Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

13614Re: [Covenanted Reformation] Foreign Jurisdiction

Expand Messages
  • Fred blahous
    Aug 13 7:44 AM
    • 0 Attachment
      Thanks, Whit.

      Won't it be great when we see all the other kingdoms establishing
      the same unified religion, and abolishing both Popery and the
      Eastern anti-filioque religion in Russia and Serbia? Then we will
      finally be rid of church divisions and the so-called "three great
      traditions" nonsense, bandied about so much.

      All the best,
      Fred.

      --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, "Whit"
      <covie_pres.1646@v...> wrote:
      > Indeed true!. Very good point as Psalms, Isaiah, and the other
      > books have warnings and exhortations to "kiss the Son lest he be
      > angry", "the Kings shall be thy nursing fathers", etc.
      >
      > Whit
      >
      > --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, "Fred blahous"
      > <fritzbau@y...> wrote:
      > > Nations are under obligation to establish Presbyterianism
      because
      > it
      > > is the true religion required in God's Word, with or without a
      > > covenant to do so. God did not tell us that "nations have no
      > > obligation to Presbyterianism" in Acts 15, did he? And I repeat,
      > > what was stopping them from simply not including non-
      Presbyterian
      > > states in their compacts? There is no call for war, certainly,
      but
      > > this does not mean they can form a compact with idolators. Just
      my
      > > thoughts.
      > >
      > > All the best,
      > > Fred.
      > >
      > > --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, Larry Bump
      > > <lbump@b...> wrote:
      > > > Shawn Anderson wrote:
      > > >
      > > > >"to prevent discrimination against a particular State's
      > > > >established denomination"
      > > > >
      > > > >Is not even this idea Anti-Christian as well as Anti-
      > Presbyterian?
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > No, it's not. How can that be said?
      > > > Virginia was not under any Covenant except her Constitution,
      nor
      > > was New
      > > > Hampshire. Neither had a prior obligation to be Presbyterian,
      > > > congregational, or Anglican. Both were equally sovereign.
      How
      > > should
      > > > the issue be resolved? By not involving either state in the
      > > matters of
      > > > the other; i.e. as it was by aknowledging the sovereignty of
      > > either state.
      > > >
      > > > Sure, it's no-Presbyterian. But so were some of the States.
      We
      > > did not
      > > > need a war to force Presbyterianism on the other states, now
      did
      > > we?
      > > > That's not how the Kingdom is built.
      > > >
      > > > You are blinded by your pre-suppositions. The states were
      > > sovereign,
      > > > the Feds had no jurisdiction, and their was no previous
      > obligation
      > > to
      > > > Presbyterianism or other denomination. The States were mostly
      > > founded
      > > > with an Established Church, which varied by State. The SL&C
      had
      > > never
      > > > been applied, nor required; so the denominational landscape
      was
      > > very
      > > > different than in the Three Kingdoms.
    • Show all 57 messages in this topic