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

4852[Covenanted Reformation] Re: Is There a True Church?

Expand Messages
  • raging_calvinist
    Aug 8, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      Right, Dan.

      The SL&C doesn't bind us to any obligation that the Bible does not
      already bind us to.

      Let me use an example to explain.

      We are commanded in Scripture to not bear false witness. Yet there
      may come a time when we may be called to court to testify, to be a
      witness. And, in such a case, we may be required to take an oath
      to "tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so
      help me God." This oath does not bind us to do anything we are not
      already required to do, but it makes the breaking of the commandment
      a more grievous offense. If we lie under oath, we are not only
      guilty of lying, we are also guilty of perjury.

      So the issue with the Churches which are decendants from the Churches
      of Scotland (who placed themselves and their decendants under binding
      obligation to keep the SL&C), or, if we are citizens of the Nations
      which decended from England, Ireland, Scotland (who likewise placed
      themselves under the SL&C), we are bound not only by the Moral Law,
      but by Solemn Covenant to keep the duties held forth in the SL&C.

      Does this help?

      gmw.

      --- In covenantedreformationclub@y..., "fraasrd" <fraasrd@y...> wrote:
      > I have read the SL&C. It's pretty basic. It seems to me that a
      > church may adhere to it inadvertantly just by striving after truth,
      > even if she has never heard of the SL&C. Does a church have to
      talk
      > about the SL&C to adhere to it? What if a church followed it
      without
      > reading it and without forming her own documents?
      >
      > Dan
      > --- In covenantedreformationclub@y..., "raging_calvinist"
      > <ragingcalvinist@c...> wrote:
      > > The SL&C has bearing on the Churches as well, not just on the
      civil
      > > realm. Besides, it's not so much a matter of "installing" the
      > Solemn
      > > League and Covenant. Truth is, we are NOW under obligation to
      it,
      > > and the Presbyterian Churches who have forgotten it, forsaken it,
      > > and/or trampled it under foot, have to be considered the ones who
      > > have divided over the issue -- the faithful people standing fast
      > > cannot be regarded as the ones causing division.
      > >
      > > "Yes, unto them which believe Christ is precious; and I never
      > > question that he is so to multitudes who never heard of the
      British
      > > Covenants; but I grieve when these are lightly called the "old
      > > covenants" by those under the obligation of them..." (David
      Steele,
      > > Reminiscences, 1883).
      > >
      > > "When the greatest part of a Church maketh defection from the
      > Truth,
      > > the lesser part remaining sound, 'the greatest part is the Church
      > of
      > > Separatists'" (Samuel Rutherford, Due Right Of Presbyteries,
      1646).
      > >
      > > "We act against God, when we act against his Covenant; a covenant
      > is
      > > a serious thing. Suppose the matter of it civil, (though ours is
      > > more) the making of it is divine. We read of a covenant made with
      > an
      > > heathen king, 'which being broken,' saith God, 'shall he prosper?
      > > shall he escape that doth such things?' Ezek. 17.16,17. what,
      when
      > ol
      > > he had given his hand, verse 18. 'He shall not escape;' let us
      look
      > > upon our Solemn League and Covenant; I tremble when I read it: we
      > > covenanted not only against prelacy but popery; not only against
      > > hierarchy, but heresy; not only sin, but schism; and have we not
      > gone
      > > against the letter of it? how is the covenant slighted by some as
      > an
      > > almanack out of date? Those that did once lift up their hand to
      it,
      > > do now lift up their heel against it. Indeed at first the
      covenant
      > > was looked upon as sacred; the drunkard would be sober that day,
      > the
      > > unclean person chaste; but within a while it is laid aside; we
      > begin
      > > to play fast and loose with God, and for a trifle will venture
      the
      > > curse of the covenant; 'But they like men have transgressed the
      > > covenant,' Hos. 6.7. or as in the Hebrew, They like Adam; how is
      > > that? for a poor apple; so for a trifle, a penny in the shop, or
      > the
      > > bushel, men will set their covenant and conscience to sale. God
      > sees
      > > this, and hear what he saith, 'I will bring a sword, which shall
      > > avenge the quarrel of my covenant:' Lev. 26.25. Covenant-
      violation
      > is
      > > a high affronting sin, and an affront will make God draw his
      sword;
      > > to set our hand and seal to the covenant, and then to tear off
      the
      > > seal: if the covenant will not hold us, God hath chains that
      will."
      > > (Thomas Watson, God's Anatomy Upon Man's Heart, a Sermon on HEB.
      > > 4.13).
      > >
      > > One more thing: "why should it divide us when it is impossible
      in
      > in
      > > the foreseeable future?" can be used to argue that we stop
      worrying
      > > about getting abortion outlawed just as well as it argues for us
      to
      > > stop worrying about the Covenants.
      > >
      > > gmw (not a member of the RPNA, btw, but will defend them to the
      end
      > > on this one).
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > > --- In covenantedreformationclub@y..., "fraasrd" <fraasrd@y...>
      > wrote:
      > > > Is there any list of RPNA congregations? Also, installing the
      > > Solemn
      > > > League and Covenant into U. S. law is a worthy goal, but why
      > should
      > > > it divide us when it is impossible in in the foreseeable future?
      > > >
      > > > Dan
      > > > --- In covenantedreformationclub@y..., "Cheryl" <cheryl@g...>
      > wrote:
      > > > > Dear Jerry,
      > > > >
      > > > > You didn't put any words in my mouth that weren't already
      there.
      > > > >
      > > > > If we believe that a confessional standard is an accurate
      > > > representation and systematized summation of what truths are
      > > > contained in Scripture, then of logical necessity we believe
      that
      > > > those churches that fail to live up to those standards are not
      as
      > > > pure as those that do.
      > > > >
      > > > > Knoxknox
    • Show all 51 messages in this topic