What is the Reformed Presbyterian Church of North America (RPCNA)? 

@@Trytantix which city are you in?

The Bible literally forbids this, actually read it for once.

@@ryan.1990 my brother in Christ, I never said I agree with that stance

​@@ryan.1990 Don't judge those who support deaconesses.

@@ryan.1990 Eisegesis from a RU-vid comment. Wow.

​@@ryan.1990 It's hard to respect your comment due to your lack of charity; either way, In Romans 16:1, the greek word 'servant' is basically deacon or deaconess. Of course this can be disputed as to what level of service this woman provided in the church, but the RP has chosen to hold to the word's etymological meaning. The bible forbids women teaching over men, not from serving.

I love listening to Rev. Romesh

​@@mattosamanandesuthat's my pastor, DRPC🙌🏾

It was a real privilege to get to know your pastor when we were in seminary. Romesh is a great guy and an excellent preacher.

Also gotta love Dr McCurley

One trouble with the WCF is that it introduces new terminology into the Christian lexicon that does not appear in Scripture. Take for example term phrase "the visible church". The Bible already has a perfectly good term for this, which is "the church". Why introduce new terminology? When I ask this question of my Presbyterian friends the response is often that "ordinary people" need help to avoid confusion. But wasn't the Bible written for ordinary people? And why not then come up with replacements for words like "justification" and "sanctification" and "election"? Another trouble that I have with the WCF is that church elders often will answer questions using the WCF as source material rather than Scripture. Yet it should never be the case that a summary of Biblical truth is used in this way. The Bible is our sole authority and must be respected as such. Much of the life and practice of churches that adhere to the WCF is based primarily on the WCF. Ask a Presbyterian elder why they require church membership and you'll get answers from the WCF and from their own personal reasoning (e.g. "it's implied in the Bible" or "how can we rule without it"), yet never a solid Scriptural defense. I find some measure of laziness on the part of church leaders since the WCF does a lot of the heavy lifting of understanding Scripture for them. I see a mindset that says, "this *must* be true because the scholars tell us it is". Yet anyone who is a product of the Reformation should be the first to reject this line of reasoning since this is what the Reformers accused the Catholic church of doing. Just because a bunch of learned men sat in a room and prayed for God's guidance to write a confession does not make the words that they arrived at to be in accordance with Scripture. We should always be testing everything we read that is not a part of Scripture to see if it is consistent with it. While I do find some measure of truth in the WCF, there are also parts that are troubling. In those cases I then reject it, such as the introduction of new terminology.

​​@@toddbu-WK7L did you know that the WCF has scriptures they use and are present right next to the doctrinal statements. The WCF is a summary of what the bible teaches. I would disagree with the baptism part because I'm a Baptist and a few very minor things but they hold to scripture as their authority and the westminster outlines what they believe about scripture. Though I do understand what you are saying and your concern, I do not believe that that is an actual argument because using words or phrases to explain things that are in scripture is not wrong. Do you also disagree with the term "Trinity" that word is not in the Bible but it is clearly taught in scripture. Scripture also teaches that there is a universal church that consists of all the elect, all those who are saved. It also speaks of local churches where those people gather to worship and fellowship and hear the word preached. But it teaches that there are many people who are a part of these local churches who are not actually saved and therefore not in Christ and therefore not a part of the true church. Explaining doctrines that are in the Bible in understandable language is not the same thing as replacing terms like justification or faith, etc. Clearly. Hope that helps. God bless. 9:30

​@toddbuiten visible and invisible is to better understand the outward and inward work of the spirit. We know that the visible church tis that which we see where the marks and the gospel is rightly and soundly given. But not everyone in the visible church are saved, hence why we have the invisible church those who are inwardly saved by grace, in the visible church. We look to passages like, 1 John 2:19 They went out from us, but they were not really of us; for if they had been of us, they would have remained with us; but they went out, so that it would be shown that they all are not of us. Also like Heb.6:4-6 For in the case of those who have once been enlightened and have tasted of the heavenly gift and have been made partakers of the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come, and then have fallen away, it is impossible to renew them again to repentance, since they again crucify to themselves the Son of God and put Him to open shame. Hope this helps, grace and peace

