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

Re: [Covenanted Reformation] Just a reminder...

Expand Messages
  • A Mighty Fortress
    Dear friend: Thank you for your response. I apologize for my delayed response, but the fact is that I use come to Internet time-to-time –not everyday,
    Message 1 of 24 , Jul 3, 2004
    • 0 Attachment

       

       

      Dear friend:

       

      Thank you for your response. I apologize for my delayed response, but the fact is that I use come to Internet time-to-time –not everyday, sometimes a day in the week.

       

      I think that is good to change concepts and doctrinal views when people involved is guileless and honestly entrusted seeking for major clarity. I respect your doctrinal positions; the fact is that I know them very well, since I was a Reformed Christian and now I am a Lutheran Minister –not a current one, since we are part of the Luth. Remnant, and we differ of other so-called Lutherans, in that we are for the five points, reject the ‘Universal Objective Justification’ theory, are bold Lutherans and not Melanchtonians in the doctrine of the Holy Supper of Christ, and, lastly, we reject the idea that only congregational church rule is of divine right –yes, so are teaching some, and other teach that Bishopric is the only manner [the ‘esse’] of church rule of jure divino, and Presbyterian do the same thing, and, of course, Antichrist in Rome says a same thing. Well, I sincerely respect your convictions, but, ‘tis obviously, I have mine, and these say that there is not outward manner of church rule of jure divino in the church –I before now told you which is the Luther’s and Lutheran Confessions doctrine about, the only thing of jure divino in the church is the Holy Office of Word and Sacraments, etc.

       

       Of course I agree with you that Bishops and Pastors or Elders, Presbyters, etc. are in a same Office, are all fellow-ministers. Different functions are jure humano engagements; if we need a Archbishop, well, he is welcome while he teaches the Word as Law & Gospel and administers the Sacraments as Christ instituted them, namely, while the man preaches and lives as a Bible believer, we are not concerned if he is a Archbishop or a Missionary, since we all are brethren and have only one Master and Lord. If a man in the Ministry, be a Pastor or Bishop or whichever he could be, teaches false doctrine, then the church, the congregation indeed, will depose him according to church rights and canonical arrangements. The things go on while the rule of the church is a horizontal one, not a hierarchical pyramid –pyramids, as the Roman Church, with the Antichrist in the top, are sepulchres –have you thought before now about that? In sum; if you are a sincere Christian then you can serve the Lord in a congregation, or in a presbiterium, or in a bishopric withal. But if you are a scoundrel, you will damage your brethren and the church at large, if it were possible, albeit you were the fewer Minister in a hyper-democratic church system.

       

       With these words, and please excuse me for abuse your hospitality, I will finish my intervention in the Forum as regards this issue. I think that all men involved have well done their part. Solely I wish set here below an excerpt penned by a good American Lutheran theologian. I have read your explanations; now you would see how using  discretionally the Word a man brightly shews you that congregational system is the proper church rule. I am done here, remembering that I don’t share all the PK conclusions necessarily, since I take side with Luther himself teaching as he taught, [a Christian assembly gathered around the Word & Sacraments, yet without a choice for that or this outward church rule, is the first apparition of a visible church] thing that I generously have expounded in this and former interventions.

       

       I have sincere admiration from Rutherford, Owen, Bunyan and Steele. Thus, I apply in my teaching Ministry many of their Scriptural tenets. Now, I know by experience that Reformed people are always quoting Luther; the fact is that Luther did write many works and had a clear position in the chief church doctrines. This Reformed elude or often forget. Reformed Historic prophecy expositors also taught that he was the leader of the Reformation Movement, Rev. Chapter 10; Rev. 14. Reformed seem glad and proud about Bondage of Will and Commentary on Romans, etc.--Is a false idea that Luther was only ‘a beginner’ and that later on Calvin etc. completed the Reformation. I believe that it is a false idea & a too hurried thought.-- Disregarding what you finally think about Luther and Calvin, the fact is that you have there two different models of a Church of the Reformation. Luther and true Lutherans (Brenz, Wigand, Gaull, Flacius, Amsdorf, Chemnitz) have in mind a evangelical catholic model, a Church depurated of the flawed and blemish hints & idolatry of Popery, a church in continuance with that of Ireneus, Augustine, Gottschalck, Bradwardine, Wickliffe, –and to this Lutheranism initially was very close the Reformation in England, by men as Barnes and Lancelot Andrewes, men still not stained by late Tractarian pests. Calvin and his tradition had in mind, it seems to me, build a new church, an Spartan model, with no living links to the past, condemning or overlooking 1500 years of History of the church –1500 years that bear witness of around 40 million of Christian massacred by Popery hordes. Calvinism had its day in Scotland and Ireland, and also in the great Holland churches (and I in noble way said this, despite the hounding of Lutherans at hands of Calvinists). Yes; great Dutch divines! The Huguenots, besides, are an example & a reminder of hard things hastily coming unto us in these last days once more. Finally, those models, the Lutheran, [Old Anglican,] and the Calvinist, are nowadays practically extinguished on the face of earth as outward communions, since all mega Churches are in apostasy and assailed by dark powers that have the control. We all are giving the fight against Wescott-Hort Vaticanus/Sinaiticus rotten Greek text, etc. The Beast and her prostituted daughters are thirsty of the blood of the saints for last time. New Global Order includes New Global devilish Church—Is easy see this by everywhere, and they don’t want a Christian Biblical church out there. Blaise Pascal said, ‘Christ shall be crucified until the end of the world. In the while, we don't have to sleep.’ Wise man.

       

      Here the Kretzmann passages. Thanks.

      Cordially yours,

      In Christ,

      Rev Enrique Ivaldi, Pastor

       

      ************

       

      “On the basis of these preliminary considerations let us now take up the first part of our subject, namely that of congregational autonomy. And here we must become clear on the meaning of the term ekklesia, that is "assembly, church, or congregation," as used in particular in the New Testament. Here we find that the term ekklesia is employed:

      1. Of an assembly of citizens in charge of the affairs of a city, Acts 19:32, 39, 40, and it is interesting to note that the town-clerk, apparently with a full knowledge of group psychology, treated what was, in effect, a mob as though it were a regular assembly, thereby obviating possible evil consequences on the part of the Roman authorities. But the connotation of the term is clearly that of a corporate group in a circumscribed community.

      2. Of the Una Sancta, the communion of saints, the connotation which is commonly considered, especially in the field of Lutheran dogmatics, as the primary or fundamental designation. It means the sum total of all true believers in Christ, the Church which is His body, Eph. 1:22 (cp. 3:10; 3:21; 5:23, 24, 25, 27, 29, 32; Col. 1:18, 24; I Tim. 3:15; Heb. 2:12; 12:23.) It is strange that these passages have recently been applied to the so-called visible Church, whereas in each case the context clearly indicates that the invisible fellowship of faith is meant.

      3. Of the sum total of professing church members in a province or a larger division of a country, without, however, implying a corporate group. In Acts 9:31 it would seem, according to the reading now generally accepted, that the reference is to all those who were connected with the Church by profession of faith (although it is interesting to note that Paul, in I Thess. 2:14, speaks of the churches of God which in Judea are in Christ Jesus); just as we today might refer to the Christians or the Christian congregations in Minnesota or some other state or country. Other pertinent passages are I Cor. 12.28; Gal. 1:13; Phil. 3:6. But in all these instances the reference is general, and there is not even a hint of larger corporate groups, as of all the congregations together.

      4. Of a corporate group in a circumscribed locality or community, also called a local-ekklesia or individual-ekklesia. The congregations of the Apostolic Age were not merely occasional or casual groups of professing Christians, held together only by the authority and prestige of the apostles. The term ekklesia is used to designate fixed, corporate bodies in by far the greater number of instances, more than twenty times in the Book of Acts alone. And it is clear that in many instances the ekklesia, so called, was not established through the direct efforts of an apostle, as in the case of Rome, of Colosse, of the seven cities of Proconsular Asia, of Crete, and other cities. So it was not necessary for the existence of a congregation that it was established by and remained under the immediate jurisdiction of an apostle. Wherever there was a group or "assembly" of believers, they had the right (and the duty) to establish the means of grace, and their fellowship in the Word and Sacraments sufficed to give them an organization serving the Lord's purposes, no matter how little or how much machinery was attached to it.

