Sunday, March 23, 2008

The Recent Demise of the RPNA(GM) Court on 3/10/08

What appears to be the real deal regarding the dissolution of the RPNA(GM) Session has surfaced.
Further, both Prov. 25:25 and Prov. 24:17,18 would seem to be applicable:

"As cold waters to a thirsty soul, so is good news from a far country".
"Rejoice not when thine enemy falleth, and let not thine heart be glad when he stumbleth: Lest the LORD see it, and it displease him, and he turn away his wrath from him".

DV more comments will follow.


Announcement of the Session of the RPNA(GM)

March 10, 2008

Dear Brothers and Sisters under the inspection of the Session of the RPNA(GM).

On December 2, 2007, we sent a letter to you explaining that due to financial inability we faced the possibility of formal dissolution.

In that letter we stated:

Over the past years we have together, by the grace of God, faced many difficulties and trials together as we continue to confess and defend the “faith once delivered to the saints”, and uphold the faithful attainments of our faithful forefathers in both doctrine and practice. It is our hope that we can continue to do so together for many years to come.

However, it is our duty to inform you that we now have a financial difficulty before us which, if not overcome, threatens to bring the RPNA(GM) to the point of formal dissolution in the near future.

We do not deem it practically feasible to continue to be able to function adequately within the church court without the benefit of full-time officers. In the circumstance where all of our officers have full-time employment in other jobs, and considering also that we, as officers, have had difficulty keeping up with the many issues we face even when we had two full-time officers, we do not believe that under our current circumstances we could sufficiently manage the affairs of the church on such a part-time basis. Consequently, after careful consideration and discussion, we have determined that if our finances reach a point where we no longer can afford to pay our full-time officers, we see our best option as that of formal dissolution.

By formal dissolution we mean that the church court would be formally dissolved, as would the formal obligations mutually agreed upon between members and the officers of the RPNA(GM). Due to our small numbers and current levels of income, we recognize that this possibility has a high likelihood of becoming a reality, although we want to assure you that we will not take this step should this financial problem be rectified. We also wish to assure you that should formal dissolution take place in the near future, we as your elders consider this only as a temporary expedient until such time as we can once again have the benefit of full-time officers.

It is now our sad ministerial duty to inform those in the membership of the RPNA(GM) that the time has come where, due to financial inability, we, as a Session, effective March 10, 2008, have unanimously determined to formally dissolve as a Session.

We exhort those who maintain our covenanted testimony to remain steadfast in the truth, and to continue in prayer asking that God will once again allow a covenanted ecclesiastical court to rule faithfully among his people.

We are thankful for you our bothers and sisters in Christ, and we, as individual Elders will make ourselves available (as time allows) to answer questions pertaining to our continued societal and individual fellowship in the future. Please contact us privately by email to arrange a phone conversation should you have further questions regarding this announcement.

The Session of the RPNA(GM),

Pastor Greg Price
Ruling Elder Greg Barrow
Ruling Elder Lyndon Dohms


Anonymous said...

While I don't rejoice over the fall of my enemy, I do rejoice over the fall of this wannabe ecclesiastical tyranny.

RPV said...

Hi Cheryl,
I agree. I just wasn't interested in being part of a dogpile, however long some of us have thought a dissolution of the court was necessary. As Edgar said, there, but for the grace of God go I.
Neither will God be mocked. To whom much is given, much is required.
I assume the elders started out with genuine humility in mind. At least I hope so, but something somehow intervened. (You know you're self deluded when you adamantly deny it.)So we have both a sober lesson and a cause for rejoicing.

Dennis Grutzmacher said...

one side shows that no money no preaching (in complete contradiction to the example of Paul), the other side shows that her principles were only in order to play family and church. All seem to completely disregard the papal antichrist as it does not have any meaning in their bible exposition.

What happened here to both sides is Gods Judgment because of backsliding, spiritual pride, dead image of the true religion, and painting of the graves of the prophets !

No money, no preaching !
No playing family and church with a dead image of religion, than no religion at all !

Hypocrites, and whited walls on both sides !

Dennis Grutzmacher,
Breda, The Netherlands

RPV said...

I don't know how much time I want to waste on this, Dennis, but here goes.

