to provide you with an advance copy of our Societal communication draft, with our full distribution scheduled for next Friday, Oct. 1, 2004.

Read receipt and attachment format
We understand 'read receipt' confirmations can be hit and miss, so in the event the request is missed or you think it might not be processed by your system, we ask you to please reply immediately by email, to indicate to us your successful receipt and approximate time of reception. Thank you in advance for your accommodating our request on this.

Our chosen format for the communication is the Adobe Acrobat portable document format (pdf), which you will likely recognize as being in wide use for critical document exchange applications, with free distribution of Adobe Acrobat Reader to support it.


Progress Report
In the interest of being transparent before you, we report our relevant activity since that July weekend below:
1. Our receipt & review of the DeChamplain email thread of 2000 with the RPNA, PRCE Session, Pastor Price etc.;
2. Modifications made reflecting your constitution as a Session;
3. How we have continued the confidential nature of these preliminary proceedings.


Received and reviewed - DeChamplain email thread with RPNA, PRCE Session, & Pastor Price etc.
That July weekend, Pastor Price suggested to some of us that we might find a record of communication with Art DeChamplain helpful, as it largely referenced the SDFRS [Short Directory for Religious Societies]. Three weeks ago today, Sept. 3, 2004, Mike G confirmed to Pastor Price by email, that Mike was as of that day in receipt of a readable copy; Mike forwarded that confirmation to all our members Sept. 5, by email and verbal notification.

In the three weeks since, all interested parties have had opportunity to review the thread and we have discussed it as a Society. It was noted the thread seemed quite complete, though we could not afford it our fullest consideration, in that it lacked the attachments referred to in the thread; we are not submitting a request for those PRCE or RPNA records.

Also noted, was that this correspondence at least, does not support our understanding that the PRCE's July 1999 . . . . .
_________________________________________________________________

[Confidential Draft follows, with mention underlined that according to the letter of 6/14/03, they did not understand that the "Session of the RPNA(GM) had been constituted.]

Date: October 1, 2004
From: Society of Prince George (RPNA)
To: RPNA Elders Greg Price, minister; Greg Barrow & Lyndon Dohms, ruling elders
RPNA Societies Edmonton, AB; Anaheim, CA; Forsyth, GA;
Albany, NY; Clemson, SC; Everson, WA
Subject: Improving communication and Society-management


Dear Friends and Brethren in the Lord,
This last June, 2004, is of great significance to our Society, as it marks our having gathered as a PRCE
outreach work for 10 years. Five years later (1999) we would understand ourselves to be a constituted
RPNA Society. With you, our God has preserved us through many trials this last decade, including the
more recent dissolving of Presbytery last June, 2003. That God has preserved us all and indeed, caused us to grow in the faith, certainly contributed to our joy in fellowship with many of you this last July, as we observed and celebrated Jordan and Doralynne Ds’ marriage before the Lord, and all of us. . . . .

October 1, 2004 Improving communication & Society-management (Prince George Society) Page 4 of 9
Where there is no vision, the people perish: but he that keepeth the law, happy is he.
Proverbs 29:18
What do we hope to see happen?

Historically, people of our confession have affirmed the duty of exercising private judgment (Acts 17:10, 11) within scriptural constraints (Ps. 58:1; Prov. 31:9; John 7:24). As a subordinate standard contemplated in our Terms of Communion, we encourage you to ‘contemplate’ it; in the nature of the matter, we encourage your participation as a Society. With due reflection, we ask you to consider:

1. Our present opportunities for refining the practical management of our Societies, and

2. How we can, in the course of greater self-management (of a non-judicial quality), appropriately
minimize burdens upon the Minister and two Ruling Elders given us by the Lord Jesus Christ.

We thank God for our Elders who profess their readiness to serve the flock, to do that which is expedient for the edification of the body and to do all that they can to bring the church into a more ordinary and settled state, reaffirmed by them as recently as their broadcast email communication of June 14, 2003. Naturally, we are also obligated to support them, in all ways appropriate to our stations and callings.

Today’s need for non-judicial, biblically-based organizational self-management is, we think, blatant. It was July, 2001, when the RPNA had to necessarily implement, as operating policy, that Elders would not initiate pastoral phone calls to the scattered flock, due to pressing constraints. Our hope? We envision a mechanism by which our Elders can realize some time efficiencies in their efforts and effect improved, broad-based communication that is not reduced to rumor and hearsay.

By way of example, to the person, we in Prince George, BC, confess it was only this last July we
understood our Elders had extraordinarily constituted as a Session! Other than informal appraisals re: a ‘possible’ Albany Session, our last communication on the matter was a broadcast email from our three Elders (June 14, 2003), noting they were not a Session. Whether due to weakness or deficiency on any part, we sorrow at missing the opportunity to rejoice with all the Saints, at such an auspicious occasion.

We think this example demonstrates real opportunity for improved communication process.
The RP (1772, 1881), like us relatively destitute of pastors, afforded all those under their inspection with structured mechanisms for communication and management, noting the need is seen even by the ungodly:

“Has it not even been reckoned a wise method, and found necessary and useful for people of the same civil profession, engaged in the same way of worldly trade or business, to form themselves into societies for consulting and advising together what may be for their joint and mutual benefit and advantage and shall not Christians who are partakers of the same heavenly calling, trade and business, joined together by such intimate relations, and whose interests, temptations and difficulties are so much the same, join thus together in social meetings, in order to instruct, advise, comfort and encourage one another, as to these things that are of infinite moment and importance?” (SDFRS [Short Directory for Religious Societies], Section I, last paragraph; emphasis added)

We again beseech you to take up an examination of this precedential, faithful and authorized example, the SDFRS, and consider how we might increase the quality of our union. We desire to be in correspondence with you; we desire to know your mind, to be sanctified together in intimate fellowship.

We want to grow, together.

9/17/03, Elders Dohms on behalf of RPNA(GM) and Society Funds

From: Lyndon Dohms
Sent: September 17, 2003 9:20 PM
To: [List]
Subject: Society Funds

Dear Brothers and Sisters
under the oversight of the RPNA (General Meeting),

One of the true blessings I have, is to watch the secret work of the Lord translate into visible acts of service and sacrifice among his people. There are some among us who have been blessed with prosperity, and who faithfully use it to supply much of the needs of the church. There are others who have little more than food, shelter, and transport, yet they also sacrificially give, like the poor widow that Jesus commended in Mk. 12:42.

This letter is to encourage you not to be weary in this good work, no matter how small a part you may think you have. This is also sent to advise you of how we plan to make best use of your offerings.

We had originally hoped, and still do, that someday there will be local pastors for each of our society gatherings. With that in mind, we tried to keep separate records of the donations from each society, as individual funds, to be available for the call of their pastor and other local expenses.

However, we have found that this approach does not leave enough 'free' cash flow to take care of our current expenses and salaries for Pastor Greg Price and Elder Greg Barrow, who now minister to members from all the societies. For your information, then, we plan to draw proportionately from each of the "societies" funds to meet these needs.

If you have any questions related to this, please feel free to contact me.

Elder Lyndon Dohms

on behalf of the
RPNA (General Meeting)

2 Cor. 9:6 But this I say, He which soweth sparingly shall reap also sparingly; and he which soweth bountifully shall reap also bountifully.
7 Every man according as he purposeth in his heart, so let him give; not grudgingly, or of necessity: for God loveth a cheerful giver.
8 And God is able to make all grace abound toward you; that ye, always having all sufficiency in all things, may abound to every good work:

7/12/03, Announcement of RPNA(GM) Day of Prayer and Fasting

From: Greg Barrow
Sent: July 12, 2003' :46 PM
To: [List]
Subject: RPNA (General Meeting) Fasting Announcement

"And I set my face unto the Lord God, to seek by prayer and supplications, with fasting" (Daniel 9:3).