@@toddbu-WK7L To be honest, I think that is rather nitpicky. Did you know that just about every word your English speaking church uses isn't actually found in the Bible? That's because they didn't speak English! So no matter what, there is some degree of interpretation and selection of trying to convey the ideas found in Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek into modern English, and it will never be a 1 to 1 correspondence. But that isn't a problem in the slightest, we just need to be aware of the issues involved. So too it isn't a problem to use a word or phrase to refer to doctrines the Bible teaches, even if the Bible doesn't sum up that doctrine using a single word or phrase. IF there is an issue with the 'visible/invisible' church distinction, it isn't because those exact words aren't found in the Bible, but because the idea isn't. But you aren't arguing against the concept, your argument is based on individual words, as if synonyms somehow invalidate a claim. There is nothing wrong with using a word or phrase to convey an idea that might take a paragraph to spell out in detail, it saves time for people who are well read in their Bibles and those who don't know what the phrase means can ask and get the paragraph explanation. _"The Bible is our sole authority and must be respected as such."_ That isn't the protestant position and is directly contradicted by WCF chapter 1. WCF recognizes that there are many authorities: your pastor and elders, theologians and historians and extra-biblical writings and other artifacts, the church fathers, church councils and their decrees, etc. But the sole infallible authority to which all other authorities must submit is the Holy Spirit speaking through scripture. Where there is a conflict, it is those lesser authorities that must submit to Scripture. As for Church membership, that largely falls out of the Biblical command for church discipline. Maybe you could find a better way to administer it, but part of membership vows is submission to the authority of the church (with WCF chapter 1 in mind). If you don't accept their authority, there is little bases for the church to fulfill Christ's command to disciple and discipline God's people. Your speculation about church membership in Presbyterian contexts bears little resemblance to my own experience as a member of several Presbyterian churches. To be honest, this reads like Romanist propaganda and has little root in actual Reformed teachings.

@@MrRdy2bttl thanks for sharing. It's not that I don't understand what the terms mean. My issue is that the WCF uses terms not found in the Bible. How would you feel if we replaced the term "justification" with the phrase "made God happy"? It means the same thing, right? Well, obviously not, since justification is a legal term and has a very precise meaning and implications. I had hoped that we had gotten rid of paraphrasing like we saw with the "Good News for Modern Man" Bible translation back in the 1960's. Yet the WCF keeps that tradition alive and kicking 😞

Same, only my church is a descendant of the Reformed Church of the Netherlands (not the Dutch Reformed, we love to split) in Australia. Much love from down south my friend.

Wah duh apa kabar pak! Kamu ke grii ya?

God Bless You!

My great grandfather taught in Cyprus!

@@dantownsend761 really? At the American Academy or somewhere else?

What was his name?

@@ByzantineCalvinist yep! His name was William Weir

@@dantownsend761 yes!!! William and Elizabeth were mentors to my father, who revered them greatly. They visited our home near Chicago. Once around 1967 and again in 1971.

Read some history about the RPCNA and I was kinda surprised to see some history of the RPCNA include they used to all take communion from one literal cup at the front of the church.. and it was seen as scandalous when the church started distributing the elements in miniature cups to the members. Nowadays, most RPCNA churches would see it as scandalous to go back to one cup lol.

​@@toughbiblepassages9082 Thankfully there are some RPCNA churches who today use a common cup.

Free Church of Scotland Continuing is only about 20 years old since they're a split. Maybe Free Church of Scotland may be more appropriate if you want to speak of the Disruption of 1843.

Seems some good natured jokes involving quail are in order.

Bro that is massive, super excited for what’s gonna happen to Anglicans in the near future

Where can I find reliable resources on this subject?

@@_JazmynB On youtube, 'Rev Dan' and 'Rev Brett Murphy' have recent videos about this.

