-----Original Message-----
Date: Thursday, October 29, 2009 9:53:14 pm
To: covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com
From: "pearl4dc" <no_reply@yahoogroups.com>
Subject: [Covenanted Reformation] the Covenanted Reformation

I have for many years kept my distance from this Club for fear of sinning by
giving offense or being offended.  I speak too much and sin is not absent. I
understand too little, for that reason.  I am zealous but not always in the
right spirit.  It takes me years to understand what I said that was so wrong.  I
joined this month out of a desire for fellowship and edification as a lone
scattered sheep.  This is my attempt to edify my brethren.  This Lord's Day I
was reviewing journal and sermon notes and rereading my notes from Mr. John
Welwood's sermon on 1 Peter 4:18 from 'Sermons in Times of Persecution'.  His
was a fearful admonition for some and encouragement for others.  Not knowing my
own heart I began self examination.  What followed these notes were musings on
what happened to the visible church as I knew it and then more notes on
something that I read, but I cannot remember from where. It was instructive to
me and I am sharing from my notes (not an exact copy of what was read) in the
hope it will be he

Hello, and welcome.

Thank you for sharing your thoughts on this.  May the Lord bless your study and
meditation.

Do we know each other?

gmw.

--- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, pearl4dc <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> I have for many years kept my distance from this Club for fear of sinning by
giving offense or being offended.  I speak too much and sin is not absent. I
understand too little, for that reason.  I am zealous but not always in the
right spirit.  It takes me years to understand what I said that was so wrong.  I
joined this month out of a desire for fellowship and edification as a lone
scattered sheep.  This is my attempt to edify my brethren.  This Lord's Day I
was reviewing journal and sermon notes and rereading my notes from Mr. John
Welwood's sermon on 1 Peter 4:18 from 'Sermons in Times of Persecution'.  His
was a fearful admonition for some and encouragement for others.  Not knowing my
own heart I began self examination.  What followed these notes were musings on
what happened to the visible church as I knew it and then more notes on
something that I read, but I cannot remember from where. It was instructive to
me and I am sharing from my notes (not an exact copy of what was read) in the
hope it will be helpful to someone.
>
> In our Covenants we swear 6 things:
>
> 1.  We will endeavor to be humbled for our sins and for the sins of the
kingdom. (the plantations in the US, Canada and elsewhere were prayerfully
petitioned for in the Directory for Public Worship, so I can safely assume we
were in their prayers and contendings)
>
> 2.  We will go before one another in an example of real reformation requiring
more amendment of life than fighting and disputes.
>
> 3.  We will endeavor to amend our lives and reform not only ourselves but all
those that are under our charge.
> (this was a concern of Thomas Manton at the beginning of my Westminster
Confession of Faith and I fear it has not yet been realized among us)
>
> 4.  To endeavor to bring the 3 Kingdoms to the nearest conjunction and
uniformity in religion, Confession of Faith, Form of Church Government,
Directory for Worship and Catechizing.
> (as a former plantation of Great Britain all Westminster accepting Reformed
Churches in this nation are bound to our fathers covenants as their spiritual
posterity and their visible representation as I understand it)
>
> 5.  To endeavor the extirpation of Popery, Prelacy, superstition, heresy and
schism in our place, calling and station - one cannot contend for a toleration
of all religions and keep this oath.
>
> 6.  Against a detestable indifference and neutrality in this cause that so
much concerns the glory of God.  How many care not for what becomes of the
(public) cause of God so that they may have peace and quiet, indifferent as to
which contending parties prevail as long as they may have their trading again.
>
> I believe all true covenanters would do well to consider all these things for
they have caused us to be scattered one from another on this dark day and to our
own and our families hurt.  I encourage each covenanter to prayerfully look each
to his own heart as I did to mine.   On Monday the Lord was by his gracious
spirit already helping me with #1  I have a long way to go.
>
> May our heavenly Father pity us as children of dust.
>

I have for many years kept my distance from this Club for fear of sinning by
giving offense or being offended.  I speak too much and sin is not absent. I
understand too little, for that reason.  I am zealous but not always in the
right spirit.  It takes me years to understand what I said that was so wrong.  I
joined this month out of a desire for fellowship and edification as a lone
scattered sheep.  This is my attempt to edify my brethren.  This Lord's Day I
was reviewing journal and sermon notes and rereading my notes from Mr. John
Welwood's sermon on 1 Peter 4:18 from 'Sermons in Times of Persecution'.  His
was a fearful admonition for some and encouragement for others.  Not knowing my
own heart I began self examination.  What followed these notes were musings on
what happened to the visible church as I knew it and then more notes on
something that I read, but I cannot remember from where. It was instructive to
me and I am sharing from my notes (not an exact copy of what was read) in the
hope it will be helpful to someone.

In our Covenants we swear 6 things:

1.  We will endeavor to be humbled for our sins and for the sins of the kingdom.
(the plantations in the US, Canada and elsewhere were prayerfully petitioned for
in the Directory for Public Worship, so I can safely assume we were in their
prayers and contendings)

2.  We will go before one another in an example of real reformation requiring
more amendment of life than fighting and disputes.

3.  We will endeavor to amend our lives and reform not only ourselves but all
those that are under our charge.
(this was a concern of Thomas Manton at the beginning of my Westminster
Confession of Faith and I fear it has not yet been realized among us)

4.  To endeavor to bring the 3 Kingdoms to the nearest conjunction and
uniformity in religion, Confession of Faith, Form of Church Government,
Directory for Worship and Catechizing.
(as a former plantation of Great Britain all Westminster accepting Reformed
Churches in this nation are bound to our fathers covenants as their spiritual
posterity and their visible representation as I understand it)

5.  To endeavor the extirpation of Popery, Prelacy, superstition, heresy and
schism in our place, calling and station - one cannot contend for a toleration
of all religions and keep this oath.

