2/12/08, A Reply to A Question About Ron Paul’s ‘08 Presidential Campaign

[revised 12/18/09]

While there is much to agree with in Chuck Baldwin’s column of Jan. 28, ‘08 on Ron Paul and his supporters, “Why Are Ron Paul's Supporters So Angry?”, let’s not put the “high horse” of politics before the gospel or Christianity. Contra the conservative Baptist pastor’s closing comments, if American Christians would just support “the principles of liberty, the U.S. Constitution, and limited government” is not enough in itself to provoke “a spiritual revival as well”, however much that is needed. Rather the problems of modern American Christians are far worse than just their “elitism, and partisan phoniness,” though their “ignorance” does have a lot to do with it.

Neither was it because “America's Colonial preachers and Christian people fought for liberty and independence, [that] God gave us two Great Awakenings.” Rather the First Great Awakening preceded the struggle for independence and arguably the Second Awakening in the 1830's deteriorated into the revivalism and pelagian perfectionism of Finney that plagues the American church to this day. Finney’s abolitionism also arguably deteriorated into the radical atheistic abolitionism that plunged this country into a bloody civil war, while at the same time every other major Western power abolished slavery without bloodshed. 

Read more »

2/3/08, The Reformed Argument Against Musical Instruments in Public Worship

2/21/08, Updated Addendum to the Federal Vision's Fraudulent Revision of Reformed Worship.

John L. Girardeau's exposition of the historic reformed argument against musical instruments in public worship is little known and somewhat beside the point of the previous comments on Federal Vision's mischaracterization of the Regulative Principle of Worship. Nevertheless it is still worth mentioning, not only in order to persuade people to further examine the question, but also purely for the love of the truth alone (2 Thess. 2:10), without which nothing good or great can be accomplished. Yet not only has Girardeau's Instrumental Music in the Public Worship of the Church (1888) been reprinted along with Robert Lewis Dabney's review of it a year later, G.I. Williamson, who is well known in American presbyterianism for his popular study guides on the Westminster Confession and Shorter Catechism, also wrote a not so well known tract on Instrumental Music in Worship.  

Read more »

1/30/08, Hiding Behind the Landmarks and Other Sanctimonious Monuments

[As promised previously in . . . . And In Secret Have I Said Nothing the following should be self explanatory. It consists of some remarks in red with links in italics on the original sermon "Moving the Landmarks" in black.
Further, in that Part II, Chapt. 23:7 of Reformation Principles Exhibited on "Christian Worship" says. "The ministers of religion have no warrant for reading their Sermons to the congregation", there are some interjections/additions to the sermon below when it is given/read from what we know of the practice in the RPNA(GM) although we didn't listen to the mp3 which is also available on the Albany website. However, we can just about guarantee that any further remark by the minister as the sermon below was delivered, steered pretty clear of any remarks in red, verbatim or substantively. Consequently the whole story was not given and a less than forthright defense of what is supposed to be the truth, prevailed - in our opinion. The reader of course, may judge for themself.]

Moving The Landmarks
Proverbs 22:28
Covenanted Reformed Presbyterian Church, Albany, NY
December 23, 2007
Rev. Greg L. Price

Boundaries are given to us by God so that we stay where we ought to stay and so that we do not stray from those areas that God has appointed for us into forbidden territory. We can see the benefit of having property boundaries and landmarks so that we know where our property ends and where our neighbor’s property begins. In fact, you could be subject to civil sanction if you disregarded those property boundaries and built your home so that it overlapped onto your neighbor’s property.

It is paradoxical how individuals, families, church courts, churches and nations recognize this principle and yet how often when the subject shifts to moral issues and God’s commandments they do not want to hear about God’s boundaries. To the contrary, they want to talk about freedom by which they mean to be free of God’s moral boundaries found in His Law. This is one of the purposes of God’s commandments--to set moral boundaries for all men including elders, women, and children in thought, word, and deed.   

Read more »

12/29/07, Federal Vision's Fraudulent Revision of Reformed Worship

Some Necessary Background to the Current Federal Vision Assault on Justification By Faith Alone
(updated from 10/2/07)

While it is somewhat of an aside to the original reason for this website, it needs to be said that the relevant parties in the current Federal Vision controversy perturbing and disturbing contemporary P&R churches on the doctrine of justification by faith alone, previously had conducted a similar campaign and assault on the Regulative Principle of Worship (RPW). Their deceitful modus operandi of distorting and misrepresenting a confessional position in order to supplant it with one of their own imagination hasn't changed. Unfortunately. Perhaps if the P&R churches had nipped things in the bud, things wouldn't have got to this stage, but the compromises on worship being what they were and still are in modern American P&R churches - though there has been some improvement - the FV got off easy on the RPW. Now they are back at it and serious about modifying the doctrine of justification by faith alone to fit their popish and judaizing style of worship.