      That the congregations of the Apostolic Age were established and functioned essentially as the local congregations of today is shown by the fact that the tern is so very frequently connected with a specific locality, such as Jerusalem, Antioch, Ephesus, Corinth, Colosse, Thessalonica,, Berea, the seven cities of Proconsular Asia, etc. In this connection we are bound to mark in particular the use of the word in the plural, as having a distributive effect and stressing the idea of local parishes, e.g., Acts 15:41; 16:5; Rom. 16:4, 16; 1 Cor. 7:17; 11:16; 14:33f.; 16-1, 19; 2 Cor. 8-1, 18, 19, 23, 24; 11:8, in more than thirty instances altogether. This factor receives added emphasis when we note the frequent use of such phrases "the church that is in their house," "in every church," "in all the churches," Rom. 15:5; 1 Cor. 4:1.7; 16:19; Col. 4:15; Philemon, 2, and others. We are bound to conclude, therefore, that the term ekklesia, according to Scriptural precept, example, and analogy, is used to designate an assembly of believers in an area small enough to permit their meeting regularly for the use of the means of grace, as well as for other functions pertaining to the work of the Kingdom. In other words, the local congregation or parish is ordinarily, that is, according to God's will and order, the functioning unit in the work, which has been entrusted to the believers by the Lord of the Church. And a careful comparison of all the pertinent passages indicates that the individual-ekklesia was an autonomous, independent, sovereign group, not subject to any hierarchical authority, but only to the Word of God. Even when the apostles, as personal representatives of their risen and ascended Lord, dealt with the congregations, they did so only by virtue of the power derived from the Word of God, as the representatives of the Lord of the Church. 2 Cor. 1:24; Philemon, 8-10; Rom. 12:1; 2 Cor. 13:10.

      These contentions are further borne out by the reference of Holy Writ to specific privileges, duties, and functions given to the individual-ekklesia in apostolic times.

      (1) Each ekklesia (assembly or congregation) was regarded as a definite unit under an acknowledged, called spiritual leader, as in the case of Jerusalem (Acts 4:23; 6:2, 5; 15:4, 12; Phil. 2:25, Titus 1:5, etc.

      (2) The congregations were referred to as well-defined groups, with a registered membership (Acts 2:41; 4:4; 21:20).

      (3) There was a careful checking and screening of membership, and hypocrites who were exposed, as well as unrepentant sinners, were excluded from the Christian congregation (Acts 5:1-10; 1 Cor. 5:9-13).

      (4) The meetings of the congregations, with the men acting as voters, were conducted according to the rules of parliamentary procedure (Acts 15:6, 13, 19, 22; 1 Cor. 5:4, 13; 2 Cor. 8:19).

      (5) Letters of recommendation and of transfer were addressed to congregations as definite entities (3 John, 9; 1 Cor. 16:3; 2 Cor. 3:1; Acts 15:30,31.)

      (6) Cases of discipline, in particular, presuppose a body functioning as a unit for some length of time (1 Cor. 5:4- cp. 2 Cor. 2:6-8; Matt. 18:15-18).

      (7) Meetings held for the administration of the means of grace presuppose some form of congregational organization, and the Eucharist in particular is evidently under congregational jurisdiction (Heb. 10:25; Acts 2:42; 1 Cor. 11:28ff.).

      (8) Although the Apostolic Church had roving evangelists (traveling missionaries), the regular pastors were attached to specific congregations (Acts 14:23; Titus 1:5; 1 Tim. 3:5).
      9) Pastors are admonished to take care of their own specific flock or congregation (1 Peter 5:2; Jas. 3:1).

      In this connection it strikes us as a very important consideration in understanding the nature and the sovereignty of a Christian congregation that the New Testament never applies the term ekklesia to a corporate body acting as a unit, and particularly as a governing organization. In other words, a synod or conference is not an ekklesia according to the Scriptural use of the term. As we shall presently see, a synod or a similar church body is established, not according to the precept or example of an ekklesia in the Scriptural sense, but on the basis of other considerations, chiefly those of the universal priesthood of believers. To assert that a synod is established on the basis of Matt. 18-19, 20 is to make, e.g., husband and wife a synod, with all its rights and functions. A reference to the Smalcald Articles in this connection (Trigl., P. 510, # 24.68) is not valid, for Luther there, as the context shows, is arguing against the usurpation of power by officials and stresses the power of the keys as a right connected with the universal priesthood. The passages which are occasionally adduced to support the idea of Scriptural precept and example, namely 1 Cor. 16:1; 2 Cor. 8:1, 19; Gal. 1:2, 22; Titus 1:5; Acts 9:31; 2 Cor. 9:2; 1 Thess. 4:10, simply do not bear out the contention, and most of them prove the very opposite of what men have thought to find in them. A general reference to other Christians in a province has nothing to do with any kind of corporate body, with representatives of various congregations acting as a governing unit. The definition of a local congregation is not determined by its being a legal corporation, as shown above, but by its joining for the purpose of establishing the means of grace, of calling a pastor, of exercising church discipline, of taking care of sick brethren, etc. (Cp. Walther's Die rechte Gestalt.)

      We conclude, therefore, that the local congregation, the individual-ekklesia is to be established, by God's will and order, as the functioning unit in the so-called visible Church, and it is the only body, which exists by clear Scriptural precept and example. It may not be superfluous to add that all the functions of a Christian congregation are valid before God only by virtue of the true believers in the congregation. Hypocrites indeed, being mingled with the true believers, may take part in the activities of the corporate body, even in the calling of a pastor, in exercising church discipline, etc., but it is only because of the believers in the group that God acknowledges such functioning.

      (For the entire discussion we may point to some very important witnesses, Luther, especially in Vol. X of the St. Louis edition, 1538 ff-; 1548 ff.; 1590; 1592; Vol. XI, 1908 ff.; Vol. XI, 1914, #12; Vol. 111, 720 ff.; Walther, Kirche und Ant and Rechte Gestalt; Hoenecke, Ev. Luth. Dogmatik LV 159 ff-; Pieper, Christliche Dogmatik, III, 460.483 ff.; Lehre und Wehre Vol. 69 (1923), 97 ff.; vol. 73 (1927) 353 ff.; vol. 74 (192353 ff.; Theol. Quartalschrift (Wis. Synod), vol. VI (1901), PP. 7, 10, Conc. Theol. Monthly, II, 886 ff-; XXI, 527 ff.--Theses adopted in Australia).

      .... But here are points which must come under consideration when the question of larger organizations or federations of congregations if broached.

      1. The universal priesthood of believers, by virtue of which all true Christians and all those associated with them in visible organizations will naturally want to give expression to their being of the saw mind and of the same judgment. That such associating together is governed by specific directions of Holy Writ, such as 1 Cor. 1:10; Rom. 16:17, 18; John 10:5, and many others, is self-evident.

      2. The example of the cooperative efforts in the Apostolic Age. One of the major projects undertaken under the leadership of the Apostle Paul was the great collection for the impoverished brethren in Judea. I Cor. 16: 1-3, 2 Cor. 8:1-15.

      3. The expression of doctrinal fellowship, which is so strongly in, evidence in the apostolic letters and was evidenced in brotherly visitations, without officious pressure. Acts 8:14, 15; 11:1-21. The limitations and restrictions connected with such fellowship have already been referred to.