6.  Against a detestable indifference and neutrality in this cause that so much
concerns the glory of God.  How many care not for what becomes of the (public)
cause of God so that they may have peace and quiet, indifferent as to which
contending parties prevail as long as they may have their trading again.

I believe all true covenanters would do well to consider all these things for
they have caused us to be scattered one from another on this dark day and to our
own and our families hurt.  I encourage each covenanter to prayerfully look each
to his own heart as I did to mine.   On Monday the Lord was by his gracious
spirit already helping me with #1  I have a long way to go.

May our heavenly Father pity us as children of dust.

christabella.warren wrote:
> I need to read this article a little more closely when I have time, but isn't
the author's basic point pro-Psalmody? In which case, isn't that a good thing?
>


I'm not really sure he had a point.
The main thesis seems to be what we practice isn't really ethically
driven, because it can't promote  a fellowship by itself.
But that's not rational or useful.

Any distinctive has the same shortfall, and that's not the point of
psalmody.

The opening statement that we should look at exclusive psalmody and it's
reasons for being practiced apart from a biblical/ethical position
invalidates the whole application of the argument to RPW-believing
Christians.

I need to read this article a little more closely when I have time, but isn't
the author's basic point pro-Psalmody? In which case, isn't that a good thing?

--- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, Larry Bump <lbump@...> wrote:
>
> bander1643 wrote:
> > FWIW
> >
> > Tom
> >
> > Ghostly Echoes: A Eulogy
> >
> >
>
>
> That is one of the most vastly over-written straw-man arguments I have
> ever seen.
>

bander1643 wrote:
> FWIW
>
> Tom
>
> Ghostly Echoes: A Eulogy
>
>


That is one of the most vastly over-written straw-man arguments I have
ever seen.

FWIW

Tom

Ghostly Echoes: A Eulogy

I.

The great bulk, if not the entirety, of contemporary literature in Reformed and
Covenanter circles concerning the subject of psalmody approaches the issue in
theological terms, as a question of moral rightness or correct exegesis of
history and sacred texts.  Without denying that these approaches can be
appropriate, it is curious that the practice of Presbyterian psalmody, and
particularly of Covenanter psalmody, has rarely elicited discussion of perhaps
its core character, which is primarily social in nature.  That is, psalmody as a
practiced art is a ritual of worship which carries a potent social authority to
create a particular kind of spiritual economy which defines a particular "People
of God."

read more: http://www.frontporchrepublic.com/?p=6366

Keith Dotzler wrote:
>
>
>
>
> _*INTRODUCTION*_
>
> The entire foundation of the Praeterist interpretation is that certain
> key prophecies were written specifically for the first generation of
> Christians, in order to instruct them, warn them, and give them
> confidence in God’s prophetic word.  The Praeterist interpretation
> therefore suffers if it cannot be demonstrated that the earliest
> Christians understood these prophecies in the way that the Praeterist
> claims they were intended to.  The Praeterist argues:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Logical fallacy, stopped reading.
The second leg of your syllogism is a complete non-sequitor.  It is also
not accepted by the preterist camp, and so the entire argument is void.

By the same "logic" you can prove that the OT prophecies about Jesus
weren't really about Him because the Jews didn't see them that way.
That is exactly the same logic.

...from Central Scotland LOL 227 Slamannan Bible & Crown Defenders, Airdrie
District #1. I'm researching local Covenanter history for personal pleasure,
spiritual growth, & to add a tangible dimension to our proud & continued
Reformation. Looking for resources to discuss (in laymans terms)theosophically
disputed points. Just attended my first Conventicle celebrating our victory @
the Battle of Dunkeld in August 1689. Held in the ruins @ the graveside of
Lieutenant Col William Cleland (Cameronian Regiment) attended by various "Loyal"
Orders, it was spiritually charged, passionately emotive, extremely
ambient...from the "posting of the pickets" to the final piped laying of wreaths
& prayers. Consequently I've rediscovered the repose a "forgotten" prominent
Covenanter in a local Parish Kirk & will, if permissable, get photo's & history
uploaded. Would appreciate any dialogue, feel free to mail. Wishing all health,
wealth, & prosperity..."your Brother" "Je Maintiendrai..."

Dear Brethren,

For the first time in the history of the Spanish Christian Church, John Calvin's book, The Necessity of Reforming the Church, is now in Spanish and can be purchased in book form.  The translator is Joel Chairez, Deacon of the RPCNA of Los Angeles, CA.  The cost is only $7.99 plus S&H direct from the publisher.  Booksellers can purchase them at wholesale. Contact the publisher for details.

Here is the link:

http://press.landmarkproject.net/iglesia.html

Buy them for your Spanish speaking friends, for missionaries in Spanish speaking nations, to own a book that the Papacy tried to stop, & to help spread the Reformed Faith in Spanish speaking nations (all 23 othem including the USA).

Spread the news!

In Christ,

Edgar Ibarra

 Westminster Presbyterian Church

 Bethesda, MD

Dr. Milne a present day Covenanter that holds the original view point of the Covenanters, has released a new book.  The Westminster Seminary Bookstore is advertising it here: http://www.wscal.edu/bookstore/store/details.php?id=2425

Dr. Milne's web site (if you don't have it) is: http://www.covenantedreformation.com/

Thought I would pass that along>

Edgar

Brothers, sisters, heretics, and papists --

The Beast Unmasked is moving to its own domain.  We received an email from
Geocities stating that it would be shutting down as of Oct 26, 2009.  Our new
address is http://thebeastunmasked.com.  If you had our site bookmarked already,
the old link still works....it automatically redirects you to the new address. 
As of Oct 26th, however, it won't.  Please update your bookmarks.