Dear Brothers and Sisters under the oversight of the RPNA (General Meeting),

Considering the aggravated trials and difficulties we have together experienced over the past few months, with the defection of David Hart from his testimony of our Covenanted cause, and with Derek Edwards informing the church of his unfaithful position regarding birth control, which resulted in the subsequent dissolution of the Presbytery;

Considering also that we have a Scriptural duty before God to recognize our own sinfulness and weakness in these matters, and that we must sincerely humble ourselves before God's throne both individually and as a body;

Considering furthermore that we ought to earnestly supplicate our Lord to restore and preserve among us and our posterity the great benefit and blessing of an ordinarily established Presbytery;

It is both our desire and duty to publicly "require" those under our oversight (on Saturday, July 26th, 2003, from midnight to midnight), to humble themselves with us by means of biblical fasting and fervent prayer, abstaining from our earthly food and calling upon our God for grace and mercy, in order that we might glorify His name, follow His commandments, and imitate the Scriptural example of the faithful who have gone before us in this important duty ( 2 Chron. 20:3, Esther 4:16, Ezra 8:21, 2 Cor. 6:5; 11:27).

For your instruction in this duty, we bring to your attention the following citation from our subordinate standard entitled, "The Directory for the Public Worship of God," for each of you to review both individually and with your respective family members.

Concerning Publick Solemn Fasting.

When some great and notable judgments are either inflicted upon a people, or apparently imminent, or by some extraordinary provocations notoriously deserved; as also when some special blessing is to be sought and obtained, publick solemn fasting (which is to continue the whole day) is a duty that God expecteth from that nation or people.

A religious fast requires total abstinence, not only from all food, (unless bodily weakness do manifestly disable from holding out till the fast be ended, in which case somewhat may be taken, yet very sparingly, to support nature, when ready to faint,) but also from all worldly labour, discourses, and thoughts, and from all bodily delights, and such like, (although at other times lawful,) rich apparel, ornaments, and such like, during the fast; and much more from whatever is in the nature or use scandalous and offensive, as gaudish attire, lascivious habits and gestures, and other vanities of either sex; which we recommend to all ministers, in their places, diligently and zealously to reprove, as at other times, so especially at a fast, without respect of persons, as there shall be occasion.

Before the publick meeting, each family and person apart are privately to use all religious care to prepare their hearts to such a solemn work, and to be early at the congregation.

So large a portion of the day as conveniently may be, is to be spent in publick reading and preaching of the word, with singing of psalms, fit to quicken affections suitable to such a duty: but especially in prayer, to this or the like effect:

"Giving glory to the great Majesty of God, the Creator, Preserver, and supreme Ruler of all the world, the better to affect us thereby with an holy reverence and awe of him; acknowledging his manifold, great, and tender mercies, especially to the church and nation, the more effectually to soften and abase our hearts before him; humbly confessing of sins of all sorts, with their several aggravations; justifying God's righteous judgments, as being far less than our sins do deserve; yet humbly and earnestly imploring his mercy and grace for ourselves, the church and nation, for our king, and all in authority, and for all others for whom we are bound to pray, (according as the present exigent requireth,) with more special importunity and enlargement than at other times; applying by faith the promises and goodness of God for pardon, help, and deliverance from the evils felt, feared, or deserved; and for obtaining the blessings which we need and expect; together with a giving up of ourselves wholly and for ever unto the Lord."

In all these, the ministers, who are the mouths of the people unto God, ought so to speak from their hearts, upon serious and thorough premeditation of them, that both themselves and their people may be much affected, and even melted thereby, especially with sorrow for their sins; that it may be indeed a day of deep humiliation and afflicting of the soul.

Special choice is to be made of such scriptures to be read, and of such tests for preaching, as may best work the hearts of the hearers to the special business of the day, and most dispose them to humiliation and repentance: insisting most on those particulars which each minister's observation and experience tells him are most conducing to the edification and reformation of that congregation to which he preacheth.

Before the close of the publick duties, the minister is, in his own and the people's name, to engage his and their hearts to be the Lord's, with professed purpose and resolution to reform whatever is amiss among them, and more particularly such sins as they have been more remarkably guilty of; and to draw near unto God, and to walk more closely and faithfully with him in new obedience, than ever before.

He is also to admonish the people, with all importunity, that the work of that day doth not end with the publick duties of it, but that they are so to improve the remainder of the day, and of their whole life, in reinforcing upon themselves and their families in private all those godly affections and resolutions which they professed in publick, as that they may be settled in their hearts for ever, and themselves may more sensibly find that God hath smelt a sweet savour in Christ from their performances, and is pacified towards them, by answers of grace, in pardoning of sin, in removing of judgments, in averting or preventing of plagues, and in conferring of blessings, suitable to the conditions and prayers of his people, by Jesus Christ.

Besides solemn and general fasts enjoined by authority, we judge that, at other times, congregations may keep days of fasting, as divine providence shall administer unto them special occasion; and also that families may do the same, so it be not on days wherein the congregation to which they do belong is to meet for fasting, or other publick duties of worship.

Additionally, below is a citation from Samuel Miller's book entitled, "The Duty, The Benefits, and the Proper Methods of Religious Fasting," which we encourage each of you to review personally and with your families prior to the day of our public fast.

"In delineating the method in which a religious fast ought to be kept, let it be observed:

1. First of all, that it will be outwardly kept in vain, unless the heart is sincerely engaged in the service.

Let pagans, Mohammedans, and nominal Christians flatter themselves, as you have heard, with the dream that the mere physical observance of abstinence, independent of the state of the soul, will recommend them to God. But let us remember that the character and exercises of the inner man are everything here.

Yes, my friends, in fasting, as well as praying, the engagement of the heart is the great and essential matter. There is no piety in merely abstaining from food aside from the spirit and purpose with which it is done. It is in this case as in the observance of the sabbath. A man may shut himself up from all the world on that day; or he may spend the whole of it in the house of God; and yet, if his heart is all the time going after the world, he does not sanctify the sabbath at all in the most important sense of the term. So it is with the case before us. We may keep multitudes of fast-days -- with all the external exactness of popish, or even Mohammedan vigor -- and yet be nothing the better for them; nay, instead of receiving benefit, may contract guilt by them all. A holy God might, and doubtless would, still say to us, as he did in substance to his professing people of old, "Is this such a fast as I have chosen?" (cf. Isa. 58:5). "Have ye fasted to me, even to me, saith the Lord?" (cf. Zech. 7:5). "This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me" (Matt. 15:8). "Their appointed fasts are an abomination unto me; I am weary to bear them" (cf. Isa. 1:13-14).

The primary consideration, then, in keeping a religious fast, is that the whole soul be truly engaged in the work; that while we use the outward symbol of humiliation, and penitence, we labor to have our minds deeply occupied and affected with the humbling realities which we express with our lips. A heartless and hypocritical prayer, in any circumstances, is a virtual insult to him to whom it is addressed; but a HEARTLESS AND HYPOCRITICAL FAST seems to be a DOUBLE INSULT, because offered under the guise of double solemnity and humility. In searching, therefore, for the characteristics of an "acceptable fast," we must begin here. The more deeply, feelingly, and constantly the heart is engaged in the service, the more pleasing to God, and the more profitable to ourselves will it ever be found.

