13971Re: [Covenanted Reformation] Friendly clarifications.
- Sep 3, 2005Edgar:I'm sure Parnell will point this out...you have the wrong Free Presbyterian Church below, the Ulster Free Presbyterian Church, not the Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland. Big difference.Glenn FerrellBoise, Idaho----- Original Message -----From: Edgar A. Ibarra Jr.Sent: Friday, September 02, 2005 3:02 PMSubject: Re: [Covenanted Reformation] Friendly clarifications.Parnell, Matthew, et al,
<Mr. Winzer, I am not RP. Indeed, I reject classical Cameronianism,
You know Parnell, we do have many points of agreement, some even in
points that we would not have with Matthew. Meanwhile we also
recognize our points of disagreement, as you pointed out in the
comments I quote above. I believe that the RPNA and the FPCoS
understand what classical Presbyterianism meant on the point of
sparation from true churches, without regulating them to synogogues
of Satan. As you point out below, that if a church is good enough
to join then it should be good enough to merge with. Our separate
stance does not entail that they are no longer true churches, if so
then Matthew would need to urge unity with every other true church
in the world as is. We say in the RPNA ask and pray for unity, but
on Biblical foundations and Truths, not just because, as Matthew is
I need to say that the FPCoS is candid and honest when they
declare themselves to be the pure and faithful church on the Earth
and that is why they cannot merge with other bodies and are sending
missionaries to the USA. They are telling the American Presbyterian
Churches, that they are not faithful and not up to par to merge with.
From the official web site http://www.freepres.org/main.asp of the
Free Presbyterian Church, here is what they say when identifying
themselves on this point:
of the Free Presbyterian Church:
Separatist in Practice, believing and practicing the doctrine of
Biblical separatism. In accordance with this, the Free Presbyterian
Church has no association with the modern Ecumenical or Charismatic
movements, nor will it fellowship with any church which has departed
from the fundamental doctrines of the Word of God.
Again in regard to their formation:
How It All Began
The Free Presbyterian Church
From four congregations in that first year, the growth of the new
church continued until its witness spread to all parts of Northern
Ireland. The church was founded to faithfully preach and defend the
gospel of Christ in an age of growing compromise and apostasy. That
determination is still to be found in every Free Presbyterian Church.
So I would ask, why not instead of becoming a new denomination,
didn't they join the Free Church of Scotland? Was it because Rev.
Ian Paisley called them no true church of Christ? How about any
other church...was there no true church in the world for the four
congregations to join with?
Separation from other churches demands that you either call
yourself the most faithful and pure and hence the reason for your
separation and non-merger with others or you are not going to claim
that and say that you are equal with others, just don't agree with
this bit or that bit. Which will beg the question as to the
justification of your ecclesiastical separation. Either a church
remains separate because that body believes it to be more faithful
than others or they do not believe such and therefore their separate
existence is unjustifiable and are guilty of schism.
The RPNA is candid and honest when we state that we are the most
pure and faithful in that which God has granted to His church for
it's sanctification and maturity, while RECOGNIZING that other
Presbyterian bodies ARE True Churches, just like the FPCoS does. It
just so happens that we are calling for a return to Covenant
obligations and people do not like this and make us out to be
claiming something that we do not.
Separation is warrantable under certain circumstances and
classical Presbyterianism teaches this. For a Presbyterian minister
not to recognize that fact is plain sad and leads to
misrepresentation and such other unpleasantries.
All of this to say Matthew, that the issue is not whether a Church
is True, it is about Faithfulness to what Christ has given to her
and to maintain this Sanctification and Purity given to go &
continue to Reform onwards. That is that the Second Reformation
Church, Covenanted unto God, was the most Faithful, Mature, and
Puriest Church since the Apostles' time and more so than the
Revolution Church. Therefore, when the rag tag ramanant of
Covenanters refused to join the Revolution Church because she
refused to own the Covenanted Reformation, it was not due to her
being no Church at all, but due to her unfaithfulness, league in
covenant-breaking, and deformation and back-sliding. The Revolution
Church was a retrograde and refused to own the Covenanted
Reformation that would have established further purity and
reformation unto Christ's Church if they would have embraced it and
rejected King William's Erastian usurpation.
It is time for you to realize that this IS our stand and stop
playing word games and let us discuss the issues and not wrangle
like lawyers do in a court room.
It is NOT about whether or not the Revolution Church is a True
Church, it is the fact that they broke covenant with God and thereby
became unfaithful in her testimony and as regards the Solemn League
& Covenant, covenants they were/are bound to recognize and own up to
and swear allegiance to, broke and therefore became an unduly
constituted church, thereby becoming a NEW church, one in which
Covenanters could not join with, without also becoming allies and co-
federates with such blatant covenant-breaking and unfaithfulness.
Hopefully this clears it up some more...
--- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "J. Parnell
McCarter" <jparnellm@u...> wrote:
> Mr. Winzer, below you changed my word "join" to your
word "attend". There
> is an important distinction between attending a church versus
> The FPCS urges all people in America to *join* the FPCS even in
> without a FPCS congregation, just as the Church of Scotland during
> the First Book of Discipline urged people to join its church, even
> there was no local CofS ministry.
> With respect to attendance at some local non-FPCS church, its
> vary, depending upon the nature of the options in the locality.
> Just to reiterate, if there were some other denomination in
America that the
> FPCS urged people to join, then logically speaking the FPCS should
> with that other denomination, or enter into affiliate status with
> denomination good enough to join is good enough to merge with.
> - Parnell McCarter
> -----Original Message-----
> From: email@example.com
> [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org] On Behalf Of
> Sent: Thursday, September 01, 2005 7:12 PM
> To: email@example.com
> Subject: Re: [Covenanted Reformation] Friendly clarifications.
> > What the FPCS does *not* do is tell Presbyterians to join a
> > Baptist
> > church because the local Strict Baptist church happens to be
> > settled
> > congregation in town. Rather, it makes provision for people to
> > throughout
> > the nation.
> Mr. McCarter,
> I doubt seriously if they instruct you, in the interim of
> congregation, not to attend the sound preaching of the Word where
it can be
> Yours sincerely,
> Rev. Matthew Winzer
> Yahoo! Groups Links
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>