We will be under construction for a while, but hope to be fully up and running
by the end of August.

Sincerely,
Keith Dotzler
Owner, webmaster, and contributor to The Beast Unmasked;
Enemy, nemesis, and combatant to all who find themselves in our crosshairs.

This Friday, July 10, marks the 500th anniversary of John Calvin's birth.  To
celebrate this, Reformation Art is having a 25% off sale, which is good for
everything on the site, except for the Ron Adair prints.  Use the coupon code
calvin500 to receive 25% off.  This sale lasts until Saturday night, July 11.

We have added 4 new prints of John Calvin, including two collages created to
mark the Calvin 500 anniversary.  Please visit www.ReformationArt.com to see
what's new.

You can view the html version of our latest email newsletter here:
http://campaigns.ratepoint.com/campaigns/4a46927be4ec19e26fdb6fd2f46110b7?r=aacb\
c14b62e8940623ae571b2c558f57

Soli Deo Gloria,
Andrew Moody
Reformation Art
www.ReformationArt.com

> 2.  I posed objection two as a difficulty in squaring the whole idea of
> imputation with how we typically understand justice.  My argument was that
> we normally don't work things like that in our everyday holdings of people
> morally responsible.  I mean how often do we allow a deal people made
> thousands of years ago to affect our moral standing with another party?  How
> often do we allow it that the good or bad merit of others can be made over
> to ourselves?  How often do we allow an innocent to be executed for the
> guilty?  These are extremely counterintuitive and go directly against almost
> all of our moral practices, yet they stand at the heart of the Reformed
> understanding of the Gospel.
>


I reject that imputation and inheritance are foreign to our normal experience
and practice.  Actually, it is quite common in the parent-child relationship, so
it should not be at all surprising in the Adam-mankind and Jesus-adopted
children relationships.


Just some examples:

1. Children who are born to rich parents are born rich; children who are born to
poor parents are born poor.

2. Children who are born to mortal parents will be mortal.

3. Children often inherit the genetic diseases of their parents. Children of
parents with healthy genes inherit those genes.

4.  The children of terrorist parents are more subject to have their house
(along with themselves) blown up.  (What is it like to be born the child of an
Al Qaeda leader?  Does the US military really have to wait until the wife and
children are out before destroying the house in which a terrorist leader is
residing?  Do you think that the US military waits until everyone is out except
the terrorist leader?)

5.  Rich parents buy their children presents which the children never worked
for; penniless parents can buy their children nothing.

6. Rich parents often open up a bank account for their children and put money in
it for the children (a form of imputation), even though the children never
earned it.  Penniless parents do not do the same.

7.  When a rich couple walks through an orphanage and selects a child, upon
adoption that child is immediately rich, even though the child did no more to
earn it than the next child that never gets adopted.

8. Parents are under no moral requirement to lay up money to the children of
other parents, but they should lay up for their own children, "for the children
ought not to lay up for the parents, but the parents for the children."  But
their own children did not do some special work to receive this blessing.


Imputation and inheritance are alive and well in the real world we live and act
in.  We are very familiar with it in our moral practices. But some people try to
suppress the truth in unrighteousness.

- J. Parnell McCarter

I would agree, Edgar. It is precisely because NT is trying overturn
reformed orthodoxy that he decries its defense. He can't afford an
appeal to the confessions. (NT and Wilson, I know, but who is Campbell?
Alexander? Church of  Christ?)

And while  I don't think an appeal to his statement was justified in the
recent controversy, I don't really care. More to the point, if anybody
does leave the forum because of the discussion, they ought not to fool
themselves by blaming it on somebody else.

But that again, is just my personal and obnoxious opinion.

cordially

Bob


In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, "Ic  Neltococayotl"
<puritanpresbyterian@...> wrote:
>
> Bob,
>
> You bring up a good point regarding NT Wright's jab at people being
> "self-appointed guardians of orthodoxy".  Nothing against Ben for
> quoting him, my volley of artillery is against NT Wright.
>
> Are not ministers of God, appointed by God to shut up the mouths of
> gain-sayers and those that speak errors and lead God's people astray??
> If his jab is against ministers being "self-appointed guardians of
> orthodoxy", then he should really re-read the New Testament where it
> talks about ministers guarding the Truth against such teachers of
errors
> and heresy.  NT Wright is such a person, i.e. a teacher of errors. So
> the ministers that speak out and warn the flock are doing their GOD
> appointed (not self-appointed) duty of guarding the Truth.  NT Wright
is
> trying to perform a sleight of hand here by saying such rubbish.
>
> We lay people are also called to close our ears and not allow
ourselves
> to be lead astray by wolves in sheep's clothing.  Therefore we too are
> to warn our brethren to flee men like Campbell, NT Wright, and Douglas
> Wilson, deniers of established Christian doctrines.  That is God's
> command to us...on what Biblical basis does Wright's critic stand
then?
> Maybe he found it elsewhere in 1 Hesitations 3:5 perhaps?
>
> -Edgar
>

Wow. From zero to drama in under 10 seconds.

But as my fren Bin Hurt said quoting his fren Bub Ess, 'we still don't  get it.'

"Hard questions? Difficult questions?"

Please. They were anything but.

Rather somebody bent over backward to rehearse all the supposed/hypothetical objections/mis-caricatures to the reformed doctrine and then assumed that they necessarily/very probably were true. Somehow though, the Creator - creature distinction got overlooked and the fact that things didn't tally up to the creature - creature status quo was seen as a significant and deal breaking factor. But again, God is not such a one as we are ourselves that he owes us an explanation or obligation to conform to our notions of how things ought to be (cf. Ps. 50:21).