      Now there is no question that a synod, as a corporate body, has and should exercise jurisdiction over its own officials (presidents, visitors, professors, etc.) But as for the congregations, they should under no circumstances be placed under pressure. The statement: "When a congregation has voluntarily joined a synod (or conference), it should voluntarily submit to its resolutions," is loaded with dynamite. It is not in agreement with the position taken, according to the Word of God, by leading teachers of the Church. Thus Dr. Walther, at the organization meeting of the Iowa District (in 1879) told the assembly: "Nobody should bind himself under men, but should retain his Christian liberty.... At every moment the congregation has the liberty, if it joins synod today, to step out again tomorrow. No man can make this a matter of conscience." (P. 59.) In Dr. Koehler's Summary of Christian Doctrine the situation is described thus "Under Christ the local congregation is a sovereign, self-governing body. It is not subject to the jurisdiction of any other congregation or any higher ecclesiastical body, Such as a synod, a super-church, a pope, or the like." (P. 222.) In Popular Symbolics we read: "The local congregation is not subject to the jurisdiction of any other local congregation or any other ecclesiastical body. It is a sovereign, self-ruling body." (P. 116.) Especially important is the testimony of Dr. F. Pieper in his monumental set of books on Christian Dogmatics (III, 492-501). Some of his remarks are worth quoting again and again. For example: "Even into Lutheran groups in America and Germany the Roman leaven has penetrated. They teach that there is a church government instituted by God beside the office of the Word, which jure divino (by divine right) may pass ordinances to which the congregation must be obedient. The restriction is indeed added that the church government should not dictate anything, which is against the Word of God. But that is a contradiction in itself. This already is against the Word of God, to command Christians anything that God has not commanded in His Word .... If men claim the right to rule Christians with their commandments, they change free children of God into servants of men and thus actually expect them to apostatize from Christ as their only Lord and Master." The paragraph at the foot of page 498 and the head of page 499 is especially valuable in this connection.


      gmw <raging.calvinist@...> wrote:
      --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, A Mighty Fortress
      <edftepregon@y...> wrote:
      > IF YOU SAY YOU ARE BASED INTHE WORD THEN you have to prove that
      bishops and deacons were not called by the early church as a right
      manner of church rule for the Christian church. Of course, you cannot
      prove that. since the Apostls ordained bishops and deacons, as well
      as elders, in the churches.
      >

      "And from Miletus he sent to Ephesus, and called the ELDERS
      [presbuterous]of the church....Take heed therefore unto yourselves,
      and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you
      OVERSEERS [episkopous], to feed the church of God, which he hath
      purchased with his own blood" (Acts 20:17, 28).  It is evident that
      elders and bishops are used interchangeably in Scripture, being to
      aspects of the same office.

      Presbyterial church government has been ably proved and defended, and
      Prelacy sufficiently disproven, by far better writers than such a
      chump as me.  I recommend you to them:

      http://www.covenanter.org/JFraser/prelacyanidol.htm

      http://covenanter.org/McLeod/EcclesiasticalCat/churchofficers.htm

      http://www.truecovenanter.com/gillespie/gillespie_assertion_govt_kirk_
      scotland.html

      http://www3.sympatico.ca/d.d.s/divineright.html

      http://www.covenanter.org/RPScotland/Principles/lecture3.htm

      > This is a Presbyterian site, OK. But you as Christian have to be
      open to hear other honest Christians and not to be scared of frank
      debate grounded in the Word.>

      I stand on my original statement, and would ask you to read it again,
      as it appears you either did not read it carefully, or simply are
      unwilling to adhere to it.
       
      "Here we discuss the True Religion as revealed in God's Word, set
      forth in the Westminster Standards, sworn to in the Solemn League and
      Covenant, and adhered to by the best Reformers, Puritans, and
      Covenanters, and by those following them as they followed Christ. You
      need not be a Covenanter to participate. However, this will not be a
      forum for declaring heretical views or for espousing the Counter-
      Reformation."

      gmw.

      (By the way, Presbyterians are NOT Zwinglians, but Calvinists, in
      relation to the Lord's Supper... and I am aware that some distort the
      Lutheran view... I did not intend to do that, only to warn against
      those who may wish to continue teaching things against the standards
      and charter of this group).



      ALL-NEW Yahoo! Messenger - sooooo many all-new ways to express yourself
    • J. Parnell McCarter
      ... an Spartan model, with no living links to the past, condemning or overlooking 1500 years of History of the church -1500 years that bear witness of around
      Message 2 of 24 , Jul 3, 2004
      • 0 Attachment

        >"Calvin and his tradition had in mind, it seems to me, build a new church, an Spartan model, with no living links to the past, condemning or overlooking 1500 years of History of the church –1500 years that bear witness of around 40 million of Christian massacred by Popery hordes."

         

         

         

        I have no idea what you are talking about.  The Waldense, who survived the Medieval era from the primitive church era, joined with the Reformed churches of Switzerland , etc. 

         

        The Protestant Reformation according to scripture began with Wyckliffe, not Luther, though Luther was certainly an important Protestant Reformer.  Wyckliffe's doctrine of predestination and the Lord's Supper is quite in line with the Reformed view.

         

        Your assertion about no living links to the past is without foundation.

         

        - Parnell McCarter

        www.puritans.net

         

         

      • Anglicananswer@aol.com
        In a message dated 7/3/04 9:05:01 PM Central Daylight Time, ... The Waldense had some flaws until they met the Reformed and Lutherans. I do not think Calvin
        Message 3 of 24 , Jul 3, 2004
        • 0 Attachment
          In a message dated 7/3/04 9:05:01 PM Central Daylight Time, jparnellm@... writes:

          Waldense, who survived the Medieval era from the primitive church era,

          The Waldense had some flaws until they met the Reformed and Lutherans.
          I do not think Calvin attempted to build a new church. Calvin and Luther both looked to Augustine and many of the Patristics.
          The area of concern has been, in my opinion, that some of the Reformed have an Anabaptist culture within their organizational structure(as I pointed out in an earlier post).
          This has to do with worship, liturgy, etc.
          But Lutheran and Presbyterian and Anglican(if all faithful to their confessional standards-which are based on Nicene Orthodoxy) are all part of the church "catholic."

          Paul
        • A Mighty Fortress
          Many of the Waldenses adhered to the Anabaptists, not te Reformed. Predestination doctrine is in the Word; was taught by Augustine and Gottschalck againts
          Message 4 of 24 , Jul 4, 2004
          • 0 Attachment
            Many of the Waldenses adhered to the Anabaptists, not te Reformed.
             
            Predestination doctrine is in the Word; was taught by Augustine and Gottschalck againts Pelagians etc. Is not "Reformed" but Christian and LUTHER taught it, as we do.
             
            Wicleff and Huss were pre-Reformers, but they weren't the instruments of GOD for take in the Reformation and toss down the Pope. The History is there.
             
            The Scriptural doctrine of the Supper is Luther's doctrine, not Zwingli, the rationalist who completely destroyed with his "spirituliasm" the meaning of the Holy Supper, this is,a Means of Grace in which Christ himself ministers us the forgiveness of sins, and not a legalistic "ordinance". The Supper is pure GOSPEL not Law.
             
            Good website. Congratulations!
             
            EI
            www.luteranos.org

            "J. Parnell McCarter" <jparnellm@...> wrote:

            >"Calvin and his tradition had in mind, it seems to me, build a new church, an Spartan model, with no living links to the past, condemning or overlooking 1500 years of History of the church –1500 years that bear witness of around 40 million of Christian massacred by Popery hordes."

             

             

             

            I have no idea what you are talking about.  The Waldense, who survived the Medieval era from the primitive church era, joined with the Reformed churches of Switzerland , etc. 

             

            The Protestant Reformation according to scripture began with Wyckliffe, not Luther, though Luther was certainly an important Protestant Reformer.  Wyckliffe's doctrine of predestination and the Lord's Supper is quite in line with the Reformed view.

             

            Your assertion about no living links to the past is without foundation.

             

            - Parnell McCarter

            www.puritans.net

             

             



            ALL-NEW Yahoo! Messenger - sooooo many all-new ways to express yourself

          • Edgar A. Ibarra Jr.
            Pastor Enrique, Why do you continue to insist that God used Luther 1st to take down the Pope and try to undercut the other men/women that God saw fit to use
            Message 5 of 24 , Jul 4, 2004
            • 0 Attachment
              Pastor Enrique,

              Why do you continue to insist that God used Luther 1st to take
              down the Pope and try to undercut the other men/women that God saw
              fit to use for the extension of His Kingdom? Wycliff and Huss were
              bright stars that shone before the dawn broke upon the kingdom of
              antichrist. When tried, the papists tried to pin Luther as a
              follower of Huss. Luther did great and maravelous works, he was a
              great defender of the faith, I don't take that from him. However, so
              were Calvin, Knox, and Melville for example. The Calvinists were
              consistent and applied God's Word to every sphere of human
              influence. Therefore, and without undercutting what Luther did, the
              Calvinist Reformation was more expansive and all-encompassing. The
              Covenanters took it all the way as they were allowed, given their
              circumstances and hence more faithful to God's Word.