2. While the state of the heart is everything here, a real abstinence from aliment [food--RPNA] is also essential to the proper and acceptable performance of this duty.

Such a remark as this may appear to many unnecessary; and I should certainly deem it, were there not some serious persons who adopt, and endeavor to inculcate, the strange notion that nothing more is implied in the duty in question than "fasting," as they express it, "in spirit:" meaning, by the phrase, mere moral abstinence, or "abstinence from sin." Hence, those who adopt this opinion suppose that a regular and acceptable gospel fast may be kept, while the animal appetite is fully indulged as usual, provided there be an effort made, for a season, greater than usual, to shut out evil and to maintain a spiritual and devout frame. In this sense they interpret that solemn passage in the fifty-eighth chapter of the prophecy of Isaiah, "Is not this the fast that I have chosen? to loose the bands of wickedness," etc. (Isa. 58:6)? In this pointed appeal it is manifest we are to understand Jehovah not as saying that "loosing the bands of wickedness" includes everything that belongs to a religious fast; but that the true penitence and moral reformation form, as we have before intimated, its best accompaniment and its most essential fruits.

I am constrained, then, to consider this notion which I am opposing as a mere evasion, and not a very plausible one, of a plain Christian duty. It is nothing less than egregious trifling with the heart-searching God, and cheating ourselves by a miserable subterfuge. We might just as well talk of giving alms "in spirit," or paying our debts "in spirit."

No, my friends, real abstinence from food is, no doubt, intended in all the examples and precepts which are given us on this subject in the word of God. And we "rob him" (Mal. 3:8), and "wrong our own souls" (Prov. 8:36), when we shrink from the literal self-denial implied in the abstinence in question. In fact, those who decline submitting to the literal privation of food of which we speak not only contravene both the letter and spirit of scripture (when describing an acceptable fast), but they entirely give up some of the most important benefits to which, as we have seen, this privation is naturally subservient.

3. It is important to the proper observance of a religious fast that we retire, during its continuance, as much as possible from the world, shut out its illusions, and endeavor to break its hold of our hearts.

One grand object of observing such days at all is that we may occasionally come to a solemn pause; that we may break the spell which is so apt to bind us down to the grovelling pursuits of time and sense; and take an honest retrospect of our infirmities, failures, and sins. It is of the utmost importance, therefore, that in solemnities which have such an object, we should sacredly withdraw, for a time, from all worldly cares and allurements, that we should put a firm negative upon every appetite and passion which might tend to drag us down to the dust of the earth; and try to get away from the snares and entanglements of this passing scene. With the utmost propriety, then, when a public fast is proclaimed, it is commonly recommended that all servile labor and recreation be laid aside. This is no less important to the spiritual observance of the day than as a testimony of outward respect. And quite as indispensable is it, when an individual or family resolve to fast in private, that every occupation be as far as possible suspended, which may even remotely tend to draw off the mind from an entire and unreserved devotion to the appropriate exercises of the day.

4. Days of religious fasting are to be devoted to a deep and heartfelt recollection of our sins and unfeigned repentance for them.

It is true, indeed, that in all seasons of special as well as ordinary prayer, our mercies as well as our sins ought to be recollected and acknowledged. And, therefore, in celebrating a religious fast, thanksgiving is by no means inappropriate or to be forgotten. It is a matter of thankfulness to a sinner, in any situation, that he is out of hell; and, surely, the sinner who is truly penitent can never see greater reason for gratitude than when he is deeply pondering before God the number and aggravation of his sins; and remembers that to such a rebel, life and glory are offered.
Still, it is evident that the primary object of a religious fast is evangelical humiliation. To attempt to keep such a fast, then, without entering deeply into the consideration of our sins, and mourning over them, is really to place out of sight the most prominent object of the observance. This is peculiarly "a day for a man to afflict his soul" (Isa. 58:5) for all the pollutions of his nature, for all the evil he has done, and for all the abominations which are committed around him. This is a season in which it is incumbent upon us, if ever, to call to mind with cordial penitence our personal sins, our family sins, the sins of the church, and of the nation; to labor, if I may so speak, with concentrated effort, to take strong, profound, and abasing views of our heinousness in the sight of God; to meditate upon them again and again, until the heart is in some measure broken and contrite; to repent, as in dust and ashes; and to apply anew to that atoning blood, by which alone our guilt can be washed away, and to that "Holy Spirit of promise" (Eph. 1:13), who alone can destroy the reign of corruption and "heal all our backslidings" (cf. Jer. 3:22). Such exercises, though humiliating, "do good as doth a medicine" (cf. Prov. 17:22). "Blessed are they who thus mourn, for they shall be comforted" (cf. Matt. 5:4).

5. As days of religious fasting ought ever to be marked by a special recognition and a deep sense of our sins, so this recognition, if it is of the right stamp, will ever be followed by genuine reformation.

That confession which is not succeeded by amendment is worse than vain. It is manifestly heartless, and, of course, adding sin to sin. Where the heart is really broken and contrite on account of transgression, that transgression will be sincerely loathed and forsaken. If, therefore, a season of humiliation and fasting leaves us as much in love with sin, and as hardened in habits of iniquity as it found us, there is abundant evidence not merely that we have failed of being profited, but that we have contracted guilt by the observance. Hence we find a holy God expressing his righteous displeasure, and denouncing his severest judgments against his professing people of old, because, while they wearied him with their fastings and prayers, they remained as obdurate and disobedient as ever. To such he declares, "When they fast, I will not hear their cry; and when they offer burnt offering and an oblation, I will not accept them: but I will consume them by the sword, and by the famine, and by the pestilence" (Jer. 14:12).

6. In keeping a religious fast, everything like ostentation, or self-righteousness, should be put far from us.

The Jewish hypocrites, in the days of our Lord's ministry, displayed much of this unseemly spirit. As they loved to "pray standing at the corners of the streets, that they might be seen of men (cf. Matt. 6:5);" so even in their private fasts (for to these the Saviour seems to have had a particular reference in reproving them), they put on "a sad countenance, and disfigured their faces, that they might appear to men to fast" (cf. Matt. 6:16). And when the Pharisee went up to the temple to pray, it was one of the grounds of his boasting, and his confidence toward God, that he "fasted twice in a week" (cf. Luke 18:12). In both these cases, our Lord denounces the spirit which they manifested as diametrically opposed to all true religion, and warns his disciples against it.

And, truly, if there is any exercise in the Christian's life from which a spirit of ostentatious display and of proud self dependence ought to be shut out with abhorrence, it is when he is prostrate before the throne of mercy, professing to mourn over his sins, and to acknowledge his ill-desert in the sight of God. Then, surely, if ever, the most unfeigned abasement of soul, the most cordial self-renunciation, the most heart-felt application to and reliance upon the righteousness of the divine Surety, as the only ground of hope, ought not only to be expressed in every word that is uttered by the lips, but to reign in every feeling, affection, and hope of the inmost soul. The only language ever becoming the redeemed sinner, and especially in such a season as this, is "God be merciful to me a sinner!" (Luke 18:13). "God forbid that I should glory, save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom the world is crucified unto me, and I unto the world" (Gal. 6:14).

7. Once more: Christian fasting ought ever to be accompanied with more or less of sympathy and benevolence to the destitute.