Well God gave is the Psalms, dashing against stones and all.

Psalm 137 declares a blessing on the one who liberates the Jews from Babylonian captivity via total destruction of the enemy. It was not an endorsement of only targeting babies, but an endorsement of total destruction, the likes of which were seen against the Canaanites and Amalekites which were just and righteous.. and if you understand it that way, it would be taken as a comforting psalm for one who was in oppressive captivity at the time. If you have difficulty processing these passages, I have a playlist on my channel that gives the intellectual and biblically moral justifications for these wars in the Bible. It’s called “warfare violence and Biblical law”.

@@toughbiblepassages9082 indeed it is a desire for liberation and return to Jerusalem. I see then"dashing" comment as a literary exaggeration as part of a crie de cœir

@@albertito77 If you see it as an exaggeration, do you see the targeting of children in the Canaanite and Amalekite attacks as exaggerations as well? The text doesn't allow for it to be seen as a mere exaggeration, then why make the exception for Psalm 137?

Video already written, hopefully coming in a few months.

Done. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-9TxVfFPAAH0.html

Where did the 50 go, another denomination or out of church?

Why would a pastor make announcement during his sermon? Wouldn't after the service be a better time?

I worhip at a church with an organ and we sing hymns but I admire the tradition of singing Psalms only. Historically, most Protestants were Psalm-only for a majority of their history including many Baptists. That being said it sounds like the way this pastor went about things was all wrong and the acrimonious split is understandable

Is this midway? I can understand some people are all about their own version of the regulative principal but that's way too far especially with no announcements.

Sounds like his moves were surreptitious, but it also sounds like your PCA elders had absolutely no spine and were not fulfilling their Elder responsibilities.

CREC member here, just so you know we do exist. I really enjoy this channel.

In the RPCNA periodicals from the 1870s, they frequently harp on the Republicans for being unprincipled frauds since they, at that time, advertised themselves as progressive, but were in actuality opportunists that abandoned their principles and didn't commit to their abolitionist promises or promotion of racial equality. It's quite a bizarre thing to see a church which today would fall firmly on the conservative side of things use strong words to argue for "progressive" policies like abolition and universal suffrage. Another odd point is the fact that several articles back then denounced the American Constitution as a wicked document since it established its authority on an unspecified definition of God and not on Christ specifically.

While I agreed with everything else you said, I don't think Catholics are biblically orthodox correct? They get the gospel & sacraments wrong.

@@_JazmynB I would disagree that they get the sacraments wrong especially when it comes to the Eucharist and Baptism.

@@Whatisthis2345 they see the sacraments as necessary for salvation if I’m not mistaken, either that or as assurance from purgatory. It is not merely the manner and practice of the sacraments, but purpose of them.

Yes, in Greek but in Hebrew, the word mizmor was used which means song

@@noahchalker3756Yes but the word used in the NT is Greek, written to Greek speakers.

They're covenanters from Scotland (John Knox)

Christian Reformed Churches (CRC) exists as a federation in America. They were previously NGK (Dutch Reformed Church [Netherlands]). There was a split in the 1990's that resulted in the creation of the United Reformed Church in North America (URCNA). Many of the Presbyterians come from England & Scotland for the most part.

@@_JazmynB Thanks. May Jesus bless His church. On the Netherlands there's trouble. Big Christian reformed churches accept gay marriage. The synode is against it. But the churches are to big to stop them.

@Yan Kees yeah, the URCNA left the CRC because they began to become more liberal in their beliefs, too. May the harvest be built up with more faithful slaves to Christ.

@@yankees4551 they don't yet accept gay marriage, but lgbt people can be member and receive baptism and Holy Supper when abstain from sexual intercoarse. The NGK & GKV merged last year, the CGK you mentioned has several wings and the left wing wants to accept women deacons and elders/persbyters and even preachers. The right wing doesn't want that and a split is in sight....alas.

Must be nice to just choose your own doctrine.