1. While it may be clear to you, it is not clear what you are talking about and why, much more you seem to have the two sides confused.
Further, Greg Price returned the money collected for his wife's medical needs from some of the excommunicated.
For that matter, have you put your money where your mouth is and sent them some money? 2 Chronicles 25:9 might be taken to say that if they are righteous, the LORD is able to give the elders much more than the excommunicated gave. That didn't happen. How about it?

2. Being a reformed presbyterian officer holding to covenanting terms of communion doesn't justify acting in a popish tyrannical fashion. Neither does eschatology have anything to do with it. The elders arbitrarily constituted a court/resurrected the old PRCE session from when they all lived in Edmonton without explicitly telling anybody and they had no real biblical, confessional or reasonable arguments for it other than pragmatic and convenient ones. Neither did they like being asked about it.

Thank you.

Anonymous said...

Edgar Ibara on Covenantedreformationclub message 16359
'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. '
RPCNA:, p95 testimony,
'18. Many antichrists will be present
in the world throughout history. Prior
to Christ’s coming the final “man of
lawlessness” will be revealed. He will
be destroyed by Christ.
1 John 2:18; 1 John 4:3; 2 Thess. 2:8.'

OPC:, p128

'6. There is no other head of the church but the Lord Jesus Christ.n
Nor can the pope of Rome, in any sense, be head thereof.o'

No Westminster Standards in their creeds but nice churchservices and facilities for the children.
Free Church of Scotland-Continuing: (links),, (citation hereunder)

'c. Antichrist (Dan.7:25; 2 Thess.2:3-4)
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).'
"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).

listen to minutes 19-21 and 30-34 where he is very clear about how he thinks about the subject of the papal antichrist.

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.
Regarding your first point, dear Reformation Veritas, I kindly refer you to Matthew 6v1-4.

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.

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.
Hypocrites, and whited walls on both sides !

Dennis Grutzmacher, Breda, The Netherlands

Anonymous said...

I say, brethren, that if we seek God’s blessing for the mere extension of our
denomination, we shall seek it from a wrong motive. We must seek it for
God’s glory, and for that only, for the Lord will bring down our high looks
as well as the high looks of other people, and the more he loves us the
more will he be sure to do this, for what he will not tolerate in sinners he
will not bear in his saints.
(C.H. Spurgeon on Isaiah 2:17.

When 2 dogs are fighting for the same bone, none will win.
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

Ronald Beuzekom
The Netherlands

RPV said...

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.
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.
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.
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?
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.

RPV said...

Mr. Beuzekom,

But what bone are the two dogs fighting over? Whether the excommunications, much more the court responsible, are valid?

And God has poured scorn on the RPV for saying so?

Please explain. Judgment day is not yet upon us, nor has RPV declared anyone apostate or reprobate.

Even further, the RPV speaks for no one but myself.

Thank you.

Bob Suden

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
RPV said...

Dear Dennis,

You need to respectfully get a grip.
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.
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.
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.
Can you possibly understand why someone is not interested in continuing this kind of "dialogue"?
I can and until you can do better, executive privileges will be exercised in regard to your comments.

Thanks again,
Bob S.

RPV said...

No, Mr. Grutzmacher, your most recent of 9:35 AM. today is not good enough.

Yes the Pope is Antichrist
and yes, we all know who the troll is. (That's why your previous comment was deleted.)

Bob S.

RPV said...

Nope, Dennis, you still can't figure it out. Nobody had a beef per se with the preaching. That wasn't it at all.
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.

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.
Like I said, get a grip on the facts.

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.

RPV said...

Hi Dennis,
Yes the Pope is the antiChrist
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.
Have a good day.
cordially yrs,

Anonymous said...

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?

Dennis, please stop being a menace!

RPV said...

Nope, but I blocked sender and his rants get deleted/rejected here.

Anonymous said...

"Yes the Pope is the antiChrist
and you are a dense dunce and a troll. Hopefully one day you will learn the difference between an assertion and an argument."

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.

RPV said...

Uh, right anonymous. That sounds like a real argument to me.
But here's another no brainer.

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:

"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."

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.

In other words, you need to spend a lot more time reading your bible and praying than trolling comboxes, my friend.