              Please keep the instruments that God used in perspective. Luther
              did not, due to Providence, go further than he did.

              Yours in Christ,

              Edgar


              --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, A Mighty Fortress
              <edftepregon@y...> wrote:
              > Many of the Waldenses adhered to the Anabaptists, not te Reformed.
              >
              > Predestination doctrine is in the Word; was taught by Augustine and
              Gottschalck againts Pelagians etc. Is not "Reformed" but Christian
              and LUTHER taught it, as we do.
              >
              > Wicleff and Huss were pre-Reformers, but they weren't the
              instruments of GOD for take in the Reformation and toss down the
              Pope. The History is there.
              >
              > The Scriptural doctrine of the Supper is Luther's doctrine, not
              Zwingli, the rationalist who completely destroyed with
              his "spirituliasm" the meaning of the Holy Supper, this is,a Means of
              Grace in which Christ himself ministers us the forgiveness of sins,
              and not a legalistic "ordinance". The Supper is pure GOSPEL not Law.
              >
              > Good website. Congratulations!
              >
              > EI
              > www.luteranos.org
              >
              > "J. Parnell McCarter" <jparnellm@u...> wrote:
              > st1\:*{behavior:url(#default#ieooui) }
              > >"Calvin and his tradition had in mind, it seems to me, build a new
              church, an Spartan model, with no living links to the past,
              condemning or overlooking 1500 years of History of the church –1500
              years that bear witness of around 40 million of Christian massacred
              by Popery hordes."
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              > I have no idea what you are talking about. The Waldense, who
              survived the Medieval era from the primitive church era, joined with
              the Reformed churches of Switzerland, etc.
              >
              >
              >
              > The Protestant Reformation according to scripture began with
              Wyckliffe, not Luther, though Luther was certainly an important
              Protestant Reformer. Wyckliffe's doctrine of predestination and the
              Lord's Supper is quite in line with the Reformed view.
              >
              >
              >
              > Your assertion about no living links to the past is without
              foundation.
              >
              >
              >
              > - Parnell McCarter
              >
              > www.puritans.net
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              > Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT
              >
              >
              > ---------------------------------
              > Yahoo! Groups Links
              >
              > To visit your group on the web, go to:
              > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/covenantedreformationclub/
              >
              > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
              > covenantedreformationclub-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
              >
              > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
              Service.
              >
              >
              >
              > ---------------------------------
              > ALL-NEW Yahoo! Messenger - sooooo many all-new ways to express
              yourself
            • Anglicananswer@aol.com
              In a message dated 7/4/04 6:01:45 PM Central Daylight Time, ... The above remark is the anabaptist spirit that I have observed in Presbyterians. It was not
              Message 6 of 24 , Jul 4, 2004
              • 0 Attachment
                In a message dated 7/4/04 6:01:45 PM Central Daylight Time, puritanpresbyterian@... writes:

                the
                Calvinist Reformation was more expansive and all-encompassing.  The
                Covenanters took it all the way as they were allowed, given their
                circumstances and hence more faithful to God's Word.


                The above remark is the anabaptist spirit that I have observed in Presbyterians.
                It was not "more" faithful than Luther. The covenantors were "different."

                Paul
              • J. Parnell McCarter
                Yes, they were proto-Protestant, and we should not think that they ushered in the Protestant Reformation. Their understanding and education was not so clear
                Message 7 of 24 , Jul 4, 2004
                • 0 Attachment

                  Yes, they were proto-Protestant, and we should not think that they ushered in the Protestant Reformation.  Their understanding and education was not so clear and comprehensive as to do what John Wyckliffe, Luther, Calvin, etc. did.  But they do serve as the 2-witness bridge between the primitive church and the Reformation church.

                   

                  - Parnell McCarter

                   


                  From: Anglicananswer@... [mailto:Anglicananswer@...]
                  Sent: Sunday, July 04, 2004 12:14 AM
                  To: covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com
                  Subject: Re: [Covenanted Reformation] Just a reminder...

                   

                  In a message dated 7/3/04 9:05:01 PM Central Daylight Time, jparnellm@... writes:

                  Waldense, who survived the Medieval era from the primitive church era,



                  The Waldense had some flaws until they met the Reformed and Lutherans.

                • J. Parnell McCarter
                  The Waldensian church in the Medieval era was proto-Protestant. And in the Reformation era it joined hands with its brethren the Reformed- **not** the
                  Message 8 of 24 , Jul 4, 2004
                  • 0 Attachment

                    The Waldensian church in the Medieval era was proto-Protestant.  And in the Reformation era it joined hands with its brethren the Reformed- **not** the Anabaptists.  (Side note: The Vaudois church in the US is Presbyterian (sadly part of the PCUSA now).)

                     

                    Neither Wyckliffe nor Luther destroyed the Papacy, for that must wait until a yet future day.  But the Protestant Reformation, which decreased the Papacy's power and influence, began with Wyckliffe.  Such is the testimony of scripture and history.

                     

                    Wyckliffe:

                     

                    1. Declared the Pope to be Anti-Christ.

                     

                    2.  Taught the doctrines of grace.

                     

                    3. Taught sola scriptura.

                     

                    4.  Made the Bible available to people in the vulgar language.

                     

                    5. Condemned the Romish Mass, on grounds that are Reformed (not Lutheran)

                     

                    6. Called the state (with real effect) not to bow to the Pope

                     

                    7. Had disciples that traversed Britain but extended to continental Europe , where it was picked up by Huss.

                     

                    In short, Wyckliffe was the Morningstar of the Reformation.  And the Reformation which he began finds its fullest and most mature doctrinal expression in the Westminster Standards.

                     

                    - Parnell McCarter

                     


                    From: A Mighty Fortress [mailto:edftepregon@...]
                    Sent: Sunday, July 04, 2004 2:25 PM
                    To: covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com
                    Subject: RE: [Covenanted Reformation] Just a reminder...

                     

                    Many of the Waldenses adhered to the Anabaptists, not te Reformed.

                     

                    Predestination doctrine is in the Word; was taught by Augustine and Gottschalck againts Pelagians etc. Is not "Reformed" but Christian and LUTHER taught it, as we do.

                     

                    Wicleff and Huss were pre-Reformers, but they weren't the instruments of GOD for take in the Reformation and toss down the Pope. The History is there.

                     

                    The Scriptural doctrine of the Supper is Luther's doctrine, not Zwingli, the rationalist who completely destroyed with his "spirituliasm" the meaning of the Holy Supper, this is,a Means of Grace in which Christ himself ministers us the forgiveness of sins, and not a legalistic "ordinance". The Supper is pure GOSPEL not Law.

                     

                    Good website. Congratulations!

                     

                    EI

                  • Deejay
                    Re: Wyckliffe: It is my understanding that Lollards (Wyckliffites) still existed as late as 1521, and that the Protestant Reformation was built on Wycliffes
                    Message 9 of 24 , Jul 4, 2004
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Re: Wyckliffe:  It is my understanding that Lollards (Wyckliffites) still existed as late as 1521, and that  the Protestant Reformation was built on Wycliffes Legacy,  tho by that time, he had been dead for 200 years.  Some legacy!
                       
                      And whomever said the "Covenanters were different"  yes ,they were.  History proves this fact.    The Scottish Covenanters  fought cos they  wanted freedom and  liberty for Christ.  Us Pesky Englanders only fought to defend the Throne of England.  That alone speaks volumes.  And I ain't an expert or anything,  but  any light reading into this subject,  proves how  far they were willing to go.
                       
                      ~Deejay<--an English none-presbyterian.
                      -----Original Message-----
                      From: J. Parnell McCarter [mailto:jparnellm@...]
                      Sent: 05 July 2004 00:46
                      To: covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com
                      Subject: RE: [Covenanted Reformation] Just a reminder...