Read more »

12/28/07, . . . . And In Secret Have I Said Nothing

[updated through 1/2/08]
Jesus answered him, I spake openly to the world; I ever taught in the synagogue, and in the temple, whither the Jews always resort; and in secret have I said nothing. John 18:20

Persecution in the Past and Elsewhere
There is no question that here in America and Canada, Christians do not face anything similiar to the Killing Times in Scotland after the Second Reformation of 1638 -51 had been overturned in church and state by the Acts Recissory of 1661. The persecution of presbyterianism which followed the Acts resulted in the secret conventicles, armed or no, and the religious societies for prayer and fellowship that continued on to become the basis for the Reformed Presbyterian (Covenanted) Church of Scotland and Ireland. Nor does the N. American church of Christ face anything like what it faces in China or Muslim nations today. There is no need for secrecy and an underground church. Not yet anyway.

Here Today
As long as one does not preach too loudly against the politically correct idols of abortion and marital pairing of perverts or even declare the not so peaceful/orthodox nature of genuine Islam, American presidential comments to the contrary, the Internal Revenue Service will not revoke a church's charitable tax exempt status. Neither will the district attorney or the Atheist Criminal Liberties Union charge anyone with discrimination or a "hate crime". Granted, there are exceptions to the rule. But the religious entity referred to in the previous post is not an exception.

Secrecy as a Necessary Consequence?
Nevertheless we have been told by one credible witness that the same body is switching from emailing its members and adherents to phone or face to face conversations when it comes to any public announcements in the future concerning the church. This is evidently in order to prevent their "enemies" from learning anything or even harassing said group. We don't "know" this of course, because so far only one witness has come forth. But the circumstantial evidence is not good. [We do know that as previously reported, formal dissolution of the RPNA court is being considered. It is at least alluded to in the opening paragraphs of a sermon of Dec. 23, '07 entitled "Moving the Landmarks" on Prov. 22:28, of which sermon DV we shall have more to say later.] We think the concern for secrecy is not "enemies" per se, but rather the consequence of holding to an erroneous doctrine/application of ecclesiastical government. It could be tiresome enough to openly espouse and defend - or not so openly as we shall see below - an erroneous doctrine or application without having to work a day job at the same time.   

Read more »

12/11/07, A Little Cloud Like A Man's Hand of 1 K.18:44?

If not Prov. 25:25?

As cold waters to a thirsty soul, so is good news from a far country.

It has been called to our attention recently that the officers of a particular extraordinary ecclesiastical entity or court have been considering formal dissolution. This, in a recent communication of Dec. 2 to the members of the same body - not for spiritual/doctrinal reasons unfortunately - but rather the practical and financial. Giving is currently down and without improvement, there will not be enough money to support even the one full time officer. Consequently there would be no use in continuing as a formal organization.

Hear, hear, even Heb. 12:27:

And this word, Yet once more, signifieth the removing of those things that are shaken, as of things that are made, that those things which cannot be shaken may remain.

This is not anything like we think those who have been excommunicated might lawfully desire - repentance and admission of error from those responsible - but it is better than nothing and while we wish the officers personally no ill, we can not say the same as regards the “court” and its rulings.

Even further, we hope and pray God removes any and all scales from the eyes of any and all involved on both sides of this controversy; that right and wrong is providentially and decisively set forth so that no one might mistake it.

Yet the Lord willing, we look forward to more rain.

Some Comments on Boston regarding Schism

A couple of months ago, Garnet Milne of the Covenanted Reformation website (New Zealand) had some interesting comments on Thomas Boston's well known sermon "The Evil and Dangers of Schism" based upon 1 Cor. 1:10. Boston preached this sermon in 1712 aiming it at the Cameronian covenanters of his day and vicinity, who would not attend worship services of the Church of Scotland as settled in 1690 at the Revolution, of which church Boston was a minister. 

Read more »

11/27/07, A Question Upon the Occasion of the Recent National Day of Thanksgiving

Thankful to Who, How and When?

