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

13953Re: [Covenanted Reformation] To Mr. Ibarra re The Corps

Expand Messages
  • Edgar A. Ibarra Jr.
    Aug 31, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      Matthew,

      You call my remarks being "nonsense". Tell me, can you refute my
      words as "nonsense" from historical testimony? I answer you
      questions and comments and challenges with actual answers, instead
      of blowing you off with words
      like: "nonsense", "dribble", "unsubstantiated claims", "dressed up
      accusations" and etc. Can you reciprocate?

      As for your quote of John Brown, I have answered you by re-stating
      the actual events that occurred right before, during, and right
      after the Revolution Settlement. Yes, the Revolution put an end to
      the bloodshed, yes it brought civil peace, but there are more things
      involved here than just that. Can you tell me which of the several
      events I speak/spoken about, you challenge that are not historically
      accurate? I understand if you disagree with the comments, but are
      my comments historically inaccurate? If so, could you or anyone
      else tell me so that I can make the appropriate correction and any
      other necessary adjustments? And cite where you get your info from,
      don't just say I am wrong, back it up.

      Now, if you dislike the conclusions that the historical facts
      lead you to and try to pass them off by calling them "nonsense",
      that is not being honest to anyone, but especially to yourself. I
      understand you love the Revolution Church, but if she stands on
      untenable principles that are refuted by the Covenated Second
      Reformation (1638-1649), at least grant and concede that, but I
      would rather see you disown the Revolution Church and embrace the
      entire Covenanted Second Reformation so that you can truly and
      honestly claim to be an heir of the Covenanted Church of Scotland,
      of which the Revolution Church (and her descendants) cannot claim,
      as history has clearly borne this out.

      For clarity and truth,

      Edgar



      --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, "Matthew Winzer"
      <mwinzer@p...> wrote:
      > More nonsense! Ever thought of taking a fresh approach, Edgar?
      Perhaps you
      > could begin by addressing the post in which John Brown mentioned
      what the
      > Scottish government brought about by way of reformation at the
      Revolution.
      > Constantly making unsubstantiated charges are but a crude dress
      for
      > disguising railing accusations.
      >
      > Yours sincerely,
      > Rev. Matthew Winzer
      >
      >
      > ----- Original Message -----
      > From: "Edgar A. Ibarra Jr." <puritanpresbyterian@y...>
      > To: <covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com>
      > Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2005 10:12 PM
      > Subject: Re: [Covenanted Reformation] To Mr. Ibarra re The Corps
      >
      >
      > >> William III didn't overturn anything. It was already overturned
      > > by Charles
      > >> II.
      > >
      > > But William III did maintain the law overturning the Covenanted
      > > Second Reformation and left undone the maturity that the Church
      had
      > > obtained through "semper reformada" and imposed himself upon the
      > > church as a true Erastian and the Revolution Church did NOTHING
      to
      > > establish herself by *jus divinum* and on the more marture
      > > attainments of the Second Reformation, but instead rebuked teh 3
      > > ministers of the United Societies when it was suggested, nay
      plead
      > > by them to the new GA to do so.
      > >
      > > So William did not shed blood, but sometimes Satan uses rulers to
      > > shed blood to overturn the Church and sometimes Satan uses
      flowery
      > > words and gifts/bribery to do it. William III encroached into
      the
      > > Temple of God by dictating to the Church what her constitution
      and
      > > charter was going to be and the miniters sat idle and did
      nothing.
      > >
      > > The only ones that were faithful, although all sorts of
      asperions
      > > and denunciations were cast upon them, and their spiritual
      > > descendants still receive the same, were the Society People, i.e.
      > > the Covenanters, those who did uphold *jus divinum* and the
      Second
      > > Reformation mature attainments, because they/we do believe in
      > > *semper reformada* not in deformation, as in the case of the
      > > Revolution Church and her descendants.