@@NPC-et9ik every Christian must ; don’t you? Or are a person who just accepts what is taught? Nobody ever did that in Historic Orthodoxy.

@@McIntyreBible I choose to fully accept the doctrines of the Church and reject all others. I do not argue with them because the doctrines are true. I will not pick and choose, I fully accept the teachings of the Church.

@@NPC-et9ik let me ask you a question then: Would you readily receive & accept a doctrine of a church which denies the Holy Trinity?

@@NPC-et9ik and so the question must be asked; “is it true because the church teaches it or does the church teach it because it’s true?”

They already celebrate this with bonfire night!

They are!

They’re great! I have visited an RPCNA church a couple times and joined their weekly potluck. Great folks!

Worth noting the beer and wine they had was very low alcohol compared to what we have now. It'd take a glutton to get drunk then

@@kriegjaeger So why does the Bible say we shouldn't get drunk?

​@@kriegjaeger How sure are you of that?

@@neilcameron7705 To be clear, not disagreeing with you but adding a 'fun fact'. @jeff We have pretty good history from Egypt, most bacteria can't grow in the alcohol. They would ferment wine then dilute it with water. The result wouldn't be very palatable to contemporary drinkers of wine or grape juice but likely somewhere in-between and more watery. Of course there WERE higher quality wines for festivals and the like, but common wine was a safer alternative to water.

​@@neilcameron7705To be honest, it's not so clear to me that the Bible condemns 'getting drunk' whatever that means (that definition seems to vary from person to person), but it is abundantly clear that a lifestyle of drunkenness is condemned. I just have a feeling that on the special occasions where God suggests strong drink, people would get more plastered than most Christians today would feel comfortable with, and yet that would absolutely be forbidden as a daily routine.

You are a psychopath.

Yes, same name there

You don't seem to understand what a deacon is. It is not a position of authority, which is what Paul forbade women from holding in 1 Timothy 2:12. It is a position of service. It is good and necessary for women to be deacons because men are not always suited for certain situations, and the wives of deacons are often playing the part of deacon by association. Note: Deaconess is not a real title, but is a common slang term for a female deacon.

Westminster confession and catechism

No, not of Luther but the Westminster divines.

OPC born and bred but have attended several RPCNA churches as well as Geneva College. The Larger and Shorter Catechisms are two form of the Westminster Catechism. The Shorter is just that, and easier for children. I memorized it as a child. The Larger is more detailed. No, nothing other than the Psalms are sung. When they say they are exclusive Psalm singers, they mean it.

The new song to be sung is that very Psalm that the phrase is found in. It does not say compose a new song.

​@@innovationhq8230 is correct! New song in light of the revelation of Christ. Like the "new command" of "love your neighbor."

We’ll just make up the meaning of scripture to fit a narrative. "But it doesn’t mean that, it may say it, but…………..." 150 must really tick these people off. These are the people that I do not need telling me what scripture "means", the arrogance required to defy the inspired word to fit the implied “piety’ of a by gone era. Next they’ll be claiming there are more than two genders and expecting us to use made up pronouns, cause we can make up the meaning of words at a moments notice. It is not possible to sing something new unless it is new, the composing is "implied", there’s where the meaning lies. The shear mental gymnastics one must jump through to come up with that the Creator of the universe is not worthy of our tasking ourselves to create new musical offerings is akin to dumping the same old burnt carcass on the sacramental fires. What an insult. It takes effort to present offerings, that’s the point, that is what is expected. These people keep offering up the offerings of others, and then pridefully justify it with the very religious implied "legalism" Christ could not stand. He is worthy of the effort and here we have the lazy excuse of changing the meaning of scripture to promote a nineteenth century fad, even if it is a hundred and fifty years old.. Warping scripture to fit a social construct is wrong. The God I worship is worthy of more than 150, 3000 year old songs. He deserves my/our best efforts especially in regards to new offerings. Offerings that we make, not a fresh coat of lipstick on an offering offered up before the Roman Empire.