This point has already been alluded to, but a distinct notice of it in this connection is indispensable. The word of God lays much stress upon it as a concomitant and evidence of acceptable fasting. "Is not this the fast that I have chosen," says Jehovah by the prophet, "that thou deal thy bread to the hungry; that thou bring the poor that are cast out to thy house? when thou seest the naked, that thou cover him; and that thou hide not thyself from thine own flesh?" (Isa. 58:6-7). What occasion so appropriate to sympathize with those who are hungry from necessity, as when we submit to the privation from choice, and as an aid to prayer, in approaching him who is the common Benefactor of the rich and the poor?

With many people, it is almost as much a matter of mortification and self-denial -- that is, it requires almost as much, and, in some cases, even more of painful effort -- to give a trifle to the poor, as it does to abstain, when hungry, from a favorite meal. It appears peculiarly proper, then, for all professing Christians, and especially those who feel this backwardness to an important duty, always to make their seasons of special prayer occasions of liberality, in some form, to the indigent. Surely there are few things more reasonable and becoming than that, while we are engaged in mourning over our sins, and confessing our unworthiness of the least of all our comforts, we should practically show mercy to others, as our heavenly Father has done to us. Then is the time to devise plans of mercy and benevolence; to cherish forgiveness of injuries; to make restitution to those whom we may have injured; to feed the hungry, and clothe the naked, and cause "the widow's heart to sing for joy" (Job 29:13). Above all, such solemnity is an appropriate season for devising the best of all charity to the benighted, perishing heathen: FOR OPENING THE HEART IN PRAYER AND CONTRIBUTIONS, THAT THE PRECIOUS BIBLE AND THE LIVING TEACHER MAY BE SENT TO THE MILLIONS WHO HAVE NEVER HEARD THAT "FAITHFUL SAYING, AND WORTHY OF ALL ACCEPTATION, THAT CHRIST JESUS CAME INTO THE WORLD TO SAVE SINNERS" (1 Tim. 1:15)."

May the Lord humble us and bless us as we together obey His commandments and offer ourselves in prayer before His throne.

For the Cause of Christ,

Greg Price

Greg Barrow

Lyndon Dohms

6/14/03, Elders' Remarks after the Dissolution of the Reformed Presbytery of NA,

(See also the Letter of 10/31/06 Re. An Implicit Extraordinary Session? and the 6/14/03 Letter on Dissolution of Presbytery)

From: Greg Barrow
To: [List]
Sent: Saturday, June 14, 2003 5:17 PM
Subject: Letter from Greg Price, Greg Barrow, and Lyndon Dohms

Dear Brothers and Sisters in Christ,

When differences in doctrine and practice arise between brethren, and especially when they arise between Presbyters, it is the duty of all to deal with these differences with true biblical love and God honoring actions. True love to God and faithfulness to His cause demands, at times, that we express our love by sharp rebukes, and clear testimony of truth. The purpose of such is not to harm or to take vengeance upon another brother, but rather to reclaim him from the error of his way and to preserve the pure testimony of the church from a dangerous error or a promoter of error, in order that we might all walk with a clear conscience before God and transmit a faithful testimony safely to our posterity.

Accordingly, we share the sentiments of our faithful forefathers when they say:

To speak thus publicly against those who may be the precious sons of Zion, is a painful duty. That charity, however, which rejoiceth in the truth, requires of Christ's witnesses that they censure and rebuke, in a way competent to them, those of the household of faith whom they see and know to be in a course of error or of sin; Is. 58:l; Tit. 1:13 (Act Declaration and Testimony, Supplement to Part 3, Section IV).

Sadly it is now our solemn duty to testify against the error of Derek Edwards who has openly maintained an error in both doctrine and practice regarding the use of contraception.

The letter announcing the lamentable separation of Derek Edwards from the remaining three Elders was approved by each of us. Thus, by his own approval, Derek Edwards, has in this letter, summarized the position he holds--openly maintaining (by his evident disagreement with us) that his position is correct and our position is sinful.

1. We conversely are duty bound to solemnly testify that Derek Edwards' position, as stated in that letter, is contrary to Scripture, and that because of his stated error in doctrine and practice, he ought "not" to be countenanced or received by the Societies as a faithful Minister of Jesus Christ until such time as he repents and is restored to communion with us.

2. Derek Edwards would likewise maintain that we are unfaithful Ministers or Elders because we have adopted a doctrine and practice that he believes is contrary to Scripture. If disagreement over this specific doctrine and practice was serious enough to dissolve the Presbytery, it must be serious enough to view one another as unfaithful Ministers and Elders as it relates to that issue.

In the coming days and weeks, it is our intention to provide those under our oversight with a written defense of the birth control position which we have publicly maintained for as long as we have been united together as Covenanters, along with a written refutation of Derek Edwards errors in this matter. This, of course, will take some time to prepare, and we pray that patience will be exercised by all so as to promote the truth and encourage us in this duty [italics added].

The main purpose of this communication, other than that of making a testimony against the position and ministry of Derek Edwards, is to answer a question which has been asked by some in the various Societies -- Has the dissolution of the Presbytery fundamentally changed the membership status of those persons who were under its oversight?

In short, we maintain that the dissolution of Presbytery does not change the agreement that each of the members made at the time they became members. Our unity is in the truth of Scripture, and it is in our stated doctrine and practice as summarized in our six terms of communion.

Changing the "form" of organization from a Presbytery back into a state in which one teaching elder and two ruling Elders have the general oversight over the Societies does not alter our membership commitments or change the status of those who have already passed our communion examinations. Those who were formerly members we still consider to be members and those who were allowed to come to the communion table can still do so.

We do not believe that the error of one man (which consequently led to the dissolution of Presbytery) make null and void all of our membership agreements, and our mutually expressed unity in the truth with their mutual duties. If we maintain that one Pastor's defection from the truth can void other real agreements, then our whole visible unity is based "not" upon the truth, but hangs merely upon unknown future circumstances or the alteration of one Elder's beliefs, which may variously alter our outward form of government.

We maintain that even if "all" the Pastors and Elders were suddenly killed, disorganizing the Societies one degree further, yet the union of the Societies (which is based upon our six terms of communion) would remain intact and our covenanted testimony would remain the same. In such an event, it would be incumbent upon those remaining alive to maintain the same unity under the same terms of communion. Ministers and Elders and their associated government are given by God for the well being of the church and even their total removal does not mean that all of a sudden the covenanted remnant are without principles or visible unity in the truth.

A short history of the formation of our Societies will illustrate this fact.

Subsequent, to agreeing upon our six terms of communion, Pastor Greg Price, Elder Greg Barrow, and Elder Lyndon Dohms, formed the Session of the Church in Edmonton and in that context and under those terms of communion many members voluntarily joined with us in order to promote the cause of Christ and uphold our mutual covenanted testimony. The agreement with these Elders was real and substantial and cannot be voided except by the formal separation of each member.

During the next few years we conducted interviews for both membership and admission to communion, and it was our joy to receive most of those who now make up our present membership in that context. During these years, as birth control cases came before us, we were unanimously agreed that we held to a position which allowed of no exceptions to the rule--no cases that were presented to us warranted the use of contraception. Although we did maintain that we were always open to examining hard cases, it was openly and forthrightly maintained by the Elders that we presently knew of no exception where the use of contraception was lawful.

Our actual practice was consistent with our position. Consequently, at least three families (and probably more) either did not join the church or else they left the church because of the position we maintained and practiced on the use of birth control.