      > >
      > >
      > > There is a distinction between the two kings, only on how they
      both
      > > abused the Church of Christ and usurped the throne, crown rights,
      > > and royal perorgative of King Jesus the Christ, the Only Head of
      the
      > > Church: One by the sword, the other with political manuverings
      and
      > > manipulation.
      > >
      > > Yours in Christ,
      > >
      > > Edgar
      > >
      > > --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, "Matthew
      Winzer"
      > > <mwinzer@p...> wrote:
      > >> Fred,
      > >>
      > >> Elizabeth insisted upon the act of uniformity being maintained
      to
      > > the
      > >> letter.
      > >>
      > >> William III didn't overturn anything. It was already overturned
      > > by Charles
      > >> II.
      > >>
      > >> Yours sincerely,
      > >> Rev. Matthew Winzer
      > >>
      > >>
      > >> ----- Original Message -----
      > >> From: "Fred blahous" <fritzbau@y...>
      > >> To: <covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com>
      > >> Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2005 9:20 PM
      > >> Subject: Re: [Covenanted Reformation] To Mr. Ibarra re The Corps
      > >>
      > >>
      > >> > It was my understanding that Elizabeth authorized objectors to
      > > the
      > >> > Anglican liturgy to register as Puritans and hold the
      ordinances
      > > the
      > >> > way they wanted. Isn't this how the "low chuch" got started in
      > >> > England.
      > >> >
      > >> > It is true that James I believed the principle "no Bishop, no
      > > king",
      > >> > but he did not seek to overturn the National Covenant of 1592
      in
      > >> > Scotland. William III overturned both the 1638 and 1643
      > > Covenant. He
      > >> > might have been a better man than James, but he did more
      damage
      > > than
      > >> > James did.
      > >> >
      > >> > All the best,
      > >> > Fred.
      > >> >
      > >> > --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, "Matthew
      > > Winzer"
      > >> > <mwinzer@p...> wrote:
      > >> >> > As a professing Christian, William III was certainly
      subject
      > > to
      > >> > the
      > >> >> > discipline of the church for how he exercised his office,
      even
      > >> >> > without any overt acts of tyranny. He was king of Britian,
      not
      > >> > Saudi
      > >> >> > Arabia. The WCF does not say we owe subjection to those who
      > >> > overturn
      > >> >> > thier obligations to the church. Only those who remain
      > >> > unconvinced
      > >> >> > of the True Religion, but agree to fulfil their obligations
      > > in a
      > >> >> > Christian Land. Both James I and Elizabeth I were privately
      > >> > opposed
      > >> >> > to the Reformed faith, and no-one disputed the legality of
      > > their
      > >> >> > offices. But they never tried to overthrow their
      obligations
      > > to
      > >> >> > settle Presbyterian polity in their kingdoms. In fact,
      > > Elizabeth
      > >> >> > advanced it in England by allowing Puritan assemblies
      outside
      > > of
      > >> >> > Anglican worship, and James I never annulled the covenant
      of
      > >> > 1592.
      > >> >> > If they had done as William III did, dissent from their
      rule
      > >> > would
      > >> >> > have been a duty as well.
      > >> >>
      > >> >> 1. Presbyterian church government does not exercise temporal
      > > power.
      > >> >>
      > >> >> 2. Your understanding of the WCF is contrary to the plain and
      > >> > common sense
      > >> >> of the words.
      > >> >>
      > >> >> 3. Elizabeth's bishops persecuted the Puritans.
      > >> >>
      > >> >> 4. James I.'s policy was no bishop no king.
      > >> >>
      > >> >> Where do you get your data, Fred? I doubt if it could be
      more
      > >> > contrary to
      > >> >> the facts.
      > >> >>
      > >> >> Yours sincerely,
      > >> >> Rev. Matthew Winzer
      > >> >>
      > >> >>
      > >> >> ----- Original Message -----
      > >> >> From: "Fred blahous" <fritzbau@y...>
      > >> >> To: <covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com>
      > >> >> Sent: Saturday, August 27, 2005 4:27 PM
      > >> >> Subject: Re: [Covenanted Reformation] To Mr. Ibarra re The
      Corps
      > >> >>
      > >> >>
      > >> >>
      > >> >> >
      > >> >> > All the best,
      > >> >> > Fred.
