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

5269[Covenanted Reformation] Re: What Think Ye

Expand Messages
  • seamrog1935
    Sep 2, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      It strongly appears so:

      "Although the light of nature, and the works of creation and
      providence do so far manifest the goodness, wisdom, and power of God,
      as to leave men unexcusable;[1] yet are they not sufficient to give
      that knowledge of God, and of His will, which is necessary unto
      salvation.[2] Therefore it pleased the Lord, at sundry times, and in
      divers manners, to reveal Himself, and to declare that His will unto
      His Church;[3] and afterwards for the better preserving and
      propagating of the truth, and for the more sure establishment and
      comfort of the Church against the corruption of the flesh, and the
      malice of Satan and of the world, to commit the same wholly unto
      writing;[4] which makes the Holy Scripture to be most necessary;[5]
      those former ways of God's revealing His will unto His people being
      now ceased.[6]" -1646 WCF, ch.1, art. 1

      The citations in [6] are Heb.1:1-2.

      "The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for His own
      glory, man's salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down
      in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced
      from Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added,
      whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men.[12]
      Nevertheless, we acknowledge the inward illumination of the Spirit of
      God to be necessary for the saving understanding of such things as
      are revealed in the Word:[13] and that there are some circumstances
      concerning the worship of God, and government of the Church, common
      to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light
      of nature, and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of
      the Word, which are always to be observed.[14]." 1646 WCF, ch.1, art.
      VI

      The citations in [12] are 2.Tim.3:15-17, Gal. 1:8-9, and 2.Thess.2:2.

      "The "sundry times" may be understood "as referring to the matter of
      ancient revelation, given in different parts, and at different times,
      thus conveying the idea of the gradual development of truth in
      different ages, and by different persons;" and the "divers manners"
      may be understood "as indicating the various ways in which these
      revelations were communicated, i.e., by dreams, visions, symbols,
      Urim and Thummim, prophetic ecstasy, &c." Under the new dispensation,
      God has completed the whole revelation of his will by his Son, and no
      new revelation is to be expected to the end of the world." Robert
      Shaw's commentary on the WCF, ch.1, art. 1