                      The Waldensian church in the Medieval era was proto-Protestant.  And in the Reformation era it joined hands with its brethren the Reformed- **not** the Anabaptists.  (Side note: The Vaudois church in the US is Presbyterian (sadly part of the PCUSA now).)

                       

                      Neither Wyckliffe nor Luther destroyed the Papacy, for that must wait until a yet future day.  But the Protestant Reformation, which decreased the Papacy's power and influence, began with Wyckliffe.  Such is the testimony of scripture and history.

                       

                      Wyckliffe:

                       

                      1. Declared the Pope to be Anti-Christ.

                       

                      2.  Taught the doctrines of grace.

                       

                      3. Taught sola scriptura.

                       

                      4.  Made the Bible available to people in the vulgar language.

                       

                      5. Condemned the Romish Mass, on grounds that are Reformed (not Lutheran)

                       

                      6. Called the state (with real effect) not to bow to the Pope

                       

                      7. Had disciples that traversed Britain but extended to continental Europe , where it was picked up by Huss.

                       

                      In short, Wyckliffe was the Morningstar of the Reformation.  And the Reformation which he began finds its fullest and most mature doctrinal expression in the Westminster Standards.

                       

                      - Parnell McCarter

                       


                      From: A Mighty Fortress [mailto:edftepregon@...]
                      Sent: Sunday, July 04, 2004 2:25 PM
                      To: covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com
                      Subject: RE: [Covenanted Reformation] Just a reminder...

                       

                      Many of the Waldenses adhered to the Anabaptists, not te Reformed.

                       

                      Predestination doctrine is in the Word; was taught by Augustine and Gottschalck againts Pelagians etc. Is not "Reformed" but Christian and LUTHER taught it, as we do.

                       

                      Wicleff and Huss were pre-Reformers, but they weren't the instruments of GOD for take in the Reformation and toss down the Pope. The History is there.

                       

                      The Scriptural doctrine of the Supper is Luther's doctrine, not Zwingli, the rationalist who completely destroyed with his "spirituliasm" the meaning of the Holy Supper, this is,a Means of Grace in which Christ himself ministers us the forgiveness of sins, and not a legalistic "ordinance". The Supper is pure GOSPEL not Law.

                       

                      Good website. Congratulations!

                       

                      EI




                      Delivery confirmed by confimax.com
                    • Deejay
                      It was something I heard by a talk by someone speaking of the reformation: And I thought it was humours anyhow. Maybe cos I dont like Scots accents. But,
                      Message 10 of 24 , Jul 4, 2004
                      • 0 Attachment
                        It was something I heard  by a talk by someone  speaking of  the reformation:
                         
                        And I thought it was humours anyhow.  Maybe cos I dont' like Scots accents.  But,  apparently up till the 1700's,  many yankee Doodle dandies in America spoke with Scots Accents!!  ;-)  (which was directly linked to  the Scots covenanters.)
                         
                        (sorry for the interuption Jerry,  just  had no idea that was so till I heard this talk but maybe most folks here know that already)
                         
                        ~Deejay
                        -----Original Message-----
                        From: Deejay [mailto:deejay@...]
                        Sent: 05 July 2004 01:17
                        To: covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com
                        Subject: RE: [Covenanted Reformation] Just a reminder...

                         
                         
                        And whomever said the "Covenanters were different"  yes ,they were.  History proves this fact.    The Scottish Covenanters  fought cos they  wanted freedom and  liberty for Christ.  Us Pesky Englanders only fought to defend the Throne of England.  That alone speaks volumes.  And I ain't an expert or anything,  but  any light reading into this subject,  proves how  far they were willing to go.
                         
                        ~Deejay<--an English none-presbyterian.
                         

                        Delivery confirmed by confimax.com
                      • Anglicananswer@aol.com
                        In a message dated 7/4/04 7:04:58 PM Central Daylight Time, ... Perhaps I am wrong...and since there were many seperatists down through the ages that they
                        Message 11 of 24 , Jul 4, 2004
                        • 0 Attachment
                          In a message dated 7/4/04 7:04:58 PM Central Daylight Time, jparnellm@... writes:

                          The Waldensian church in the Medieval era was proto-Protestant.  And in the Reformation

                          Perhaps I am wrong...and since there were many "seperatists" down through the ages that they blur...etc.
                          But, according to Kenneth Scott Latourette in his "History of Christianity", the Waldensians unitl they met the Reformers, taught women could also preach, sacraments administered by unworthy ministers were not valid, if needed a lay person could administer the Eucharist, their only forms of prayer were "Our Father" and grace at meals, all oaths(even in a law court)was against God's Word.

                          Farel ran into them in the early 1500's(almost 400 years later) when going through Switzerland and won "some" of them to the Reformation and then some of their ministers interacted with ministers of the Reformation.

                          Latourette says, "Anabaptists were manifestations of a continuing strain in Christianity which has been present from the very beginning..."

                          Latourette lists the Montanists, Novations, Paulicians(rank heretics for sure) and Waldensees were of "that kin."

                          They seem to, before the Reformation, have opposed infant baptism and the authortiy of clergy.

                          They were not really sound until they encountered the Reformation.
                          Not everyone that opposes Rome is sound.

                          Just some thoughts.
                          Paul
                        • Edgar A. Ibarra Jr.
                          ... I.e. The Church of England, i.e. the Anglican Church -Edgar ... And in the ... through the ... Christianity , ... also preach, ... needed a lay ... were
                          Message 12 of 24 , Jul 5, 2004
                          • 0 Attachment
                            > Not everyone that opposes Rome is sound.

                            I.e. The Church of England, i.e. the Anglican Church

                            -Edgar

                            --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, Anglicananswer@a...
                            wrote:
                            > In a message dated 7/4/04 7:04:58 PM Central Daylight Time,
                            > jparnellm@u... writes:
                            >
                            > > The Waldensian church in the Medieval era was proto-Protestant.
                            And in the
                            > > Reformation
                            >
                            > Perhaps I am wrong...and since there were many "seperatists" down
                            through the
                            > ages that they blur...etc.
                            > But, according to Kenneth Scott Latourette in his "History of
                            Christianity",
                            > the Waldensians unitl they met the Reformers, taught women could
                            also preach,
                            > sacraments administered by unworthy ministers were not valid, if
                            needed a lay
                            > person could administer the Eucharist, their only forms of prayer
                            were "Our
                            > Father" and grace at meals, all oaths(even in a law court)was
                            against God's
                            > Word.
                            >
                            > Farel ran into them in the early 1500's(almost 400 years later)
                            when going
                            > through Switzerland and won "some" of them to the Reformation and
                            then some of
                            > their ministers interacted with ministers of the Reformation.
                            >
                            > Latourette says, "Anabaptists were manifestations of a continuing
                            strain in
                            > Christianity which has been present from the very beginning..."
                            >
                            > Latourette lists the Montanists, Novations, Paulicians(rank
                            heretics for
                            > sure) and Waldensees were of "that kin."
                            >
                            > They seem to, before the Reformation, have opposed infant baptism
                            and the
                            > authortiy of clergy.
                            >
                            > They were not really sound until they encountered the Reformation.
                            > Not everyone that opposes Rome is sound.
                            >
                            > Just some thoughts.
                            > Paul
                          • Anglicananswer@aol.com
                            Edgar, I could say that about the Prebyterian....but I will not. To compare anabaptists that allow when ministers and who deny baptism to children with
                            Message 13 of 24 , Jul 5, 2004
                            • 0 Attachment
                              Edgar,
                                   I could say that about the Prebyterian....but I will not.
                              To compare anabaptists that allow when ministers and who deny baptism to children with historic Anglicanism shows that something is wrong on your end.

                              Paul
                            • Edgar A. Ibarra Jr.
                              paul, Just a reminder that you described the Covenanters as having the spirit of the anabaptists. I am surprised that Gerry didn t call you on that yet. We
                              Message 14 of 24 , Jul 5, 2004
                              • 0 Attachment
                                paul,


                                Just a reminder that you described the Covenanters as having the
                                spirit of the anabaptists. I am surprised that Gerry didn't call you
                                on that yet.