      > >> >> >
      > >> >> > --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, "Matthew
      > >> > Winzer"
      > >> >> > <mwinzer@p...> wrote:
      > >> >> >> Edgar,
      > >> >> >>
      > >> >> >> Neither Lex Rex nor Messiah the Prince advance your views.
      > > The
      > >> >> > former only
      > >> >> >> teaches civil defence against tyrannous government, not
      the
      > >> > denial
      > >> >> > of the
      > >> >> >> natural authority of non Christian government. The latter
      > >> >> > provides a solid
      > >> >> >> explanation of the duty of nations to the Mediatorial
      > > dominion
      > >> > of
      > >> >> > Christ,
      > >> >> >> but gives no comment on the duty of Christians when that
      > > duty is
      > >> >> > not
      > >> >> >> fulfilled. Your adverting to these works in order to
      > >> > substantiate
      > >> >> > things
      > >> >> >> they do not teach does not fare well for the credibility
      of
      > > your
      > >> >> > position.
      > >> >> >>
      > >> >> >> None of your linked references answer the challenge
      regarding
      > >> >> > enjoying civil
      > >> >> >> liberties, while denying the authority of the government
      > > under
      > >> >> > which those
      > >> >> >> liberties are protected. A crooked wheel needs
      reinventing!
      > >> >> >>
      > >> >> >> Yours sincerely,
      > >> >> >> Rev. Matthew Winzer
      > >> >> >>
      > >> >> >>
      > >> >> >> ----- Original Message -----
      > >> >> >> From: "Edgar A. Ibarra Jr." <puritanpresbyterian@y...>
      > >> >> >> To: <covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com>
      > >> >> >> Sent: Friday, August 26, 2005 11:20 AM
      > >> >> >> Subject: Re: [Covenanted Reformation] To Mr. Ibarra re The
      > > Corps
      > >> >> >>
      > >> >> >>
      > >> >> >> > Matthew,
      > >> >> >> >
      > >> >> >> > I believe Samuel Rutherford's "LEX REX" and Andrew
      > >> >> >> > Symington's "Messiah the Prince" answers all of the
      > > questions,
      > >> >> >> > doubts, challenges, and etc. of your below comment. I
      > > defer
      > >> > to
      > >> >> > them
      > >> >> >> > for support and as my response. Cop out? Naw, just
      don't
      > > want
      > >> >> > to re-
      > >> >> >> > invent the wheel. Besides, they answer this way much
      > > better
      > >> >> > than I
      > >> >> >> > ever could. Some more for sound Biblical study:
      > >> >> >> >
      > >> >> >> > Calvin's answer here:
      > >> >> >> >
      > >> >> >> >
      > > http://www.truecovenanter.com/calvin/calvin_12_on_Timothy.html
      > >> >> >> >
      > >> >> >> >
      > >> >> >> > Pastor Greg Price:
      > >> >> >> >
      > >> >> >> >
      > > http://www.reformedpresbytery.org/books/bibcivgv/bibcivgv.htm
      > >> >> >> >
      > >> >> >> >
      > >> >> >> > Samuel Wylie, minister of the RPCNA:
      > >> >> >> >
      > >> >> >> > http://www.covenanter.org/Wylie/twosonsofoil.htm
      > >> >> >> >
      > >> >> >> >
      > >> >> >> > The Synod of the RPCNA on jury duty:
      > >> >> >> >
      > >> >> >> > http://www.covenanter.org/RPCNA/jurylaw.htm
      > >> >> >> >
      > >> >> >> >
      > >> >> >> > James Douglas:
      > >> >> >> >
      > >> >> >> > http://www.covenanter.org/CivilGovt/douglasessay.htm
      > >> >> >> >
      > >> >> >> >
      > >> >> >> >
      > >> >> >> > Anyways...I think those will help...