As regards philosophy and its bearing on the question, contra the assertion that it was necessarily assumed to be relevant: "Theologia non est habitus demonstrativus, sed exhibitivus.

"Theology is not a demonstrative, but an exhibitive habit; theology, considered as a human capacity or disposition, does not follow philosophy in attempting to demonstrate its truths rationally but rather exhibits or explains its truth to the world. The maxim in this form is Lutheran, but the Reformed scholastics concur, particularly in distinguishing theological certainty and the genus of theological knowledge from philosophical certainty and from the genus of philosophical knowledge."

(Muller's Dictionary of Latin and Greek Theological Terms, p. 303)

As re. NT Wright and his jibe at the 'self appointed guardians of orthodoxy', we realize, don't we, that one quotes NT at their own risk? Ole NT is a liar and fraud of the worst sort. We bring this up because we don't know if people take NT seriously or not, particularly in light of the previous on the forum.

FWIW NT's modus operandi is 1. volume and 2. audacity, audacity, audacity. IOW conjure up some arbitrary "national boundary markers" for 2^nd Temple Judaism and assert that this really is what Paul is talking about. IOW the New Perspective on Paul throws overboard the classic Reformation doctrine of justification by faith alone all the while sidestepping the fact by claiming that the Reformers misunderstood Paul and forensic justification. Yet this is such an oddball claim to begin with and NT spews it out in such sincere volume, many nominally reformed get taken in by it.

But NPP is nothing more than an appeal by an academic priesthood to Second Temple Judaism scholarship as the infallible authority by which the Scriptures are interpreted contra - mind you - WCF 1:9 and the rule that Scripture interprets Scripture. Rather the question is, if 2^ndTemple Judaism was orthodox, why did Christ condemn the teachings of the Jews and the Pharisees as vehemently as he did? Answer, 2^ndTemple Judaism was not orthodox and is not relevant to the question of the Reformation doctrine of justification. The historic doctrine needs no remodeling, much more total demolition, which is what NT and the NPP really have in mind.

Like I said, FWIW

Thank you.

Dear List,

I need to apologize to everyone for my post this morning. It is something which
never should have been sent or even composed. I do not recede from the doctrinal
positions asserted, the defence of truth, or my concern for the fact that such
questions and positions are discussed in a public forum; but there was no need
that I should address what had already been addressed by others, and the
conclusion of the post was in tone and nature due to a misapprehension in my
mind. The occasion will provide some explanatory context, and was this:

When I looked at the forum this morning, I saw that there were 2 or 3 new
messages counted in the 7-day activity status. Upon clicking to view the
messages, I was given the messages in order from oldest to newest, thinking that
I had the opposite order, with newest messages at the top. Consequently, it
appeared to me that the 3 newest messages were 16767 by Ben, posing his
questions on the Federal View of Imputation and two non-related messages from
someone else, who I thought might have responded to Ben, but had apparently
chose not to. In light of the recent history of the club, and a darkening memory
of posts from more than a month ago (or perhaps I had never even read Ben's post
16767 originally,) it seemed to me that Ben was once again trying to pose
questions to call in doubt what really ought not to be treated as a subject up
for discussion among Reformed Christians, in a public discussion forum. It
seemed he was proving Bob Suden exactly right in his concerns about Ben's actual
intentions in raising such questions.

Thus, my post.

Consequently I need to ask forgiveness of

Ben, for (1) thinking that you were intentionally re-stirring these debates, and
accordingly (2) responding to you as one who had cast off faith in the truth of
holy Scripture, and fundamental doctrines of the Gospel. This may have
encouraged others to believe such things about you contrary to your profession.
If you are sincerely only struggling, then I would not want to do that. I do
think there was impropriety in your posts, insofar as they do appear to be
arguing against the truth, and in favour of heresy. But others have already
dealt with you about this.

Bob Suden and others, for posting this call to repentance as if you had not
attempted to correct Ben already. My intention was not to ignore what you had
already written or treat it as insufficient.

The List in general, for having possibly misled others into thinking that Ben
had re-posted these arguments, and was seeking to confuse others or call in
question the truth, when in reality he had decided not to carry on the
discussion further.

The Moderator, whom I enlisted to the expunging of messages which were not
actually posted, on my behalf, because of my imaginary apprehensions. Also, for
giving Ben a more legitimate occasion in your forum to identify the Reformed
community as something of which he ought to have a waning opinion. I do not
those with mere questions to feel unwelcome in a place where I know they are
very welcome; and am sorry for giving occasion for this.

Why the Lord left me this morning to my foolish misapprehensions to stumble and
stir more trouble in the conversation, I cannot know. I hope I have dealt with
my misdeed properly and that if anyone else has taken offense for any other
reason, you will consider the circumstances described above once more, and let
me know your thoughts. My hope was to help Ben to recognize the worthlessness of
the arguments alleged against the Gospel, and the sinfulness of toying with
them, as well as encouraging or occasioning others to do so. I also hoped to
bring a full end to a discussion which, in reality, had already ended. In this
regard I perfectly defeated my own purpose.

Tr. Pr. - Repenting

This is certainly fair enough as far as I'm concerned, Edgar.  Some, though,
apparently found this line of questioning to be a bit argumentative, and the
subject matter concerns things held forth in our confessional standards, while
in the cases you remind us of do not, as far as I can tell.  I'm just pointing
out the difference.  I don't really have a dog in this fight, myself, other than
to maintain the truths of those standards.

gmw.

--- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, "Ic  Neltococayotl"
<puritanpresbyterian@...> wrote:
>
>
> gmw,
>
> Thank you.  Yes I do see a difference.  My impression of Ben's e-mails
> were not that he was departing from some settled Reformed doctrine, but
> to try and answer questions he had that arose from his understanding of
> the doctrine (and my perception also was his anticipation of
> non-believers questions regarding how original sin comes to us---reminds
> me of the UNSETTLED(?) view of creationism and traducionism (sp?)).
> Afterall we are all at different levels of understanding doctrine and
> unless one comes out torching a doctrine or redefining it (like NT
> Wright and FV peps) we should try to help if we so feel inclined to do
> so...well friends should anyways...maybe such questions are best handled
> over the phone or face to face?
>
> But to ask people to repent for questioning as they work things
> out...well I do have a problem with that...ask people to repent when
> they have sinned or rejected Biblical truth, I am for that all the
> way...but I do not see this (Ben's questions) to be the case.
>
> Rutherford's letters are a good reminder of how we should approach
> struggling Christians---whatever that struggle may be...and he was
> Reformed...
>
> Thanks,
>
> Edgar
>
>
> --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, "gmw"
> <ragingcalvinist@> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Edgar,
> >
> > I hope you do see the difference in calling someone to repentance for
> an evident departure from settled Reformed confessional theology, and
> calling someone to repentance for questioning someone's questionable
> assertion of authority.
> >
> > your friend,
> >
> > gmw.
> >
> > --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, "Ic Neltococayotl"
> puritanpresbyterian@ wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > >Doubters, people with serious struggles
> > > > over deep truths, etc. just aren't allowed in this group, and
> since I
> > > very
> > > > often find myself with doubts and other doctrinal struggles, I
> don't
> > > think I
> > > > belong here. So thanks, truepresbyterian, for being a true
> > > Presbyterian and
> > > > "calling me to repentance" for asking a few hard questions. I hope
> God
> > > > helps to teach you how to deal with those who just aren't getting
> it
> > > but
> > > > really want to.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Deja Vu!
> > >
> > > -Edgar
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, Ben Hart
> > > <benjamin.hart1@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Dear True Presbyterian,
> > > >
> > > > To quote my friend Bob S., "You still don't get it, do you?" You
> > > missed
> > > > several of the developments of the dialectic, so let's review real
> > > quickly.
> > > >
> > > > 1. I granted the invalidity of objection 1 in that it
> misunderstood
> > > the
> > > > nature of the Federal View's understanding of the covenant of
> works.
> > > >
> > > > 2. I posed objection two as a difficulty in squaring the whole
> idea of
> > > > imputation with how we typically understand justice. My argument
> was
> > > that
> > > > we normally don't work things like that in our everyday holdings
> of
> > > people
> > > > morally responsible. I mean how often do we allow a deal people
> made
> > > > thousands of years ago to affect our moral standing with another
> > > party? How
> > > > often do we allow it that the good or bad merit of others can be
> made
> > > over
> > > > to ourselves? How often do we allow an innocent to be executed for
> the
> > > > guilty? These are extremely counterintuitive and go directly
> against
> > > almost
> > > > all of our moral practices, yet they stand at the heart of the
> > > Reformed
> > > > understanding of the Gospel.
> > > >
> > > > I no longer see this as a reason to reject the Federal view, but
> > > merely as a
> > > > doctrine that needs to be accepted with piety since it makes no
> sense
> > > to
> > > > me. The problem is that the federal view often gets explained as
> if
> > > it's
> > > > all very common sense, but it's not.
> > > >
> > > > Now, I am going to take this as an opportunity to officially end
> this
> > > > conversation since I'm not only done with it, but with this group
> as
> > > well.
> > > > I have a few friends here, so I don't mean any offense to them,
> but to
> > > those
> > > > who (to quote NT Wright) are "self-appointed protectors of