​@@WAX6428 So by this logic, you've never sung the same song twice...

@@WAX6428 so does God want us to praise him with psalms inspired by Himself, or songs of human inspiration?

They hold to the Westminster Confession, so this is the same ordaining found in chapter 3.1 that established man's free will and the liberty and contingency of second causes, so I'm not sure why that would be an issue. People sin and turn away from God towards false teachings out of their own sinful will.

@@oracleoftroy "God from all eternity did, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass." 7:04 WHATSOEVER comes to pass. If God's omnipotence is threatened by human free will, as it seems to be in Calvinism, how can sin be real? Now, I'm willing to accept the interpretation that the WC affirms contradictory things, I just want to know how they believe these things all go together.

@@KingoftheJuice18 Why quote half of it? God, from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass: yet so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin, _nor is violence offered to _*_the will_*_ of the creatures; nor is the _*_liberty_*_ or _*_contingency_*_ of second causes taken away,_ *but rather established.* Isn't this fairly incontrovertible in Christianity? God made all things and he is all powerful and all knowing, so whatever happens happens with God's knowledge and with God as the first cause, and God is powerful enough to have done otherwise. Calvinists use the word "ordain" to describe God's role as first cause and creator of the universe. I don't see a contradiction, could you spell out the argument and contrast it with the view you think is more in line with scripture? Keep in mind chapter 9 for an overview of the reformed affirmation of human freewill and chapter 5 for how providence fits in. At this time, I think you have to import ideas that are contrary to the confession to force a contradiction, but maybe you can show an internal contradiction. You'd be the first, so I'm looking forward to it.

@@oracleoftroy I'm simply reacting to the video and I quoted the part that Joshua quoted. Since you're obviously well-versed in the WC, perhaps you can explain what it means to say that every single thing that comes to pass is literally ordained by God AND that free human choice is given. I understand that one can simply put the two statements side by side in a document and state verbally that you affirm both things. But how is it possible in reality for people to choose freely, if only that which God wants and decrees to happen is what actually happens?

Let's start by getting a sense of what ordain means in ordinary usage. 'Ordain' definition from Cambridge dictionary, sense 2: (of God or someone in authority) to order something to happen. American Heritage Dictionary sense 3: To order or decree by virtue of superior authority. Merriam-Webster sense 2a: to establish or order by appointment, decree, or law : ENACT A lot of the time, people treat ordain in a theological context as a statement about exhaustive determinism or fatalism, but from above we can see it is really getting at authority and the vesting of power and authority to another. When applied to God, it is about his rule as the king of kings and Lord of Lords, not about how much he micromanages or a claim to being the sole cause of all things. Consider a king who degrees that a bridge be built. He will ordain someone with the authority to oversee the project, decree a budget, and the overseer will work within the authority established by his ordination to accomplish the king's decree. In issuing the order, he is delegating the implementation details to the overseer. The way many use words like decree and ordain when opposing Calvinism would have this king pick up a hammer and nails and directly build every last detail of the bridge himself, but that isn't what we see in the confession. Instead, God created and designs his creatures for a purpose and sets the boundaries of their actions. In this creative act, he is decreeing and ordaining their existence and environment and design, etc. And in ordaining these things, God establishes human freedom and the liberty and contingency of second causes. God doesn't have to do it this way, he can take direct control of all things, but he normally works by creating the systems in which his creation works and lets them do as they please. So what the statement says is really nothing at odds with what Christianity has always said about creation and what God established on earth. It doesn't require God being the sole actor, in fact it requires that what God ordains establishing second causes and thus creating other agents that can act freely within the boundaries of God's creation design for them.

Yes

@@Hark1677 I am so amazed how Christians have fallen for Satan's lies.

@@americanswanTo what are you referring?

@@Hark1677 Ye shall not surely die.

@@americanswanin what ways are Christians falling for Satan’s lies?