Thus, even though our present circumstance demands that we, in writing, become much more explicit regarding our position, [italics added] it is undeniable that our position and practice clearly demonstrated our belief regarding the use of contraception. It is undeniable that at all times prior to the formation of the Presbytery we maintained the same position and practice regarding the use of contraception that we now maintain.

When the Presbytery was formed we continued to bring people into membership under the same six terms of communion. We also continued to maintain our same position on birth control and mentioned this in numerous, if not most, membership and communicant interviews. Whether Derek Edwards was aware of this or not, we do not know, as he was very rarely practically involved in the actual process of interviewing. Nevertheless, it is a fact that our birth control position was openly mentioned and defended in these interviews, and we received no objection from Derek Edwards regarding the doctrine and practice we presented as the position of the church. Consequently, we do not believe that the defection of one man (Derek Edwards) necessarily makes each of these membership agreements null and void. Our position was both stated and maintained exactly as it was prior to the formation of Presbytery.

Now, we are providentially placed into a situation where we do not have an organized Presbytery, and we do not "yet" have an organized Session--although we still have the same three Elders who originally brought people into membership from Edmonton, who formed the majority of the Presbytery, and who continue to maintain their original contraception position and practice.

What then can we do without a regularly organized Session?

In such extraordinary situations we must consider carefully what must be done to organize and edify the covenanted remnant in consistency with Scripture and in accordance with the testimony of our covenanted ancestors who sadly found themselves in similar circumstances.

Here we would note that we must carefully distinguish between our intention, (e.g. what "ought" to be done in an ordinary and more settled state of the church), and our ability to perform (e.g. what "can possibly" be done in an extraordinary, and less settled state of the church). Where it is possible to do things in an ordinary manner, that is what we intend to do, and where it is not possible, we intend to do all that we can to bring the church into that state in the future (endeavoring at all times to keep as close as possible to the rule).

Because of the irregular state of the church at the outset of the Reformation, the Scottish Church was likewise forced by circumstance to operate, for a time, in an extraordinary manner. Sometimes adjacent congregations were ruled by a joint session, composed of elders from a plurality of congregations.

In that regard, the Second Book of Discipline, Chapter 7, Section 10, states:

"The first kind and sort of assemblies [the local Eldership--GB] , although they are within particular congregations, yet they exercise the power, authority, and jurisdiction of the kirk with mutual consent, and therefore bear sometimes the name of the kirk. When we speak of the elders of the particular congregations, we mean not that every particular parish can, or may, have their own particular elderships, especially to landward; but we think three or four, more or fewer, particular kirks may have one eldership common to them all, to judge their ecclesiastical causes. Albeit this is meet, that some of the elders be chosen out of every particular congregation, to concur with the rest of their brethren in the common assembly, and to take up the delations of offences within their own kirks, and bring them to the assembly. This we gather from the practice of the primitive kirk, where elders, or colleges of seniors, were constituted in cities and famous places."

Likewise we must now do that which is expedient for the edification of the body, until such time as the Lord grants that we can return to a more settled and ordinary method of governing the church.

We would also affirm that according to Scripture and in agreement with clear historical testimony, we have both the right and the duty (even without a regularly organized Session) to celebrate the sacrament of the Lord's Supper and to administer baptism among our present Societies for the simple reason that Pastor Price as a minister of the Visible Church-- may and ought to perform all of his duties as a Pastor.

As we look to the past for guidance, we see that James Renwick and Donald Cargill celebrated the Lord's Supper with the scattered remnant-- even in a state wherein there were no formal Sessions.

For these faithful ministers of the past to preach and celebrate communion in that extraordinary and disorganized context implies that they clearly understood they had the Scriptural authority from God to proceed in this manner-- the right as Pastors of Christ's Visible Church to admit or refuse people from coming to the communion table.

To admit or demit persons from the communion table, they, like us, used the six terms of communion, and all who refused to own the same terms in doctrine or practice would be barred from celebrating the Lord's Supper.

From this example we may extract these necessary conclusions.

1. Without a regularly organized Session they:
a. Interviewed people to ascertain whether there was positive agreement in their six terms of communion and whether there was negative agreement on all known points of doctrine and practice.

b. Exercised ecclesiastical discipline (at least up to the lesser excommunication) since they, as the Ministers of Christ, had the right and duty to refuse and bar people from the Lord's Supper, who for reasons of either ignorance or scandal did not qualify to participate.

Even though the flock was scattered into a relatively disorganized stated, they adopted the wise measure of meeting in organized Societies into which formal membership was granted by agreement to the six terms of communion.

Where and when Elders were present they assisted in all ways appropriate to their office, and together, under these disorganized circumstances, the Pastors and Elders did all that they could to promote godliness, declare and defend the truth, maintain discipline, and promote the faithful worship of God.

This is what we believe we also must do in these current circumstances. It is our desire and our joy to continue to serve you in this capacity as called Elders of the flock of Jesus Christ. May the Lord continue to grant His merciful grace in the midst of the tribulations of his little flock.

A little one shall become a thousand, and a small one a strong nation: I the LORD will hasten it in his time (Isaiah 60:22).

Sincerely,
Greg Price
Greg Barrow
Lyndon Dohms

6/8/03, Announcement of Dissolution of RPNA over Birth Control (Corrected)

From: Greg Barrow
Sent: June 8, 2003 12:32 PM
To: [List]
Subject: Correction to previous announcement of RPNA

It has come to my attention that there was a problem in the first email sent out [10:05 AM] and that one portion of a sentences line was excluded from the original announcement. Here is the corrected version. My apologies for any confusion this may have caused.
Your brother,
Greg Barrow

Dear Brothers and Sisters,

This is one of the most difficult letters we have ever had to write since the formation of the Reformed Presbytery In North America.

We have earnestly examined all of our known lawful options and alternatives, but have been unable to come to any other conclusion than the one we must herein sadly communicate to you.

This past Friday (June 6, 2003), each of the officers of the Presbytery sorrowfully concluded that the Reformed Presbytery In North America must be dissolved due to the recent discovery that fundamental differences exist among us over the issue of the use of contraception in difficult cases.

These issues were thoroughly discussed before the formation of the Reformed Presbytery In North America, and we all believed that we had reached an agreement at that time. However, last Wednesday, during a discussion regarding a real case placed before us, we learned that, within the Presbytery, there in
fact "still" existed two fundamentally different doctrinal positions regarding the use of contraception.

Greg Barrow, Lyndon Dohms, and Greg Price believe that only abstention is biblically permitted to preserve the life and health of a mother (whose health would be at risk in the event of a pregnancy) and that other means are prohibited by Scripture.

Derek Edwards believes that abstention is likely the least effective means of preserving the life and health of a mother in such a case and that the Scripture warrants the use of other means to preserve the life and health of a mother (such as condoms for men and diaphragms for women).

This is not the only case or point concerning this issue upon which Greg Price, Greg Barrow, and Lyndon Dohms significantly differ with Derek Edwards.

Additionally, a hypothetical case was discussed which supposed the following:

A married woman in a very weakened condition, who lived in a poor country gripped by famine, had numerous children. Some had already died of starvation and many people around her were also
dying of starvation. Hope of any relief was, for the sake of discussion, negligible, both for the woman, her living children, or any children to be yet conceived/born in the near future. In her mind it was nearly certain that any children she would bear in the near future would in fact suffer and quickly
die of hunger, and that her own health and life would be in extreme danger due to the added stress on her body during the pregnancy. One of the questions before us was this--in this circumstance, could this woman intentionally and actively use contraception to prevent other children from being born in
order to protect herself? Also the question was asked--Is it morally necessary that the woman use contraception in an extreme case?