> orthodoxy",
> > > all I
> > > > can say is that you have really done a great job solidifying my
> ever
> > > waning
> > > > opinion of the Reformed community. Doubters, people with serious
> > > struggles
> > > > over deep truths, etc. just aren't allowed in this group, and
> since I
> > > very
> > > > often find myself with doubts and other doctrinal struggles, I
> don't
> > > think I
> > > > belong here. So thanks, truepresbyterian, for being a true
> > > Presbyterian and
> > > > "calling me to repentance" for asking a few hard questions. I hope
> God
> > > > helps to teach you how to deal with those who just aren't getting
> it
> > > but
> > > > really want to.
> > > >
> > > > Kind regards,
> > > > Ben
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 8:29 AM, truepresbyterian
> > > > no_reply@:
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Dear Ben,
> > > > >
> > > > > Your first argument ultimately hangs upon the following
> assertion:
> > > > >
> > > > > "See, if Adam repented (looking forward to the future Christ,
> the
> > > same
> > > > > situation we think OT believers were in) then as our
> representative,
> > > we
> > > > > should have had his good act of repentance laid to our account,
> > > since he is,
> > > > > after all, our representative."
> > > > >
> > > > > But this is entirely arbitrary of you. There is nothing about
> > > Protestant
> > > > > theology or the "federal view" that makes it necessary that
> Adam's
> > > later act
> > > > > of repentance should likewise come under a federal character.
> For
> > > one thing,
> > > > > his breaking of the Covenant may be considered as dissolving the
> > > > > relationship as to any future actions, even as a president or
> prince
> > > by his
> > > > > representative failures may at the same time both (1) involve
> his
> > > entire
> > > > > people in irreversible calamity; and (2) forfeit his position as
> > > president
> > > > > or prince. And Secondly, although the moral law as revealed at
> Sinai
> > > and to
> > > > > the Jewish nation, conjoined with the judicial and ceremonial
> laws,
> > > > > certainly did teach repentance, yet the Covenant of Works itself
> > > does not
> > > > > give any place for repentance, certainly not as a remedy to
> relieve
> > > existing
> > > > > guilt. Adam's repentance only served his own purpose within the
> > > context of
> > > > > an entirely different Covenant, the Covenant of Grace; which
> > > Covenant makes
> > > > > none representative except Jesus Christ himself.
> > > > >
> > > > > As for your second argument, it is not definitive as to what is
> > > said, or on
> > > > > what ground it is spoken. You give God permission to authorize
> Adam
> > > as our
> > > > > representative "in some sense" but you tell us he can only have
> this
> > > > > permission in a sense other than "the federal view wants to say
> he
> > > > > represented us." What this different sense of the federal view
> is,
> > > you have
> > > > > not said, nor why God may not make Adam our representative in
> this
> > > sense.
> > > > >
> > > > > Please understand that I am not writing these things to
> encourage
> > > this
> > > > > discussion further. To some it may seem I am out of place to
> take
> > > upon me
> > > > > such discussion. In fact, I have rather pointedly discouraged
> others
> > > from
> > > > > doing so on public forums in the past. I do so only with a
> desire to
> > > help
> > > > > you, not provoke further rebellion on your part. You act very
> > > dangerously in
> > > > > subjecting essential Gospel doctrines to such suspicion for
> reasons
> > > which
> > > > > are evidently mere trifles. Your heart is not right with God,
> nor
> > > rightly
> > > > > affected with your state of sin and misery, nor with the mercy
> which
> > > God has
> > > > > revealed in his glorious Son. Further discussion on your part,
> > > calling in
> > > > > question such doctrines, with vain notions as will ultimately
> make
> > > the death
> > > > > of Christ to be in vain, is not what will be acceptable in the
> ears
> > > or eyes
> > > > > of any Christian, and it is only to be expected that the
> moderator
> > > will
> > > > > expunge such things from this discussion.
> > > > >
> > > > > You have been called to repentance. There is only one answer
> which
> > > will
> > > > > suffice. All others will displease Christians, and provoke the
> Lord
> > > Christ.
> > > > >
> > > > > True Presbyterian
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