The wording used in that snippet is so confusing.. "we reject the teaching that Christians should not seek ..." bro just say you want a Christian government lol

@@toughbiblepassages9082 of course it's confusing/obfuscated, since actually coming out and _saying_ "we want theocracy!" is considered Bad Form in the US.

@@RonJohn63 I am an RP so I may be able to help clear this up (or maybe I am adding to the confusion). We believe in the separation of church and state in that elders dont rule the land, and the government should not speak on matters within the church, but Christ is ruling over both of these so they should both submit to Him.

@@toughbiblepassages9082 an understanding of the history of the Covenanters explains it more so. They were (and remain) quite opposed to a state church (as they had suffered enough oppression at the hands of a catholic monarch and an Anglican one soon after), compared to their closer cousins the seceeders who eventually left the state church, and their comparative rivals in the Church of Scotland. Their demands remain as they were then: that the government declare a convenant before God that they will be subservient to him and the rule of his word, rather than subservient to the rule of an established church or denomination.

@@charlesbutler8750 thanks. However, it's a distinction without a difference that reminds me of Protestant worries about Roman Catholic John F. Kennedy being controlled from Rome. Because honestly, what does "both submit to Him" mean? It means doing what some specific men say that Christ says, and how they interpret the Bible.

Hmm, I strongly disagree with your antipathy towards Presbyterians (as I identify more so with their broader traditions) but I like that you pointed out “examine himself” from scripture as a proof text for not guarding the table.. interesting. All denominations have their traditions, and Presbyterians more than most, though they have their flaws, are convicted by their traditions because they believe God commands it.. and I’d never vilify anyone who does something because they are genuinely convicted that God required it, they are bound by their conscience afterall. Besides, Presbyterians are not the only ones who guard the table, Lutherans do as well (Missouri Synod) and other faithful Presbyterians don’t guard it (ECO). The point being this issue is less to do with tradition of a denomination, and more to do with the strictness of that particular denominational branch.

@@toughbiblepassages9082 I should have made myself more clear, sorry. Fencing the table is Scriptural, but only when done according to the Bible. Traditions of men that go beyond what is written in God’s word are sinful and divide God’s people

@@toddbu-WK7L tou say "Presbyterian" as though they all are the same. They are not, even in regards to fencing the table.

Part of this stance goes back to the 1640s when this denomination was under a form of persecution. Their active worship was seen as a form of treason to the king of England Partaking of communion was a declaration as such. Therefore communion and regular services became an underground event and the exclusion of nonmembers was a matter of safety. It was not until the mid 70s that members could join in their communion. It really was no big deal, I was a Lutheran dating a covenanter girl, I met with the elders who asked a few questions, like do you believe I the receptive power of Christ, God the father, and the holy spirit, the origins of the bible and it's truths. I was the first nonmember to ever take an rp communion

many presbys feel the same.

incorrect

Lol, this is the best misuse of that passage yet. Usually people skip the first two verses because they undermine their case. You actually included verse 1 but skipped verse 2, the very verse where Paul scopes how he is applying 'all people/all men' so that you can make it about all individual people rather than categories of people, like the kings and those in authority Paul asks people to pray for.

you are saying our salvation is based on our actions, that God only saves those He knows will choose Him, and you fail to understand that predestine is causal not mere foreknowledge. THIS is what is Truly Anti Scriptural.

I am an RP. We believe that God has made man, male and female. We would not allow for a member of the LGBTQ community to be a member of our church. One of our members who was a former lesbian wrote a memoir about her conversion, and her experience with these question. The book is Secret Thoughts of an Unlikely Christian Convert by Rosaria Butterfield

What about schizophrenia rights?

@@charlesbutler8750 you clearly never read the holy Bible that well...

Papists/EO are schismatics

What??? Heretical & schismatic? That's slander and false witness. They fled Scotland and have always existed since coming here.

@@_JazmynB It’s heretical and schismatic by definition. Not established by Christ but by men only a few centuries ago.

can you explain please?

​@oliveri9407 your understanding of schism is flawed.