Derek Edward's represents that he thinks it would be "sinful" for this woman to have more children in this particular circumstance. He represents that in this circumstance she should intentionally and actively prevent further children from being born, and that in this case, since she is married, it
would be both lawful and wise for her to use something other than abstinence to fulfill her sixth commandment duty to protect herself. The reason is, that over time, in the environment of the marital bedroom, it is more than unlikely that abstinence would be maintained. He also maintains that in
certain very extreme cases and circumstances, that it is not optional, but morally necessary for a woman to use contraception to prevent the life of further children.

Greg Price, Greg Barrow and Lyndon Dohms, represent that in this particular circumstance this woman can lawfully bear more children, and that it would be sinful for her to intentionally
and actively prevent further children from being born via methods of contraception. They can presently see no case in which they believe that it is morally necessary for a woman to
intentionally use contraception (although they remain open to examining hard cases), and thus they oppose the intentional use of contraception for the purpose of preventing life.

This past Friday, we, as a Presbytery, concluded, that we would not be able to with a clear conscience, maintain unity in our Presbytery without unity upon this important subject.

This issue affects the very counsel we give to others in very serious practical situations. The doctrine we promote and practice in this important area of Christian obedience directly exhibits our understanding of what does or does not constitute a violation the Sixth Commandment. If persons on either side of
this question believe that a fellow Presbyter is advocating a sinful and unbiblical position, practically, we find ourselves unable to with a clear conscience, support that ministry. If it were possible to consistently maintain our principles while holding these two diverse positions, we would do so, but it is
painfully evident to us all that we cannot do so with a clear conscience before God.

We realize (with much love for you all), the difficult position into which you are put (and this weighs heavily upon us). Presently, you must exercise the right of private judgment (in
your families and societies) in determining which of these positions is biblical and which elders you desire to financially support and minister to you.

We invite you to call us or email us in order to discuss these matters. You may also, in the future, expect to receive position papers from us which will seek to defend the respective positions taken. Where there is yet uncertainty over this issue in societies, there is no reason to make quick decisions. We exhort you to carefully consider and prayerfully weigh the evidence presented before coming to a decision in this matter.

Let us all be humbled before almighty God, understanding that for our well-being He has seen fit to take us through yet another trial of our faith. Where we have sinned, may we be quick to repent and seek the Lord's forgiveness.

May the Lord yet promote reformation in the truth so that we may see in the near future the Reformed Presbytery In North America formed and established anew in the truth of Jesus Christ.

Let us love one another and pray for one another.

With love for you all in the Lord Jesus Christ,

Greg Barrow
Lyndon Dohms
Derek Edwards
Greg Price

6/3/01, Further Remarks on Sanctimonious in the Cave with Asinine

June 3, 2001

Session PRCE
Edmonton, Alberta
Canada

Dear Esteemed Brethren,

Thank you for your reply of 4/4/01 to my previous on “Saul in the Cave . . .”.

My apologies also for the delay in replying. I have been very busy, as I am sure you have been also. While I trust I had a profitable conversation with Pastor Price when he visited, allow me in turn to clarify a few things on the matter as it still stands on the record, instead of speaking at large and in general as before.

Mr. Barrow opens the post which started everything off, by saying:

“I've recently written a book review of Kevin Reed's Canterbury Tales which dealt primarily with James Jordan and his heretical views concerning worship.” It is called "A Warning Against the False and Dangerous Views of James Jordan Concerning Worship." From the quotes that I have seen here and elsewhere, taken from Frame's new book, I would say that much of my warning against Jordan would apply equally well to Frame. This book review may be helpful and is posted on Still Waters Revival Books (SWRB) web page.”

Please. If this is not plagiarism, it is nothing more than the gratuitous preening of the feathers on one’s ink quill pen. (It almost reminds one of “rare” bound photocopies of books that are already in print.) The above should read, after we factor in the ninth commandment a little more generously:

I've recently read Kevin Reed's 32 page pamphlet The Canterbury Tales, An Extended Review and Commentary Based upon the Geneva Papers of James Jordan. It is a warning against his false and dangerous views on worship. From the quotes that I have seen here and elsewhere, taken from Frame's new book, I would say that much of Reed’s warning against Jordan, would apply equally well to Frame. Reed’s essay, which I have introduced with and/or appended some comments, may be helpful and is posted on Still Waters Revival Books (SWRB) web page. . .”

Yet Mr. Barrow continues:

“I have also asked an author that I know (who has already read Frame's entire book) to produce a review which will warn people of the subtle and dangerous views that Frame is publicly putting forth.“

The reasonable conclusion from this plus the previous regarding the “quotes that I have seen here and elsewhere,” is that Mr. Barrow has not read “Frame’s entire book,” much less even seen it. Does the CA article accuse him of anything more in substance? In other words, respectfully, what’s the beef?

Mr. Barrow then goes on to categorically state that:

“I think that Eire's War Against the Idols proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that Calvin would have excommunicated both Frame and Jordan without a second thought - given the idolatrous nature of their beliefs regarding public worship.”

Mr. Barrow is free of course, to think whatever he wants, but the error of Jordan and Frame is not the error Eire dwells on. His thrust is to establish Calvin’s concern for the centrality and spirituality of worship contra the gross Romish idolatry of the day and the subsequent iconoclasm of the Reformation, which has not received the notice and attention it is due. While it might lay the foundation for it, there is really no further development of thesis in Eire to include Calvin’s condemnation of the more subtle additions to the worship of God ala Anglicanism and Lutheranism (and Jordan and Frame) - “what is not commanded” - as distinct from again, the gross idol and image worship of Rome or “what is explicitly forbidden.”

Eire’s mention of Calvin’s concern that we are to worship “according to God’s commandments,” and his opposition to ceremonies is always in general. It never proceeds to the particular, pointed and negative fashion of the RPW contained in the Heidelberg and the Westminster Standards on the the further requirements of Second Commandment: “Whatsoever is not commanded is forbidden in the worship of God.” Again, Mr. Barrow is entitled to think whatever he wants, but his assumption that his statement is correct is a presumption on the truth. The temptation for any reasonably knowledgeable reformed individual who has read Eire, Reed, Jordan and Frame is to dismiss Mr. Barrow’s statement out of hand and mind, much less that all the above now prejudices his competence and credibility to any other statements on the matter.

Consequently in light of this mistaken, vain and pretentious stretching of the truth, who is surprised when Mr. Wilson responds in kind in Credenda Agenda, much less that as a fan of Frame’s foolishness, Mr. Wilson is not about to extend the benefit of the doubt at all re. Mr. Barrow’s brash and hasty statements? Sauce for the goose, is sarcasm for the gander. No more, no less and Mr. Wilson is a past master of it.

Which is all to say - if we are going to nitpick and argue about it - the CA staff is not the first to have publicly violated the ninth commandment, if that is in fact what they have done. There is sin within the camp and Saul can not stand before his enemies. To whom much is given, much is required. The burden is upon Mr. Barrow to establish the tone and caliber of the discussion properly to begin with, much less refrain from scandalous overstatement and zealous misstatement, if he is going to really have Biblical grounds to get upset at the CA’s smart aleck reaction.

