Talk:Reformed Presbyterian Church of North America

Killing Time

What is the Killing Time referenced under "related topics"? I have just made a disambiguation page for it..! -- Sam

The Killing Time is (obviously, according to the point of view of the victims) either

• roughly, that period of the Irish Rebellion, when some of the Irish Protestants were put to death by the British under the reign of Charles I, during and following the Bishops Wars, immediately prior to the English Civil War.
• especially, that period at the close of the reign of Charles II, when toleration of Presbyterianism was revoked, and during which some 114 opponents of episcopalianism were put to death without trial, and their property confiscated, 1684-1685. Mkmcconn 00:43, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)

In an RP context, it's almost certainly the latter, although I would've said 1680-1688. -- TimNelson 05:58, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Needed changes

• Needs more headings, especially in history section
• The "Sources" section needs rewriting

-- TimNelson 05:58, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Recent changes by Gingerscot1961

While I'll admit that this article is weak on citations, Gingerscot's additions are badly in error. Let's address several of them:

• First, the RPCS was not founded in the late 20th century. Try reading Matthew Hutchison's The Reformed Presbyterian Church in Scotland, published in 1893; or Hetherington's History of the Church of Scotland, which gives coverage to the society period of the Reformed Presbyterian Church in Scotland in the late seventeenth century, both before and after the death of James Renwick. You can also consult W.M. Glasgow's History of the Reformed Presbyterian Church in America, published in 1888 — the last of the external links — which pays plenty of attention to the RPCS.
• The point of "Reformed Presbyterian" is not simply that it's both Presbyterian and a Reformed Church — the point is that the denomination heeds the Second Reformation of Scotland in the mid-17th century.
• As far as the United Societies in 1690 — Glasgow's history will give you information on this. Among these ministers was Alexander Shields, author of The Hinde Let Loose; you can find this with a Google search.
• As far as the establishment of the Church of Scotland — the Solemn League and Covenant established Presbyterianism as the religion of the Three Kingdoms, not just in Scotland.
• As far as the RPCI — there were RPs in Ireland, as well, in the 1600s. At one point in the 1690s, David Houston, who lived in Ireland, was the only Reformed Presbyterian minister in all of what is now the UK. There's no reason to say "of sorts" in describing the Reformed Presbytery of Ireland: it was no less a denomination than was the church in Scotland or would be the church in North America before long.

Nyttend (talk) 03:08, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

• • (1) The Solemn League and Covenant did not establish the Church of Scotland in the three kingdoms. Instead it preserved the Church of Scotland and called for reformation of religion in England and Ireland and did not cover Wales ""the preservation of the reformed religion in the Church of Scotland, in doctrine, worship, discipline, and government, against our common enemies; the reformation of religion in the kingdoms of England and Ireland, in doctrine, worship, discipline, and government, according to the Word of GOD, and the example of the best reformed Churches; and shall endeavour to bring the Churches of GOD in the three kingdoms to the nearest conjunction and uniformity in religion."" (2) The Three Kingdoms exclude Wales and so are not throughout Great Britain (3) It's not certain that The Solemn League and Covenant could legally establish any church as when it was signed by Parliament in 1943 Charles formally had to give Royal Assent to legislation. However, Parliament withdraw support in 1648 before the Royalist defeat removed Charles' power. So his 1650 signature had no legal force. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gingerscot1961 (talk • contribs) 21:10, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
    • Among other things, Wales was included in England for these purposes. Moreover, Charles II was required to swear the Covenants upon his accession to the throne of Scotland, which he did. Are you arguing that any act of the English Parliament during the Civil War was invalid because of a lack of royal assent? Parliament were the effective government by 1643, and because the Covenanters taught the "descending obligation of the covenants" (i.e. you can't go back on what you've sworn), any withdrawal of support (of which I've never heard) was irrelevant to their position. Nyttend (talk) 22:40, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Refer to the text of the Solemn League and Covenant. It does not make any reference to establishing the Church of Scotland in England or Wales (or even Ireland which is outside Great Britain>. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gingerscot1961 (talk • contribs) 22:10, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

However, all three kingdoms swore the Covenants; the US Constitution doesn't say anything about Alaska, but it's still in force there, just as the SL&C was in force in England for a time. Nyttend (talk) 23:26, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Schism?

The main body of the article mentions the four major schism of the RPCNA. Should I add these to these to the infobox? Exodvs (talk) 23:00, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

References

Abstention

Given RPCNA's historic practice of political abstention, should this be added to the category "Religious Abstention?" I understand that it's not a universal RPCNA viewpoint anymore, but Mennonites are listed in that category and that view's hardly universal within Mennonite communities, either. — Preceding unsigned comment added by I'm Sight (talk • contribs) 23:19, 23 February 2021 (UTC)