      > >> >> >> >
      > >> >> >> > For Christ's Crown and Royal Perogatives,
      > >> >> >> >
      > >> >> >> > Edgar Ibarra
      > >> >> >> >
      > >> >> >> >
      > >> >> >> > --- In
      covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, "Matthew
      > >> >> > Winzer"
      > >> >> >> > <mwinzer@p...> wrote:
      > >> >> >> >> Edgar,
      > >> >> >> >>
      > >> >> >> >> It was not unlawful for Cornelius to protect the Roman
      > >> >> >> > constitution.
      > >> >> >> >> Undoubtedly Jesus was the prince of the Roman Empire,
      yet
      > > the
      > >> >> >> > apostle Paul
      > >> >> >> >> addressed the nobility of the Empire as possessing all
      the
      > >> >> >> > authority vested
      > >> >> >> >> in them by Rome.
      > >> >> >> >>
      > >> >> >> >> I find the philosophy of those who refuse to
      acknowledge
      > > the
      > >> >> >> > lawful
      > >> >> >> >> authority of civil magistrates on the basis that they
      are
      > >> >> > apparent
      > >> >> >> > covenant
      > >> >> >> >> breakers somewhat irreconcileable with their practice
      of
      > >> >> >> > maintaining all the
      > >> >> >> >> privileges of citizens. If one enters into legal
      > > contracts,
      > >> >> >> > utilises civil
      > >> >> >> >> licenses, and are married by State authority, to name
      the
      > >> > most
      > >> >> >> > obvious
      > >> >> >> >> privileges, then they are quite obviously acknowledging
      > > the
      > >> >> > lawful
      > >> >> >> > authority
      > >> >> >> >> of the government that is over them. Actions speak
      louder
      > >> > than
      > >> >> >> > words, I am
      > >> >> >> >> afraid.
      > >> >> >> >>
      > >> >> >> >> Yours sincerely,
      > >> >> >> >> Matthew Winzer
      > >> >> >> >>
      > >> >> >> >>
      > >> >> >> >> ----- Original Message -----
      > >> >> >> >> From: "Edgar A. Ibarra Jr." <puritanpresbyterian@y...>
      > >> >> >> >> To: <covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com>
      > >> >> >> >> Sent: Friday, August 26, 2005 3:28 AM
      > >> >> >> >> Subject: Re: [Covenanted Reformation] To Mr. Ibarra re
      The
      > >> > Corps
      > >> >> >> >>
      > >> >> >> >>
      > >> >> >> >> > Larry,
      > >> >> >> >> >
      > >> >> >> >> > Thank you for responding and clarifying what I had
      > >> > written,
      > >> >> > your
      > >> >> >> >> > words are quite true and sound, for Maggie. I truly
      > >> >> > appreciate
      > >> >> >> > it.
      > >> >> >> >> > I guess my words may have been a bit ambigous.
      > >> >> >> >> >
      > >> >> >> >> >
      > >> >> >> >> > Maggie,
      > >> >> >> >> >
      > >> >> >> >> >
      > >> >> >> >> > If I saw someone being unlawfully (in regards to
      the
      > > Law
      > >> > of
      > >> >> >> > God)
      > >> >> >> >> > hurt, I would do all in my power to aid that person,
      no
      > >> > matter
      > >> >> >> > who
      > >> >> >> >> > it would be. That is the basic positive meaning of
      the
      > > 6th
      > >> >> >> >> > Commandment.
      > >> >> >> >> >
      > >> >> >> >> > To protect the U.S. Constitution, would be
      unlawful.
      > > To
      > >> >> >> > protect
      > >> >> >> >> > my family and friends from an unlawful combatant,
      > > whether
      > >> >> >> > foreign or
      > >> >> >> >> > domestic, that is directly attacking them, would be
      > > lawful.