In short, gentlemen, my apologies, but I still see the genesis of “Saul” as pretty much a holier than thou humbug and a pompous stench in the Lord’s nostrils. It is puerile to begin with and even more embarrassing after Session’s approval of it in Appendix D. Nor do I see where Session’s previous spoke to the substance of my first remarks. Otherwise, I certainly would not have written and bothered you again at all.

Thank you very much.

cordially yours,
in Christ,

Bob S.
Member, PRCE
Lynden, Wa.

See also:4/4/01, Elders re. Saul in the Cave with Asinine

4/4/01, Elders re. Saul in the Cave with Asinine

From: Lyndon Dohms
To: Bob S.
Cc: Greg Barrow, Greg L. Price
Date: Wed, 4 Apr :19:
Subject: re: Saul in the Cave of Adullam

Dear Bob,

In regard to your concerns about Reg Barrow's "Saul in the Cave of Adullam", we have a few clarifications to make:

-To our knowledge, Reg Barrow has never presented himself as a student minister or student elder to anyone.

-The statement made in our Session Minutes regarding this controversy is accurately reproduced in Appendix D of "Saul in the Cave of Adullam"

-The Puritan Bookshelf CD series was intended originally for the use of RPNA elders and members, and now it has been released to Still Waters Revival Books. The collection reflects the writings of numerous authors during the Puritan era, not all of whom we would agree with on every point. Your concern about guarding the public testimony of the PRC is shared by us. lf we gave you the impression that every book in this series was examined and approved by the Session, it was not the impression we intended. Still Waters Books is attempting to cull out the things directly opposed to our testimony, at though some of these articles are useful to the elders and mature members for study purposes.

If you have time to meet with Pastor Price during his visit to Everson this coming weekend. (April 7, 8) he would be quite willing to discuss your concerns about "Saul in the Cave of Adullam".

For the PRC Edmonton Session,
Lyndon Dohms
Clerk

See also: 6/3/01, Further Remarks on Sanctimonious in the Cave with Asinine

8/5/00, Deed of Constitution of the Reformed Presbytery in North America

We, the undersigned Ministers and Ruling Elders, upon this fifth day of August, 2000, after mature deliberation, do unite together to form a Presbytery which shall be from henceforth constituted as the "Reformed Presbytery In North America."

We do fully and unanimously subscribe, without any known point of disagreement, the following "Six Terms Of Ecclesiastical Communion" which formally summarize the Constitution upon which this Reformed Presbytery In North America is now established.

Six Terms Of Ecclesiastical Communion

1. An acknowledgment of the Old and New Testament to be the Word of God, and the alone infallible rule of faith and practice.

2. That the whole doctrine of the Westminster Confession of Faith, and the Catechisms, Larger and Shorter, are agreeable unto, and founded upon the Scriptures.

3. That Presbyterial Church Government and manner of worship are alone of divine right and unalterable; and that the most perfect model of these as yet attained, is exhibited in the Form of Government and Directory for Worship, adopted by the Church of Scotland in the Second Reformation.

4. That public, social covenanting is an ordinance of God, obligatory on churches and nations under the New Testament; that the National Covenant and the Solemn League are an exemplification of this divine institution; and that these Deeds are of continued obligation upon the moral person; and in consistency with this, that the Renovation of these Covenants at Auchensaugh, Scotland, 1712 was agreeable to the word of God.

5. An approbation of the faithful contendings of the martyrs of Jesus, especially in Scotland, against Paganism, Popery, Prelacy, Malignancy and Sectarianism; immoral civil governments; Erastian tolerations and persecutions which flow from them; and of the Judicial Testimony emitted by the Reformed Presbytery in North Britain, 1761 with supplements from the Reformed Presbyterian Church; as containing a noble example to be followed, in contending for all divine truth, and in testifying against all corruptions embodied in the constitutions of either churches or states.

6. Practically adorning the doctrine of God our Savior by walking in all His commandments and ordinances blamelessly.

We do sincerely profess that it is the glory of God, the edification of Christ's Church, as well as the preservation and promotion of the true Christian religion throughout the whole world that does persuade us to unite in constituting this Presbytery.

We do voluntarily promise to be subject in the Lord unto the Reformed Presbytery In North America; to promote and to preserve the doctrine, worship, government, and discipline as summarized in the above cited "Six Terms Of Ecclesiastical Communion"; and to receive with meekness all brotherly counsel and admonition tendered by fellow members of this Presbytery.

We do not consider the Reformed Presbytery In North America to be an entirely new entity, but rather a continuation of the one moral person with other covenanted judicatories of the past, and with those faithful witnesses of the Covenanted Reformation known as Protesters and Society People (1650 - 1742 inclusive). Accordingly, when we refer above to our "Constitution", we include within it all the judicial documents comprehended and engaged unto in our "Six Terms Of Ecclesiastical Communion"--specifically, only those documents which are agreeable to the Word of God, and consistent with our covenanted attainments, as they were formally received and approved by the following covenanted judicatories between the following inclusive dates:

1. The Church Of Scotland, (1560 - 1602, 1638 - 1649).

2. The Reformed Presbytery In Scotland (1743 - 1808), and the Synod Of The Reformed Presbyterian Church In Scotland (1808 - 1821).

3. The Reformed Presbytery In Ireland (1763 - 1779, 1782 - 1810), and the Synod Of The Reformed Presbyterian Church In Ireland (1811 - 1839).

4. The Reformed Presbytery In America (1774 - 1778, 1798 - 1805, 1840 - 1845, 1854 - 1887).

In constituting the Reformed Presbytery In North America in moral succession to these aforementioned faithful judicatories, it is evident that we have not included any of the present bodies designated as "Reformed Presbyterian" whether in Scotland, Ireland, Canada, or the United States.

In full agreement with the official position of the Reformed Presbytery In America, as recorded in their Minutes of June 2, 1841 (which are attached as an Addendum to this Deed of Constitution), we hold these ecclesiastical bodies to be unfaithful to the attainments of the Covenanted Reformation. With full persuasion of conscience, we stand separate from them and cannot unite with them until they publicly repent of their shameful backsliding.

Thus, we affirm that we, having returned to faithful terms of communion, and a true constitution, are not a schismatic body that has further divided the Church of Christ. To the contrary, the Reformed Presbytery In North America is a moral perpetuation of that faithful and unified manifestation of Christ's Covenanted Church in Scotland, Ireland, and the United States. It is our goal to unite the Church of Christ in every land by means of promoting a truly covenanted reformation in accordance with the prayer of our Lord, "That they may be one, even as we are one" (John 17:22).



Therefore, in accordance with the aforesaid principles and declarations, we, the undersigned, joyfully owning and upholding the faithful attainments and contendings of our covenanted forefathers, subscribe this "Deed of Constitution" in the plain and common sense of the words, without equivocation or mental reservation.

Ministers

Derek Edwards Date: Location:

Witnessed By Date: Location:

Greg L. Price Date: Location:

Witnessed By Date: Location:

Ruling Elders

Greg Barrow Date: Location:

Witnessed By Date: Location:

Lyndon Dohms Date: Location:

Witnessed By Date: Location:

David Hart Date: Location:

Witnessed By Date: Location:

---

Addendum to Deed Of Constitution for the Reformed Presbytery in North America

MINUTES OF THE REFORMED PRESBYTERY.
GREENE COUNTY, OHIO.
MASSIE'S CREEK MEETING HOUSE, June 2, 1841.