      --- In covenantedreformationclub@y..., "Gary Gearon" <GGearon@p...>
      wrote:
      > Does it really teach Cessationism? What about all the accounts in
      the Scot's
      > Worthies?
      >
      > For Christ's Truth,
      >
      > Gary
      > ----- Original Message -----
      > From: "seamrog1935" <wh.roberts@v...>
      > To: <covenantedreformationclub@y...>
      > Sent: Monday, September 02, 2002 3:27 PM
      > Subject: [Covenanted Reformation] Re: What Think Ye
      >
      >
      > > I believe that everything Reformed is covered by the 1646
      Westminster
      > > Confession, the Short Catechism, and the Large Catechism. The WCF
      > > covers Church Governance, Cessationist, anti-Christian Papistry,
      > > Baptism, civil government, and such. I don't know about EP, but
      that
      > > is at least covered in the Large Catechism under the questions
      about
      > > the 2nd Commandment. In short, those 3 documents
      define "Reformed".
      > > The Second LBC (1689 LBC) along with Keach's Catechism is nearly
      > > identical to the WCF except the chapter on baptism. (Keach's
      > > Catechism is borrowed entirely from the WSC except for the
      questions
      > > on baptism.) There is no Reformed historically that taught
      > > anabaptism or solacredobaptism. I believe the Reformed Baptists
      to
      > > be in error on Baptism and Hymnody and are thus not fully
      Reformed.
      > > However, they are Reformed on everything else and thus strongly
      seem
      > > quasi-Reformed. (I am still trying to process how charimaticism
      is
      > > related to anti-pedobaptism both historically and theologically.)
      > >
      > > Patrick
      > >
      > > --- In covenantedreformationclub@y..., Mitchell Lynn <mlynn@k...>
      > > wrote:
      > > > Anti baptism equals anti reformed? I would submit that it might
      be
      > > prudent
      > > > (at this time) to define "reformed." Those reformed Baptist
      > > churches that
      > > > subscribe to the 1689 confession would not accept that
      > > the "special gifts"
      > > > are extant today. See para 1 in the 1689 Confession or same in
      the
      > > WSC.
      > > > They are identical.
      > > >
      > > >
      > > > Not trying to be argumentative or hostile. It just seems that
      the
      > > > meaning poured into "reformed" keeps changing. So what is it
      to be
      > > > reformed?--5-points, 5-points + EP, 5-points + SLC, 5-points +
      KJV
      > > Only.
      > > > There's something wrong with the club when it is easier to get
      into
      > > Heaven
      > > > than it is to join up with the "so called" Reformed (or
      REFORMED).
      > > >
      > > > I hesitate to post this as I am afraid it sounds angry. I am
      not:
      > > that is
      > > > just my writing style, and I am confused. And blind folk have a
      > > built-in
      > > > animosity for moving targets: targets at all for that matter.
      > > >
      > > > Mitch,
      > > >
      > > >
      > > > Mailto:mlynn@k...
      > > > Web site: www.4familyreformation.com
      > > >
      > > >
      > > > At 12:57 PM 9/2/02 +0100, you wrote:
      > > > >Dear Patrick,
      > > > >
      > > > >Being an ex-Baptist myself, I would hesitate to call "Reformed
      > > > >Baptists" either truly Reformed or truly Baptist. It's more
      > > > >cumbersome, but these days I either put their title in "speech
      > > > >marks" where I need to use it, or refer to them
      as "predestinarian
      > > > >sola-credo-immersionists", or else call
      them "antipaedobaptists" as
      > > > >John Calvin does in his Institutes. All the "Baptists" whom
      I've
      > > met
      > > > >and whose books I've read on this point of controversy are very
      > > > >much ANTI-paedobaptism. And hence, essentially anti-Reformed. I
      > > > >am viewed with much suspicion in all "Baptist" circles, and
      > > > >patronised as though I am somewhat weak in the head, or
      > > > >somewhat blinded by popery. Not that I ever was a papist.
      > > > >
      > > > >That said, the "Baptist" position usually denies Covenant
      Theology
      > > > >outright, and thus tends toward some form of dispensationalism.
      > > > >"Reformed Baptists" are less consistent in their thinking on
      these
      > > > >matters, so it seems to me, in that they embrace much of
      > > > >Covenant Theology, but turn round at the last moment and dis-
      > > > >include their own children from the visible church.
      > > > >
      > > > >Just how they fit together Charismaticism and the Reformed
      faith?
      > > > >As far as I can see from my own experience, and from the semi-
      > > > >Charismatic, semi-Reformed church that my wife and I attend
      (for
      > > > >want of something better in our neighbourhood), Charismaticism
      > > > >seeks to totally eradicate the Reformed faith.
      > > > >
      > > > >[I must add here that I am being increasingly convicted about
      > > > >attending such a church (though I am reluctant to end up "going
      > > > >nowhere"), since I keep coming back to the thought that to
      attend
      > > > >such a church as I do, is to become somewhat "confederate" with
      > > > >them, and an associate of their errors -- and the judgement
      that
      > > > >such errors and opposition to the true doctrine justly
      deserves.]
      > > > >
      > > > >Why believe in the "spiritual gifts" in our day?
      > > > >
      > > > >(Actually the controversy is not about spiritual gifts per se,
      but
      > > > >about the so-called "signs and wonders" healings and
      deliverences,
      > > > >the "prophetic utterences", the "tongues utterences", and the
      > > > >"inner guiding voices", "pictures", "dreams" or "impressions".)
      > > > >
      > > > >We can see that the New Testament "sign gifts" (the ones
      > > > >bracketed above) were:
      > > > >
      > > > >(1) signs of the Messiah himself;
      > > > >
      > > > >(2) signs authenticating the apostles as spokes-persons of God;
      > > > >
      > > > >(3) some were the means of imparting to the apostles their New
      > > > >Testament doctrine, which they wrote down in what we now call
      the
      > > > >New testament Scriptures,
      > > > >
      > > > >(4) interim ministries given to those on whom the
      apostles "laid
      > > > >hands" before the New Testament Scriptures were completed and
      > > > >the canon closed;
      > > > >
      > > > >(5) in the case of tongues, also a sign of judgement on the
      Jews
      > > > >who rejected their Messiah, that they were about to be cut out
      of
      > > > >the "olive tree" of the Covenant.
      > > > >
      > > > >Notice that none of these reasons apply today.
      > > > >
      > > > >And nor have these points warranted ANY alleged "signs and
      > > > >wonders" (of the type bracketed above) since the close of the
      Tew
      > > > >Testament canon.
      > > > >
      > > > >But the Anabaptists and their spiritual descendents, the
      > > > >Charismatics (it is not really surprising that most
      Charismatics
      > > are
      > > > >"Baptist", and that Charismaticized churches tend to become
      > > > >"Baptist"), claim three other reasons for their doctrine and
      > > practice
      > > > >of the "continuation of the sign-gifts":
      > > > >
      > > > >(6) These outward signs can help make hearts more receptive to
      > > > >the gospel;
      > > > >
      > > > >(7) These signs are God's evidences of special favour on
      certain
      > > > >ministers, and their doctrines (the so-called "anointing");
      > > > >
      > > > >(8) These supernatural powers are part of the church's ongoing
      > > > >weaponry for use in spiritual warfare (the so-called "power
      > > > >encounters").
      > > > >
      > > > >You can see, I hope, that (6) is Arminian, and not an argument
      that
      > > > >a true Calvinist can accept.
      > > > >
      > > > >You can see also that (7) is abused by 'heresy-salesmen' and
      false
      > > > >prophets who are doing great damage in the churches, and
      bringing
      > > > >the name of Christ into very much disrepute throughout the
      whole
      > > > >world.
      > > > >
      > > > >You can see that (8) just doesn't work in our battle that is
      not
      > > > >against flesh and blood.
      > > > >
      > > > >All the pro-Charismatic, anti-Cessationist arguments utterly
      fail
      > > > >before the proper preaching of the true gospel, authentic
      > > > >Christianity, the Reformed faith.
      > > > >
      > > > >Charismaticism only gains a foothold, and only flourishes,
      where
      > > > >the powerful, distinctive doctrines of the Reformation (fully
      > > > >developed) are neglected and forgotten.
      > > > >
      > > > >One cannot be truly "essentially Reformed with a Charismatic
      > > > >dimention". Charismaticism is built on Arminianism, and where
      > > > >Charismaticism gains a foothold in "Reformed" churches, it is
      > > > >always because (I will be so bold as to say it), Arminian
      > > principles
      > > > >have already been accepted into the camp.
      > > > >
      > > > >Arminianism is the thin end of the Charismatic/Anabaptist
      wedge,
      > > > >and seeks to undo and destroy the Reformation.
      > > > >
      > > > >Sours sincerely, Simon Padbury.
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > >To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
      > > > >covenantedreformationclub-unsubscribe@y...
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > >Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
      > > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
      > > covenantedreformationclub-unsubscribe@y...
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
      http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
      > >
      > >
      > > ------------------------------------------------------
      > > [This E-mail scanned for viruses by Pike Online, Inc.]
      > >
      > >
      >
      > ------------------------------------------------------
      > [This E-mail scanned for viruses by Pike Online, Inc.]
    • Show all 40 messages in this topic