      > >> >> > To
      > >> >> >> >> > protect the current government from such, no, let
      them
      > >> > protect
      > >> >> >> >> > themselves, I will not do it. If the Pope is being
      > >> > attacked
      > >> >> > by
      > >> >> >> > the
      > >> >> >> >> > Turks, then oh well. I will not come to his aid nor
      > > will I
      > >> >> >> >> > positively aid the Turks and vice versa.
      > >> >> >> >> >
      > >> >> >> >> > When a government equates Jesus Christ and His holy
      > > Word
      > >> > to,
      > >> >> >> >> > let's say, Mohammed and the Koran and that they will
      not
      > >> >> >> > recognize
      > >> >> >> >> > the King and Head of the civil realm as Jesus Christ
      > > alone,
      > >> >> > then
      > >> >> >> > a
      > >> >> >> >> > Christian cannot in good conscience defend it. This
      > > land
      > >> > is
      > >> >> >> > under
      > >> >> >> >> > covenant to recognize and positively affirm and swear
      > >> >> > allegiance
      > >> >> >> > to
      > >> >> >> >> > Jesus Christ ALONE as the King and Head of the United
      > >> > States
      > >> >> > of
      > >> >> >> >> > America. To do other wise is a declaraion of war
      > > against
      > >> >> > Jesus
      > >> >> >> >> > Christ, the King, see Psalm 2. This nation has
      broken
      > >> >> > covenant
      > >> >> >> > with
      > >> >> >> >> > Christ. That is why all Reformed Presbyterians are
      > >> >> > consistant,
      > >> >> >> > when
      > >> >> >> >> > we engage in politcal dissent and refuse to
      participate
      > > in
      > >> > the
      > >> >> >> >> > government and even in voting for candidates. Hence
      > > such
      > >> >> > groups
      > >> >> >> >> > like the Christian Coalition trust more in princes
      and
      > > the
      > >> >> >> > political
      > >> >> >> >> > process of man than in God. "Trust not thou in the
      > >> > chariots
      > >> >> > of
      > >> >> >> >> > Egypt nor in princes" and etc.
      > >> >> >> >> >
      > >> >> >> >> > Here is where we (the RPNA) and the RPCNA are in
      > >> >> > agreement. As
      > >> >> >> >> > Andrew Melville told King James IV, there are two
      > > kingdoms
      > >> > in
      > >> >> >> > this
      > >> >> >> >> > land. One of which James IV is king over and the
      other
      > > in
      > >> >> > which
      > >> >> >> > he
      > >> >> >> >> > is but a member and subject to. Jesus Christ being
      the
      > >> > King
      > >> >> > over
      > >> >> >> >> > James in the civil realm and in the ecclesiastical
      > >> >> > realm...this
      > >> >> >> > is a
      > >> >> >> >> > very rough paraphrase. I am sure you can find the
      > > actual
      > >> >> > quote
      > >> >> >> >> > quite readily.
      > >> >> >> >> >
      > >> >> >> >> > Anyways, that is my very short answer to your
      question/
      > >> >> > inquiry.
      > >> >> >> >> >
      > >> >> >> >> > With Christian love,
      > >> >> >> >> >
      > >> >> >> >> > Edgar
      > >> >> >> >> >
      > >> >> >> >> >
      > >> >> >> >> > --- In
      covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, "Larry
      > >> > Bump"
      > >> >> >> >> > <lbump@b...> wrote:
      > >> >> >> >> >>
      > >> >> >> >> >> ----- Original Message -----
      > >> >> >> >> >> From: "Maggie" <mmpconley@s...>>
      > >> >> >> >> >> >
      > >> >> >> >> >> > Would you please educate me as to where the
      > >> >> >> >> >> > Constitution makes Jesus an enemy of it?
      > >> >> >> >> >>
      > >> >> >> >> >> When He claims to be King of the Nation, and the
      nation
      > >> >> >> > says "No,
      > >> >> >> >> > You
      > >> >> >> >> >> aren't".