                                We believe in and practice infant Baptism, We believe in and
                                practice close Communion and one common cup, and we do believe in
                                ecclesiastical & civil government. The Anabaptists denied all of the
                                above.

                                Now, I have allowed myself to become very polemical and fiesty to
                                say the least in the past several posts. I will now cease and desist
                                in peckin' a fight with the several dissenters that are posting
                                comments that disparge the True Reformed Faith and see how far you
                                will all go in your false testimony against what is well documented
                                and proved. All you need to do is tole lege and research the
                                original authors of the Standards and what these faithful men
                                contended for and compare that with the Anglicans of the day and the
                                neo-Presbyterians of today. A vast difference of theological mindset
                                and practice will soon become apperant.

                                Paul, I only "wish" that we could have met on better terms and
                                have been able to discuss the items more civily.

                                GMW, I realize that I allowed my aggression to get the better of
                                me. I sometimes get very troubled when brethren laud our fore-
                                fathers and appropriate their doctrine only to smear it in their
                                actual teaching and make it appear as the fore-fathers also held the
                                same standard that many neo-Presbies do today.

                                I will take your advice and be more cautious and weary of
                                my "words" that I type...James 3.

                                Thank you!

                                Yours in Christ,

                                Edgar


                                --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, Anglicananswer@a...
                                wrote:
                                > Edgar,
                                > I could say that about the Prebyterian....but I will not.
                                > To compare anabaptists that allow when ministers and who deny
                                baptism to
                                > children with historic Anglicanism shows that something is wrong on
                                your end.
                                >
                                > Paul
                              • A Mighty Fortress
                                Dear Edgar: It seems to me that one cannot see the other convictions out of a living faith in a living confession. The thing is that we Lutherans, are not
                                Message 15 of 24 , Jul 5, 2004
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  Dear Edgar:
                                   
                                  It seems to me that one cannot see the other convictions out of a living faith in a living confession. The thing is that we Lutherans, are not Protestants, as I told you before now. This was a name given to some Earls that protested against the Pope's damnation on Luther. I recognize that Covenanters and many Reformed theologians did it very well, and we learn from them, accepting return to Luther's doctrine on predestination (I will send you and some other friends here a copy of our last Doctrinal Sum, "Augustinus"). I know that many Reformed divines have been more loyal to Luther than same Lutherans from the 1600's until know. But, albeit confessing the 5 points, I see that there are many things that sunder us from Reformed. Not in Justification by Faith and other main doctrines, in which we all agree. But we will never surrender the Scriptural doctrine on the Supper, and we will never confound the hidden church with the outward church --while we see that you are doing it, since you say that this or that manner of church rule is of jure divino. There are another issues, as the concept of a inner assurance; I agree in some way with this, whilst the thing proves to be Scriptural; but our confidence is always grounded in an aliena iustitia and in the finished work of a crucified Christ, died in the room & in stead of sinners.
                                   
                                  I honestly think, and in this some comments of Paul "Anglicananswer"  (I'm still waiting your letter, dear friend PM) and other suggestions of "bishopdoom" look as very appropriate.  Gnesio Lutherans reclaim be the Catholick Church of the West, not this perhaps too much comprehensive but may be exceedingly narrower thought & speech, "Protestants". I think that, despite my sincere love to all Reformed, we are very far one to the other. May be this not happens betwist Anglicans & Lutherans, proved that they were disposed to talk in the basis of their Auld Homelies on the Supper of the Lorde. In this way I hope that Br. Paul could be open to a dialogue with me (in private post). I am sure that you, well-esteemed Edgar, be a great fellow & honest Christian, and I bless our Saviour for this. But, dear friend, you would never really understand our standing, out of a Lutheran life. Of course, is not "your guilt"; and I deeply respect the wise ways the Lord has for each one of us. Then, so, come forward and be a bold Covenanter! We all very well know that the Great Tribulation is at hand, and soon we all will be with our dear Lord in heavens.
                                   
                                  Saying this, and since I will unsuscribe from this site, I pray our God bless you all, and want express my sincere gratitude to you, and friends Raging Calvinist, Bishopsdoom and Paul.
                                   
                                  Edgar, when I finish my Spanish Version on Rutherford's "Against Universal Atonement" I gladly will send you and Pastor P. a copy.
                                   
                                  Sincerely yours,
                                   
                                  In Christ,
                                  Rev Enrique Ivaldi, Lutheran Pastor.
                                   
                                  edftepregon@...

                                  "Edgar A. Ibarra Jr." <puritanpresbyterian@...> wrote:
                                  Pastor Enrique,

                                     Why do you continue to insist that God used Luther 1st to take
                                  down the Pope and try to undercut the other men/women that God saw
                                  fit to use for the extension of His Kingdom?  Wycliff and Huss were
                                  bright stars that shone before the dawn broke upon the kingdom of
                                  antichrist.  When tried, the papists tried to pin Luther as a
                                  follower of Huss.  Luther did great and maravelous works, he was a
                                  great defender of the faith, I don't take that from him.  However, so
                                  were Calvin, Knox, and Melville for example.  The Calvinists were
                                  consistent and applied God's Word to every sphere of human
                                  influence.  Therefore, and without undercutting what Luther did, the
                                  Calvinist Reformation was more expansive and all-encompassing.  The
                                  Covenanters took it all the way as they were allowed, given their
                                  circumstances and hence more faithful to God's Word.

                                    Please keep the instruments that God used in perspective.  Luther
                                  did not, due to Providence, go further than he did.

                                  Yours in Christ,

                                  Edgar



                                  ALL-NEW Yahoo! Messenger - sooooo many all-new ways to express yourself

                                • gmw
                                  ... You know what? I caught that, but had no idea what he meant by it. But when Paul went after you, after having made such a statement himself, it does have
                                  Message 16 of 24 , Jul 5, 2004
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, "Edgar A. Ibarra
                                    Jr." <puritanpresbyterian@y...> wrote:

                                    > Just a reminder that you described the Covenanters as having the
                                    > spirit of the anabaptists. I am surprised that Gerry didn't call
                                    > you on that yet.

                                    You know what? I caught that, but had no idea what he meant by it.
                                    But when Paul went after you, after having made such a statement
                                    himself, it does have me a bit perturbed. Guys, it's legitmate to
                                    compare one group to another IF there is actually a comparison made,
                                    but to just say "this is an anabaptist spirit" without actually making
                                    an argument as to why it is the case, is inappropriate.

                                    > Now, I have allowed myself to become very polemical and fiesty
                                    to
                                    > say the least in the past several posts.

                                    This will happen, especially when our zeal for the Lord becomes a
                                    factor. Calvin said to bark like a dog when your master is attacked,
                                    and Cameron (I believe) said to be a lion in the cause of Christ.
                                    Polemic and feistiness have their place, and I do not intend to squash
                                    it altogether. I would just have us all be careful not to let our
                                    polemics and fiestiness work against our Testimony for Christ.

                                    > GMW, I realize that I allowed my aggression to get the better of
                                    > me. I sometimes get very troubled when brethren laud our fore-
                                    > fathers and appropriate their doctrine only to smear it in their
                                    > actual teaching and make it appear as the fore-fathers also held
                                    the
                                    > same standard that many neo-Presbies do today.

                                    This is VERY understandable. I appreciate your zeal for the truth,
                                    and your participation in this group.

                                    > I will take your advice and be more cautious and weary of
                                    > my "words" that I type...James 3.
                                    >
                                    > Thank you!

                                    And thank you for displaying a gracious spirit.

                                    Now, another reminder for all....

                                    This is not the "Prelatic Reformation Club" nor the "Lutheran
                                    Communion Club." It's the Covenanted Reformation Club. If Anglicans
                                    and Lutherans wish to participate, they may do so by sharing in those
                                    things they may have in common with the Reformed Presbyterian
                                    tradition.... and as I've pointed out... we do have things in common.
                                    We Reformed Presbyterians thank God for Martin Luther, and for those
                                    early Anglicans which labored for the cause of Christ in the
                                    Reformation. Where we part ways, sadly, but necessarily, is in our
                                    rejection of Prelacy and unwarranted worship practices in the case of
                                    the Anglicans, and in our denial of the literal bodily presence of
                                    Christ in the elements of the Lord's Supper and unwarrented worship
                                    practices in the case of the Lutherans. IF you choose to come in here
                                    to argue for those doctrines and practices contrary to the doctrines
                                    and practices of the Covenanted Reformation, expect to be opposed for
                                    a time, and deposed in time.