On motion, Resolved, That a committee of three be appointed to report on our ecclesiastical relations, with special reference to those calling themselves Reformed Presbyterians. Rev. R. Lusk, Nathan Johnston, and Thomas Steele were appointed that committee.

Presbytery met pursuant to adjournment, and was constituted by prayer. All the members present. The Committee appointed to report on our Ecclesiastical Relations reported. The report being read, paragraph by paragraph, and remarks made thereon, was re-committed.

Court met and was constituted by prayer. All the members present. The committee appointed on our ecclesiastical relations, was called upon and reported. The report being read, on motion was accepted, and on motion was read, paragraph by paragraph, amended, and on motion adopted. It is as follows:

The committee appointed on our ecclesiastical relations &c. offer the following:-

The church of Christ, from the doctrines which she holds, the subjection to her blessed Lord which she professes, the organization bestowed upon her, and the object thereof, has in times past been as a city on a hill, and such is to be her position in time to come. Being distinct from all other communities in organization, with the reasons and objects thereof, her members should be intimately acquainted not only with her abstract doctrines, but also with the efficacy of these doctrines on their own life and conversation. And altho' every living member sustains a relation to the Head, which shall never be dissolved; yet the mere circumstance of having a name to live, as it respects either organization or membership, will not secure the reality in the one case or the other.

Hypocrites have been in the true church, and local churches, so called, have been, in their very organization, synagogues of Satan; or, as in other cases, have so far degenerated as to be considered no longer churches of Christ. Hence the necessity of attention, by every lover of truth,-by all who desire to promote the declarative glory of God, to have a knowledge of the distinct characteristics of the church of Christ. As to individuals, it is an unalterable law, -"without holiness no man shall see the Lord:" and as to communities, the same law is equally applicable, - it cannot be expected that God will dwelt in them.

Opposition in profession, to any part of revealed truth is evidence of the ascendancy of the carnal heart; and the relinquishment of acknowledged doctrine carries with it additional guilt, being a violation of voluntary engagements; and obstinacy in such defection must eventuate in the reprobation of the community.

Time was when the Reformed P[resbyterian] Church in the British Isles and America was considered one, both in doctrinal profession and covenant engagements. This time has passed, and now various distinct fellowships lay claim to the designation of witnesses, and profess to be the followers of the martyrs of Jesus, who sealed with their blood the testimony which they held.

Discrimination must be exercised, to ascertain who they are and where they are, who are following the footsteps of the flock. These are such who neither oppose nor relinquish the doctrines professed, nor the testimony maintained, by their witnessing and covenant ancestors; nor cast off the obligations under which they have been brought by the deeds of their forefathers.

Formerly, all who claimed the name of Reformed Presbyterians in Europe and America, whether as sojourners or emigrants, had free access to the privileges of the church in either country. She was considered one, although geographically divided by the Atlantic Ocean; because professing ostensibly the same faith in both hemispheres. It is now known that different fellowships exist, based upon different views of her profession and obligations; - hence the visible unity is destroyed, and antagonist principles put into operation.

The doctrines contained in the Westminster Confession and in our Testimony, declared to be agreeable unto and founded upon the word of God, relative to civil government, had been, for a length of time, practically disregarded by individuals and by courts of the church in America. Discrepancy of views led to a division of the body in 1833. A large proportion of the people, but especially of the ministry, professing to have obtained clearer views of the application of their principles to civil society, considered the American Government as the moral ordinance of God, and consequently entitled to the christian's approbation and conscientious support. This party, from the assumption of having attained to clearer views than their brethren of the nature of civil government, were commonly known by the name New Lights. The other party, as contra distinguished from these were denominated Old Lights: nevertheless both continued to claim the original designation, Reformed Presbyterian.

Corruption in doctrine on the part of the Old Lights, leading necessarily to the violation of covenant engagements in practice, and the exercise of tyranny in discipline, forced some members to a separation from the body in '38. This party, characterized by a Safety League and Declinature, also assumes to be the Reformed Presbyterian Church.

The same corruptions continuing to operate, with additional aggravations, and these cherished and defended by influential members as leaders; and the western part becoming more fully acquainted with the extent of defection, some were alarmed and saw the necessity of resorting to scriptural means of reform. Efforts to stay the progress of declension proved unavailing. The Synod refused to retrace her steps, by confessing her sins, and ascertaining her own legality and freedom when formally called thereunto. Thus a separation was loudly called for, and an organization imperatively demanded, that a judicial banner be displayed for the doctrines and order exemplified by our covenant fathers. - Hence the organizing of the Ref'd. Presbytery in '40, in order to hold fast and transmit to posterity all the faithful and public deeds of the Ref'd. Covenanted church.

The two Synods in the British Isles, as appears from their published proceedings, have pursued for substance the same course as the parties in defection from Reformation attainments in America. Different degrees of defection from covenant attainments are, however, discernible among the several and conflicting parties, in the land of our fathers.

The Synod of Scotland has been, since 1822, in a course of declension, having at that date expunged from her terms of communion the Renovation of the covenants at Auchensaugh, 1712. The tendency of this measure was to divide, and it is now matter of history that some were obliged to withdraw from the body. Among these was the Rev. James Reid, author of the Memoirs of the Westminster Divines, who continued in a state of separation till his death; near to which, he declared that he "could not have laid his head on a dying pillow in peace," had he acted otherwise. By this unfaithful act of formally removing from their terms of communion, a solemn public deed; the Scottish Synod went back to the year 1648, thereby overlooking, lightly esteeming and virtually condemning their own former act: together with the solemn and judicial recognition of the same by the Reformed Presbytery in 1761: as also, disregarding the unanimous judgment of all the judicatories of the Ref'd Church in Ireland, Thus they plainly manifested a disposition to innovate on the church's profession, and an evident determination to remove her ancient landmarks.

Although the Synod in Ireland has not formally expunged the deed; yet she has virtually recognized the act as righteous, by continued fellowship, judicial and ministerial, with the Synod of Scotland. This continued communion had an unhappy influence upon the Synod in Ireland, tending to foster a spirit of neutrality, in violation of one of the provisions of our Solemn League. The innovations prevailing in Scotland found advocates in Ireland, by whom their adoption was strenuously urged. This, together with conflicting sentiments on the doctrine of Magistracy, has more recently resulted in separate communions in Ireland. While we cordially approve the faithful contendings of the majority in that body, for the integrity of our Standards on the head of magistracy; we are obliged in conscience, to express unequivocally our disapprobation of their tolerating the aforesaid innovations; as also, their countenancing of, and co-operating in, the popular, voluntary associations of the day,-such as "Sunday Schools," "Temperance Societies," &c. - calculated to undermine our uniformity, divert the attention and alienate the affections of Christ's witnesses from each other and from his own institutions, and eventually to effect disorganization.

As the Reformed Covenanted church has ever been professedly a witnessing church, and in correspondence with this trait of character, has been frequently called to the unpleasant work of testifying against other christian communities: so also, as Paul withstood Peter face to face, we are now urged, as matter of duty, however painful, to testify against our former brethren.

In view of the foregoing state of things among the professing witnesses for a covenanted work of Reformation; your committee recommend the adoption of the following resolution: -

That this Presbytery cannot, in consistency with covenant engagements, or fidelity to Jesus Christ, hold communion judicially, ministerially, or in the dispensation of word or sacraments, with any of the aforesaid communities, assuming our name,-whether in America or the British Isles, until the causes of existing separation shall have been removed, according to the laws of the house of God.

R. Lusk, Ch'n.