      > >> >> >> >> >> The anti-establishment clause is problematic, but
      > > the "no
      > >> >> >> >> > religious test"
      > >> >> >> >> >> clause is the deal breaker. The current philosophy
      > >> > of "Wall
      > >> >> > of
      > >> >> >> >> > Separation"
      > >> >> >> >> >> is right out.
      > >> >> >> >> >>
      > >> >> >> >> >> If the Christian people tried to uphold *and
      enforce*
      > > the
      > >> >> > claims
      > >> >> >> >> > of Christ,
      > >> >> >> >> >> there would be war between those obeying Him, and
      those
      > >> >> > refusing
      > >> >> >> >> > to submit.
      > >> >> >> >> >> The Nation, as the Constitution obtains under our
      > > current
      > >> >> >> > Federal
      > >> >> >> >> > System,
      > >> >> >> >> >> would side with those rebelling against Christ.
      Some
      > >> > basic
      > >> >> >> > points
      > >> >> >> >> > that
      > >> >> >> >> >> would need to be addressed, and resisted by the
      Nation,
      > >> > would
      > >> >> >> > be:
      > >> >> >> >> >>
      > >> >> >> >> >> 1) Christians only as representatives of the Nation
      > > (and
      > >> >> >> >> > subdivisions)
      > >> >> >> >> >> 2) Suppression of Heresy
      > >> >> >> >> >> 3) Suppression of Idolatry
      > >> >> >> >> >> 4) Punishment of Sodomites, adulterers, etc.
      > >> >> >> >> >> 5) Enforcement of Church Discipline, including
      loss of
      > >> > the
      > >> >> >> >> > franchise
      > >> >> >> >> >> and many more.
      > >> >> >> >> >>
      > >> >> >> >> >> There are many good works on Jesus' Mediatorial
      > >> > Kingship. If
      > >> >> >> > one
      > >> >> >> >> > would
      > >> >> >> >> >> google "Mediatorial Kingship" one would get many
      useful
      > >> >> > pages, I
      > >> >> >> >> > am sure.
      > >> >> >> >> >>
      > >> >> >> >> >> Larry
      > >> >> >> >> >>
      > >> >> >> >> >>
      > >> >> >> >> >>
      > >> >> >> >> >> --
      > >> >> >> >> >> No virus found in this outgoing message.
      > >> >> >> >> >> Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
      > >> >> >> >> >> Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 267.10.14 -
      Release
      > >> > Date:
      > >> >> >> >> > 8/22/2005
      > >> >> >> >> >
      > >> >> >> >> >
      > >> >> >> >> >
      > >> >> >> >> >
      > >> >> >> >> >
      > >> >> >> >> >
      > >> >> >> >> >
      > >> >> >> >> > Yahoo! Groups Links
      > >> >> >> >> >
      > >> >> >> >> >
      > >> >> >> >> >
      > >> >> >> >> >
      > >> >> >> >> >
      > >> >> >> >> >
      > >> >> >> >
      > >> >> >> >
      > >> >> >> >
      > >> >> >> >
      > >> >> >> >
      > >> >> >> >
      > >> >> >> >
      > >> >> >> > Yahoo! Groups Links
      > >> >> >> >
      > >> >> >> >
      > >> >> >> >
      > >> >> >> >
      > >> >> >> >
      > >> >> >> >
      > >> >> >
      > >> >> >
      > >> >> >
      > >> >> >
      > >> >> >
      > >> >> >
      > >> >> > Yahoo! Groups Links
      > >> >> >
      > >> >> >
      > >> >> >
      > >> >> >
      > >> >> >
      > >> >> >
      > >> >
      > >> >
      > >> >
      > >> >
      > >> >
      > >> >
      > >> > Yahoo! Groups Links
      > >> >
      > >> >
      > >> >
      > >> >
      > >> >
      > >> >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > > Yahoo! Groups Links
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
    • Show all 18 messages in this topic