gmw,

Thank you.  Yes I do see a difference.  My impression of Ben's e-mails
were not that he was departing from some settled Reformed doctrine, but
to try and answer questions he had that arose from his understanding of
the doctrine (and my perception also was his anticipation of
non-believers questions regarding how original sin comes to us---reminds
me of the UNSETTLED(?) view of creationism and traducionism (sp?)).
Afterall we are all at different levels of understanding doctrine and
unless one comes out torching a doctrine or redefining it (like NT
Wright and FV peps) we should try to help if we so feel inclined to do
so...well friends should anyways...maybe such questions are best handled
over the phone or face to face?

But to ask people to repent for questioning as they work things
out...well I do have a problem with that...ask people to repent when
they have sinned or rejected Biblical truth, I am for that all the
way...but I do not see this (Ben's questions) to be the case.

Rutherford's letters are a good reminder of how we should approach
struggling Christians---whatever that struggle may be...and he was
Reformed...

Thanks,

Edgar


--- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, "gmw"
<ragingcalvinist@...> wrote:
>
>
> Edgar,
>
> I hope you do see the difference in calling someone to repentance for
an evident departure from settled Reformed confessional theology, and
calling someone to repentance for questioning someone's questionable
assertion of authority.
>
> your friend,
>
> gmw.
>
> --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, "Ic Neltococayotl"
puritanpresbyterian@ wrote:
> >
> >
> > >Doubters, people with serious struggles
> > > over deep truths, etc. just aren't allowed in this group, and
since I
> > very
> > > often find myself with doubts and other doctrinal struggles, I
don't
> > think I
> > > belong here. So thanks, truepresbyterian, for being a true
> > Presbyterian and
> > > "calling me to repentance" for asking a few hard questions. I hope
God
> > > helps to teach you how to deal with those who just aren't getting
it
> > but
> > > really want to.
> >
> >
> >
> > Deja Vu!
> >
> > -Edgar
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, Ben Hart
> > <benjamin.hart1@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Dear True Presbyterian,
> > >
> > > To quote my friend Bob S., "You still don't get it, do you?" You
> > missed
> > > several of the developments of the dialectic, so let's review real
> > quickly.
> > >
> > > 1. I granted the invalidity of objection 1 in that it
misunderstood
> > the
> > > nature of the Federal View's understanding of the covenant of
works.
> > >
> > > 2. I posed objection two as a difficulty in squaring the whole
idea of
> > > imputation with how we typically understand justice. My argument
was
> > that
> > > we normally don't work things like that in our everyday holdings
of
> > people
> > > morally responsible. I mean how often do we allow a deal people
made
> > > thousands of years ago to affect our moral standing with another
> > party? How
> > > often do we allow it that the good or bad merit of others can be
made
> > over
> > > to ourselves? How often do we allow an innocent to be executed for
the
> > > guilty? These are extremely counterintuitive and go directly
against
> > almost
> > > all of our moral practices, yet they stand at the heart of the
> > Reformed
> > > understanding of the Gospel.
> > >
> > > I no longer see this as a reason to reject the Federal view, but
> > merely as a
> > > doctrine that needs to be accepted with piety since it makes no
sense
> > to
> > > me. The problem is that the federal view often gets explained as
if
> > it's
> > > all very common sense, but it's not.
> > >
> > > Now, I am going to take this as an opportunity to officially end
this
> > > conversation since I'm not only done with it, but with this group
as
> > well.
> > > I have a few friends here, so I don't mean any offense to them,
but to
> > those
> > > who (to quote NT Wright) are "self-appointed protectors of
orthodoxy",
> > all I
> > > can say is that you have really done a great job solidifying my
ever
> > waning
> > > opinion of the Reformed community. Doubters, people with serious
> > struggles
> > > over deep truths, etc. just aren't allowed in this group, and
since I
> > very
> > > often find myself with doubts and other doctrinal struggles, I
don't
> > think I
> > > belong here. So thanks, truepresbyterian, for being a true
> > Presbyterian and
> > > "calling me to repentance" for asking a few hard questions. I hope
God
> > > helps to teach you how to deal with those who just aren't getting
it
> > but
> > > really want to.
> > >
> > > Kind regards,
> > > Ben
> > >
> > > On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 8:29 AM, truepresbyterian
> > > no_reply@:
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Dear Ben,
> > > >
> > > > Your first argument ultimately hangs upon the following
assertion:
> > > >
> > > > "See, if Adam repented (looking forward to the future Christ,
the
> > same
> > > > situation we think OT believers were in) then as our
representative,
> > we
> > > > should have had his good act of repentance laid to our account,
> > since he is,
> > > > after all, our representative."
> > > >
> > > > But this is entirely arbitrary of you. There is nothing about
> > Protestant
> > > > theology or the "federal view" that makes it necessary that
Adam's
> > later act
> > > > of repentance should likewise come under a federal character.
For
> > one thing,
> > > > his breaking of the Covenant may be considered as dissolving the
> > > > relationship as to any future actions, even as a president or
prince
> > by his
> > > > representative failures may at the same time both (1) involve
his
> > entire
> > > > people in irreversible calamity; and (2) forfeit his position as
> > president
> > > > or prince. And Secondly, although the moral law as revealed at
Sinai
> > and to
> > > > the Jewish nation, conjoined with the judicial and ceremonial
laws,
> > > > certainly did teach repentance, yet the Covenant of Works itself
> > does not
> > > > give any place for repentance, certainly not as a remedy to
relieve
> > existing
> > > > guilt. Adam's repentance only served his own purpose within the
> > context of
> > > > an entirely different Covenant, the Covenant of Grace; which
> > Covenant makes
> > > > none representative except Jesus Christ himself.
> > > >
> > > > As for your second argument, it is not definitive as to what is
> > said, or on
> > > > what ground it is spoken. You give God permission to authorize
Adam
> > as our
> > > > representative "in some sense" but you tell us he can only have
this
> > > > permission in a sense other than "the federal view wants to say
he
> > > > represented us." What this different sense of the federal view
is,
> > you have
> > > > not said, nor why God may not make Adam our representative in
this
> > sense.
> > > >
> > > > Please understand that I am not writing these things to
encourage
> > this
> > > > discussion further. To some it may seem I am out of place to
take
> > upon me
> > > > such discussion. In fact, I have rather pointedly discouraged
others
> > from
> > > > doing so on public forums in the past. I do so only with a
desire to
> > help
> > > > you, not provoke further rebellion on your part. You act very
> > dangerously in
> > > > subjecting essential Gospel doctrines to such suspicion for
reasons
> > which
> > > > are evidently mere trifles. Your heart is not right with God,
nor
> > rightly
> > > > affected with your state of sin and misery, nor with the mercy
which
> > God has
> > > > revealed in his glorious Son. Further discussion on your part,
> > calling in
> > > > question such doctrines, with vain notions as will ultimately
make
> > the death
> > > > of Christ to be in vain, is not what will be acceptable in the
ears
> > or eyes
> > > > of any Christian, and it is only to be expected that the
moderator
> > will
> > > > expunge such things from this discussion.
> > > >
> > > > You have been called to repentance. There is only one answer
which
> > will
> > > > suffice. All others will displease Christians, and provoke the
Lord
> > Christ.
> > > >
> > > > True Presbyterian
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

I forgive you, John.  In fact, I'm not even going to read the post you're
apologizing for.  :)

All I meant was, the issues that TruePres was bringing up, had to do with
covenant theology.  That is, Reformation theology.  The theology of the Creeds
and Confessions.  This is a far different issue than what Edgar may have been
having deja vu about.  That's all I was saying.  I feel bad for Ben, and I hope
and pray he gets his questions answered adequately.

gmw.

--- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, "jp_protestant"
<filepapers@...> wrote:
>
> gmw,
>
> Before you respond, I should apologize for my tone in the last email. You may
or may not be accusing Ben of evidently departing from settled reformed
theology. I was too quick to accuse you of charging him with that; it doesn't
follow necessarily from your post. My apologies.
>
> Regards,
> John
>
> --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, "gmw" <ragingcalvinist@>
wrote:
> >
> >
> > Edgar,
> >
> > I hope you do see the difference in calling someone to repentance for an
evident departure from settled Reformed confessional theology, and calling
someone to repentance for questioning someone's questionable assertion of
authority.
> >
> > your friend,
> >
> > gmw.
> >
> > --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, "Ic  Neltococayotl"
<puritanpresbyterian@> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > >Doubters, people with serious struggles
> > > > over deep truths, etc. just aren't allowed in this group, and since I
> > > very
> > > > often find myself with doubts and other doctrinal struggles, I don't
> > > think I
> > > > belong here. So thanks, truepresbyterian, for being a true
> > > Presbyterian and
> > > > "calling me to repentance" for asking a few hard questions. I hope God
> > > > helps to teach you how to deal with those who just aren't getting it
> > > but
> > > > really want to.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Deja Vu!
> > >
> > > -Edgar
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, Ben Hart
> > > <benjamin.hart1@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Dear True Presbyterian,
> > > >
> > > > To quote my friend Bob S., "You still don't get it, do you?" You
> > > missed
> > > > several of the developments of the dialectic, so let's review real
> > > quickly.
> > > >
> > > > 1. I granted the invalidity of objection 1 in that it misunderstood
> > > the
> > > > nature of the Federal View's understanding of the covenant of works.
> > > >
> > > > 2. I posed objection two as a difficulty in squaring the whole idea of
> > > > imputation with how we typically understand justice. My argument was
> > > that
> > > > we normally don't work things like that in our everyday holdings of
> > > people
> > > > morally responsible. I mean how often do we allow a deal people made
> > > > thousands of years ago to affect our moral standing with another
> > > party? How
> > > > often do we allow it that the good or bad merit of others can be made
> > > over
> > > > to ourselves? How often do we allow an innocent to be executed for the
> > > > guilty? These are extremely counterintuitive and go directly against
> > > almost
> > > > all of our moral practices, yet they stand at the heart of the
> > > Reformed
> > > > understanding of the Gospel.
> > > >
> > > > I no longer see this as a reason to reject the Federal view, but
> > > merely as a
> > > > doctrine that needs to be accepted with piety since it makes no sense
> > > to
> > > > me. The problem is that the federal view often gets explained as if
> > > it's
> > > > all very common sense, but it's not.
> > > >
> > > > Now, I am going to take this as an opportunity to officially end this
> > > > conversation since I'm not only done with it, but with this group as
> > > well.
> > > > I have a few friends here, so I don't mean any offense to them, but to
> > > those
> > > > who (to quote NT Wright) are "self-appointed protectors of orthodoxy",
> > > all I
> > > > can say is that you have really done a great job solidifying my ever
> > > waning
> > > > opinion of the Reformed community. Doubters, people with serious
> > > struggles
> > > > over deep truths, etc. just aren't allowed in this group, and since I
> > > very
> > > > often find myself with doubts and other doctrinal struggles, I don't
> > > think I
> > > > belong here. So thanks, truepresbyterian, for being a true
> > > Presbyterian and
> > > > "calling me to repentance" for asking a few hard questions. I hope God
> > > > helps to teach you how to deal with those who just aren't getting it
> > > but
> > > > really want to.
> > > >
> > > > Kind regards,
> > > > Ben
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 8:29 AM, truepresbyterian
> > > > no_reply@:
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Dear Ben,
> > > > >
> > > > > Your first argument ultimately hangs upon the following assertion:
> > > > >
> > > > > "See, if Adam repented (looking forward to the future Christ, the
> > > same
> > > > > situation we think OT believers were in) then as our representative,
> > > we
> > > > > should have had his good act of repentance laid to our account,
> > > since he is,
> > > > > after all, our representative."
> > > > >
> > > > > But this is entirely arbitrary of you. There is nothing about
> > > Protestant
> > > > > theology or the "federal view" that makes it necessary that Adam's
> > > later act
> > > > > of repentance should likewise come under a federal character. For
> > > one thing,
> > > > > his breaking of the Covenant may be considered as dissolving the
> > > > > relationship as to any future actions, even as a president or prince
> > > by his
> > > > > representative failures may at the same time both (1) involve his
> > > entire
> > > > > people in irreversible calamity; and (2) forfeit his position as
> > > president
> > > > > or prince. And Secondly, although the moral law as revealed at Sinai
> > > and to
> > > > > the Jewish nation, conjoined with the judicial and ceremonial laws,
> > > > > certainly did teach repentance, yet the Covenant of Works itself
> > > does not
> > > > > give any place for repentance, certainly not as a remedy to relieve
> > > existing
> > > > > guilt. Adam's repentance only served his own purpose within the
> > > context of
> > > > > an entirely different Covenant, the Covenant of Grace; which
> > > Covenant makes
> > > > > none representative except Jesus Christ himself.
> > > > >
> > > > > As for your second argument, it is not definitive as to what is
> > > said, or on
> > > > > what ground it is spoken. You give God permission to authorize Adam
> > > as our
> > > > > representative "in some sense" but you tell us he can only have this
> > > > > permission in a sense other than "the federal view wants to say he
> > > > > represented us." What this different sense of the federal view is,
> > > you have
> > > > > not said, nor why God may not make Adam our representative in this
> > > sense.
> > > > >
> > > > > Please understand that I am not writing these things to encourage
> > > this
> > > > > discussion further. To some it may seem I am out of place to take
> > > upon me
> > > > > such discussion. In fact, I have rather pointedly discouraged others
> > > from
> > > > > doing so on public forums in the past. I do so only with a desire to
> > > help
> > > > > you, not provoke further rebellion on your part. You act very
> > > dangerously in
> > > > > subjecting essential Gospel doctrines to such suspicion for reasons
> > > which
> > > > > are evidently mere trifles. Your heart is not right with God, nor
> > > rightly
> > > > > affected with your state of sin and misery, nor with the mercy which
> > > God has
> > > > > revealed in his glorious Son. Further discussion on your part,
> > > calling in
> > > > > question such doctrines, with vain notions as will ultimately make
> > > the death
> > > > > of Christ to be in vain, is not what will be acceptable in the ears
> > > or eyes
> > > > > of any Christian, and it is only to be expected that the moderator
> > > will
> > > > > expunge such things from this discussion.
> > > > >
> > > > > You have been called to repentance. There is only one answer which
> > > will
> > > > > suffice. All others will displease Christians, and provoke the Lord
> > > Christ.
> > > > >
> > > > > True Presbyterian
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>