There is no question that the Scripture calls us to be thankful and that first and foremost to God. An attitude of gratitude is a given and of the first principle. If we are not, then the progression in sin and judgement begins as set out in the first chapter of Romans. "Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened (Rom. 1:21)." Rather the problem with or objections to the National Day of Thanksgiving in America for reformed presbyterians lies in other areas. One, there are no rote religious anniversary thanksgiving days authorized in Scripture other than the one day in seven New Testament Lord’s Day. Yet there are occasional days of public thanksgiving or fasting depending on the extraordinary circumstances of the time. Two, the civil magistrate does not have authority to call a religious thanksgiving or fast day without consulting with and advice from the church. Three, in a country such as ours which formally recognizes no religion and has trampled on the law of God, to observe a religious day of thanksgiving is hypocritical, if not presumptuous.

Read more »

9/30/07, For Your Consideration: Q.7 Why Read the Banns?

The other posts in the series are:
For Your Consideratio
Q.1 Excommunication by Email?
Q.2 Limits of Modern Technology?
Q.3 Immediate Excommunication?
Q.4 What is the standard Presbyterian procedure for excommunication?
Q.5. Scriptural Justification for a Three Week Excommunication Notice
Q6. Misinterpretation by Price, Barrow, and Dohms


From: Stan B.
To: List
Cc: Lyndon Dohms ; Greg Price ; Greg Barrow
Sent: Sunday, September 30, 2007 8:31 PM
Subject: Q7: Why read the banns?

Q7. Why do Mr. Price, Mr. Barrow, and Mr. Dohms read the banns for three consecutive weeks? 

Read more »

8/20/07, More Non Sequiturs from Mr. NS

A Reply to Principium 1643

[links added/updated 10/15/07]

Principium 1643 (P1643) seems to be of fairly recent vintage, first showing up on the radar screen about a month ago to our knowledge. (It used to be found here, but seems to have moved here and is dated 7/8/07.) For us, it printed out at 82 pages with numerous subheadings in two sections that together sprawl almost 40,000 words. (See it here for the pagination referenced in this reply). While some have called P1643 “masterful” and “brilliant”, we are not so minded. Rather as another has said, ‘methinks the brother doth protest too much.’ That, if not the brother is too clever by half. In our opinion, P1643 is a curious, confused and disjointed document regardless if one agrees with it or not. Obviously as below, we don’t, much more we think it a mean spirited and petty diatribe on top of and besides its errors and sidestepping of the real questions at issue, but in that we are party to the controversy, the readers may judge that for themselves after wading through it, if they are up to it.

I: An Erroneous Defence of the Extraordinary Court
The first section (pp.1-52) essentially defends the extraordinary international congregational court of the “RPNA(GM)” which has presbyterial, if not synodical power, authority and jurisdiction. (This is the same extraordinary court which released its official Position Paper on Sessional Authority (PPSA), justifying its existence just over a year ago, on June 4, ‘06.) Its main argument seems to be, in that it lacks any kind of introduction or an explicit statement of its thesis, that the fixedness of officers and members are not essential to either a presbyterian court or church. This from the Form of Presbyterial Church Government found in the Westminster Standards which P1643 quotes a number of times:

“The several congregations in Jerusalem being one church, the elders of the church are mentioned as meeting together for acts of government; which proves that those several congregations were under one presbyterial government. And whether these congregations were fixed or not fixed, in regard of officers or members, it is all one as to the truth of the proposition (FPP, 1997, p.408 as quoted pp. 4, 10,11,25,47, P1643, emph. added).

Unfortunately though, this is irrelevant and a diversion from the real issue that has split the former RPNA, however endemic to the “RPNA(GM)” and its apologists the whole idea is, of asking and answering the wrong question. Rather that before the house and publicly since 11/8/06, is whether the standard historical-grammatical exegesis of Matt. 18:20 ever understands “gathered together in my name” as anything other than two or more officers actually coming together face to face in a fixed stated meeting; that the officers in a given court actually “brush shoulders” with each other, never mind the members of the church or churches over which the court has jurisdiction. It was first asked in direct reply to the query by the elders 11/4/06 (under Section 6) as to where in Scripture, disaffected brethren could find proof for a temporary extraordinary [local] session, but not a permanent extraordinary [out of town] session. Any further comments on Matt. 18:20 have not been forthcoming from the elders that we are aware of, though perhaps as the future son in law of an elder, Mr. NS’s paper should be understood as an authoritative statement of the “RPNA(GM)” position in what seems to be the standard ad hoc/tacit/extraordinary/convenient/expedient/merciful mode of operation that is typical of the organization.

Read more »