                                    For Christ's Cause and Covenant,
                                    gmw.
                                  • Anglicananswer@aol.com
                                    Edgar, I was responding to the posts that said Waldense were semi or proto Protestants and was giving some background to that. That is all. When mentioning
                                    Message 17 of 24 , Jul 5, 2004
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      Edgar,
                                           I was responding to the posts that said
                                      Waldense
                                      were semi or proto Protestants and was giving some background to that.
                                      That is all. When mentioning that they may have been opposed to Rome and not all that opposed Rome the reaction was that Anglicanism was in the same boat.
                                      I begged to differ.
                                      Anglicanism(if faithful to their confessional heritage) believed in the biblical sacraments, grace alone, justification by faith alone, the Bible is the final infallible authority and opposed egalitarianism(women ministers, etc).
                                      The above they shared with Covenantors and Lutherans.
                                      That was the context.

                                      Paul
                                    • Anglicananswer@aol.com
                                      The spirit of anabaptist I was speaking of is the tendency to have a restorationist approach to biblical practice and worship and in ecclesiology. One
                                      Message 18 of 24 , Jul 5, 2004
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        The spirit of anabaptist I was speaking of is the tendency to have a "restorationist"
                                        approach to biblical practice and worship and in ecclesiology.
                                        One Reformed minister once told me that most Presbyterians are baptists that baptize babies and dont know why.

                                        I also said that there is anabaptist culture in some Presbyterian..not in all.

                                        Paul
                                      • thebishopsdoom
                                        ... through the ... Christianity , ... also preach, ... needed a lay ... were Our ... against God s ... There were early on two main branches of the
                                        Message 19 of 24 , Jul 5, 2004
                                        • 0 Attachment
                                          --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, "Edgar A. Ibarra
                                          Jr." <puritanpresbyterian@y...> wrote:
                                          --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, Anglicananswer@a...
                                          wrote:
                                          > Perhaps I am wrong...and since there were many "seperatists" down
                                          through the
                                          > ages that they blur...etc.
                                          > But, according to Kenneth Scott Latourette in his "History of
                                          Christianity",
                                          > the Waldensians unitl they met the Reformers, taught women could
                                          also preach,
                                          > sacraments administered by unworthy ministers were not valid, if
                                          needed a lay
                                          > person could administer the Eucharist, their only forms of prayer
                                          were "Our
                                          > Father" and grace at meals, all oaths(even in a law court)was
                                          against God's
                                          > Word.
                                          There were early on two main branches of the Waldensians, the poor of
                                          lyons and the poor of lombardy. The Lyons branch first shows up so
                                          far as I can tell will Valdes. The lombardy group may have sprung up
                                          separately from the French. As the movement spread, there were some
                                          divergences of opinions. Most, for example, denied purgatory,
                                          questioned a number of rites, etc. But if you look at the split in
                                          the 1200s between the french and lombard waldenses, there are some
                                          documents still extant from their discussions that purportedly led to
                                          the split. One of these issues dealt with whether or not the
                                          sacrament was changed by the power of the word of God alone, or
                                          whether it had to be mediated thru one who has been ordained. The
                                          Lombardy party argued that the power was not from the word of God
                                          alone, and thereby ordiantion was necessary in order to have the
                                          sacraments. The lombardy party also rejected the insistence of the
                                          french waldenses that baptism was not necesary for an infant dying in
                                          infancy to be saved. On the other hand, the lombard party allegedly
                                          were stronger (so I've heard, anyway) against Rome. The Lyons group
                                          sent representatives to the 3rd Lateran Council in 1179 to ask the
                                          for formal recognition as a legitimate poor men's order, but a
                                          decision was held off because of some concerns. (It has been claimed,
                                          and it may be in Foxe even, that the 3rd lateran condemned the
                                          Waldenses and sought their extirpation by force, but tho the acts of
                                          the 3rd Lateran not being extant to my knowledge, it is difficult to
                                          state what was original to them, the Waldenses are not specified in
                                          canon 27 with the Albi movements that were condemned, and
                                          historically it had been held that the council had determined to lay
                                          aside the matter of what to do about the lyons group. My theoretical
                                          understanding has been that perhaps canon 27 was a precursory ruling
                                          that was later used against the waldenses at some point down the
                                          road.)
                                          All in all, however, the two branch view of the Waldenses becomes
                                          inadequate over time as there were interactions between waldensians
                                          and other groups, and there were what we might call "waldensian
                                          influenced" groups who may have carried the name but been more
                                          radical in nature. This might be expected in an atmosphere where you
                                          have a hotbed of both anti-sacerdotal, donatistic, and other brands
                                          of dissent growing in southern France, the push of the Bogomiles and
                                          related groups across the mountains fleeing from sentences against
                                          them in Eastern Europe, as well as (in Italy) potential influences
                                          possibly left over in the outskirts of Turin from the some-time-
                                          influential (for about a century it is said) Claudius Turinus (who,
                                          nevertheless, appears to be better on predestination, magistracy, and
                                          certainly his words appear better on justification than Valdes 1180
                                          confession or the Noble Lesson - recall Claudius had gotten himself
                                          in trouble after publishing commentaries on the books of the Kings
                                          due to the faith / works issue and might have suffered punishment had
                                          it not been for some favour held of him by some of the civil
                                          dignitaries if memory serves correctly).
                                          I have heard about the allowance of lay preaching among some of them,
                                          including allowing female preaching, but I would not attribute this
                                          co-extensively with Waldensianism, as though the two were necessarily
                                          synonymous, though in France, it is clear that some of this must have
                                          been going on as Valdes was not ordained, and there were concerns
                                          about the fact that some of the poor men were preaching without
                                          authorization to do so when the Lynos group tried getting recognition
                                          in 1179, which presumably was a lay preaching issue.

                                          > Farel ran into them in the early 1500's(almost 400 years later)
                                          when going
                                          > through Switzerland and won "some" of them to the Reformation and
                                          then some of
                                          > their ministers interacted with ministers of the Reformation.
                                          That would basically be correct. It is said that it was at Chanforan
                                          where they voted to accept the reformation, but in doing so
                                          recognized it marked some departure from some of their heritage. When
                                          the reformed had interacted with the waldensians, I have read
                                          accounts that they had some knowledge of the reformation and had
                                          attempted to look into the bondage of the will discussion between
                                          Luther and Erasmus, but hitherto had sided with Erasmus. I do not
                                          know whether or no that is true, but I do know that predestination is
                                          usually marked as one of the issues where they were at odds with the
                                          reformers at the beginning.

                                          > Latourette lists the Montanists, Novations, Paulicians(rank
                                          heretics for
                                          > sure) and Waldensees were of "that kin."
                                          > They seem to, before the Reformation, have opposed infant baptism
                                          and the
                                          > authortiy of clergy.
                                          Some waldensians probably did come to reject paedobaptism, but it was
                                          my understanding that there had been issues among the french as to
                                          whether it was best to take a child to a mainline church to be
                                          baptised, or withhold baptism until such time as a barb could be had.
                                          This may have been a cause for the issue coming up with the Lombards
                                          over whether unbaptized infants were without hope, though I can't be
                                          certain, it has been so long since I looked much into those things.
                                          Ditto on ecclesiastical authority. Some went one way, others probably
                                          another.
                                          On the other hand, I know that Waldensian history is by far more
                                          riddled with questions and misinformation or less than accurate
                                          information, and so I take even all of the above as liable to some
                                          degree of errour.
                                          I have long thought, tho, that the main point about the Waldenses,
                                          and the point which won them over in the end, was that they had a
                                          deep commitment to Scripture, and while this in itself was not
                                          exclusive to them, yet they appear in addition to have been more
                                          willing to question, and even in some cases reject things they could
                                          not find therein.
                                        • J. Parnell McCarter
                                          Henri Arnaud, a Waldensian pastor, says of their origin: Neither has their church been ever reformed, whence arises its title of Evangelic. The Vaudois are,
                                          Message 20 of 24 , Jul 6, 2004
                                          • 0 Attachment

                                            Henri Arnaud, a Waldensian pastor, says of their origin: 

                                            "Neither has their church been ever reformed, whence arises its title of Evangelic. The Vaudois are, in fact, descended from those refugees from Italy who, after St. Paul had there preached the gospel, abandoned their beautiful country and fled, like the woman mentioned in the Apocalypse, to these wild mountains, where they have to this day handed down the gospel from father to son in the same purity and simplicity as it was preached by St. Paul"–"The Glorious Recovery by the Vaudois," p. xiv of preface by the Author, translated by Acland. London :1827.

                                            A nice short summary of their history is at http://www.holytrinitynewrochelle.org/yourti16626.html :

                                             

                                            "…the French word for valley, vaux, gave rise to the nickname Vaudois, while the Italian vallis, likewise created Vallenses or Valdesi or Valdenses, all meaning "valley-men," referring to those who lived in the near and remote reaches of those valleys of the Cottian Alps lying within the dioceses of Milan and Turin…

                                            The Roman Catholic Church, who steadily persecuted them through the centuries, maintained that the Valdenses derived their origin, name and beliefs from Peter (Valdo) of Lyons . It is more probable that the Roman Catholic authors are as mistaken in their statement of the origin of the Valdesi as in their statement of their heresies. It was not in Roman Catholic interests to admit they opposed a group which traced their history back to apostolic primitive Christianity in a purer tradition than the Roman.4
                                            The Valdese themselves trace their descent as a church to the time of Claude, Bishop of Turin in the ninth century.5 Those churches were probably the descendants-spiritual, if not lineal-of the many generations of believers in that area of northern Italy since the early days of the church. There was a line of bishops and leaders there, started by Ambrose, Bishop of Milan in the fourth century, who maintained independence from the Roman See, upheld the supremacy of Scripture in all things, including the gospel of justification by faith alone. Many of the successors of Ambrose through subsequent centuries held to the same doctrines.

                                            Of these was Claude, "the most distinguished advocate of evangelical doctrines whom that age produced," who boldly resisted Roman innovations, "owned Jesus Christ as the sole Head of the church, attached no value to pretended meritorious works, rejected human traditions, acknowledged faith alone as securing salvation, ascribed no power to prayers made for the dead, maintained the symbolical character of the Eucharist, and above all, opposed with great energy the worship of images which he...regarded as absolute idolatry."6 It is to this bishop the Valdenses claim their origin as a church, although spiritually, they could and often did, claim a descent as well from the evangelical groups preceding Claude, those groups led by the evangelical leaders after the time of Ambrose, and perhaps before Ambrose, back to the earliest Italian converts. Such early Christians are believed to have taken refuge from persecution in the Alps valleys where the traditional independence of these northern Italian bishoprics provided a protecting shield to those later to become known as the valley-men, the Valdenses.

                                            The Noble Lesson (Nobla Leyczon) was the basic creed of Valdese beliefs. It dates itself within its text to the year 1100.7 This pre-dates Peter of Lyons, who with his followers, were chased from Lyons about 1186, when they joined the valley dwellers, the Valdese. ( Lyons is situated in southeast France , west of the Italian border and the Cottian Alps .) The Lesson mentions the Vaudois (Valdense) as being already persecuted and as having already a well-known history.8 The idiom of the Nobla Leyczon is that of the valleys, the Romance language, and not that of the idiom of Lyons, a French dialect, which it would have been if Peter (Valdo) and his Poor Men had authored it.9 No mention of Peter and his followers is found in the Lesson.

                                            Standing Firm in Persecution
                                            The courage and perseverance of the Valdense throughout their persecutions is a tale beyond the scope of this short article.10 The severest campaigns against them filled the 13th through the 17th centuries, with short periods of respite now and then. To condense their sufferings into one inadequate paragraph, the nouns deceit, trickery, broken promises, flattery, threats, robbery, pillage, slow tortures, destruction, slaughter, exile might serve for a start. The Roman Catholic persecutors ripped limbs from live victims, dashed the heads of children against the rocks, marched fathers to their deaths with the heads of their sons around their necks; parents watched their children violated and murdered. Other tortures were too vile to describe. Women and children were thrown off high peaks to be dashed to pieces. Valdese taking refuge in caves were suffocated by fires lit at the cave mouths. Soldiers took refuge in Valdese homes, only to rise up and slaughter their hosts upon the given signal.

                                            In J. A. Wylie's words:
                                            These cruelties form a scene that is unparalleled and unique in the history of at least civilized countries. There have been tragedies in which more blood was spilt, and more life sacrificed, but none in which the actors were so completely de-humanized, and the forms of suffering so monstrously disgusting, so unutterably cruel and revolting. The 'Piedmontese Massacres' in this respect stand alone. They are more fiendish than all the atrocities and murders before or since, and Leger may still advance his challenge to 'all travellers, and all who have studied the history of ancient and modern pagans, whether among the Chinese, Tartars and Turks, they ever witnessed or heard tell of such execrable perfidies and barbarities.11

                                            In a document Pastor Henri Leger carried from the Valdese to the Protestants of Europe, they wrote:
                                            Our tears are no longer of water; they are of blood; they do not merely obscure our sight, they choke our very hearts. Our hands tremble and our heads ache by the many blows we have received. We cannot frame an epistle answerable to the intent of our minds, and the strangeness of our desolations. We pray you to excuse us, and to collect amid our groans the meaning of what we fain would utter.12
                                            for the love of the Scriptures

                                            The Valdese in their most ancient works would speak of themselves as being in communion with the Catholic Church,13 while at the same time setting forth only those doctrines of the primitive Catholic church and not at all those of later Roman Catholicism. Nonetheless, though they knew that Christ had ordained only two sacraments, they recognized most of the Roman sacraments, but with more Biblical interpretations on them. For instance, their practice of "repentance" and "confession" was more of a spiritual than an outward duty as in the Roman ritual: "...that of penitence depends, in the first place, on a displeasure and sorrow for sin, and in the second place, on a fear not to fall into it again."14 The power of "binding and loosing" they understood to be the pastor's ability to give good advice for a man's deliverance from the bondage of sin.15 Idolatry, prayers to saints, and purgatory they abhorred. But they distinguished between mortal and venial sins. They refused to call their pastors "Father", preferring to use barba, (plural, barbe) meaning "uncle." They admired but did not require celibacy in their clergy.

                                            All through their long history these valley dwellers, the Valdese, had owned, revered, obeyed their Scriptures. It was their great glory to hold Scripture as their supreme authority. They translated the Bible (possibly from the Hebrew and the Greek) into their vulgar tongue, the Romance language, and laboriously made many copies of this Scripture for their disciples.16 And this while the rest of Europe was content with the Latin of scholars. Before Wycliffe thought of putting the Bible into the English of his day, the Valdese had their vernacular Bible. They memorized great portions of Scripture. One inquisitor in 1260 tells of meeting a pastor who recited the whole of Job, and of many others who memorized the whole of the New Testament. They copied other good writings; this was one of the tasks of the Valdese barbe in order to instruct their disciples. Old bibliographies tell of many ancient manuscripts of spiritual treatises, poems, sermons, confessions, catechisms and the like.17

                                            With such a love of truth in a people, we are not surprised to learn that they founded their own little college for the barbe, who ...were required to commit to memory the Gospels of St. Matthew and St. John , the general epistles, and a part of those of St. Paul .... During two or three successive winters [they were] trained to speak in Latin, in the Romance language, and in Italian. After this they spent some years in retirement, and then were set apart to the holy ministry by the administration of the Lord's Supper and by imposition of hands.18
                                            Pastors were required to take their turn as missionaries. They went out two by two, a young man and an old one. Taking to the roads as peddlers, or as artisans, or as physicians, they carried the Bible in their hearts and minds. Stopping for the night in a remote cottage in the course of their travels, they would testify of the gospel and write out Scripture portions to leave with their hosts. A light and a blessing wherever they went! Very few were married, as their manner of life, travels, poverty, and the attendant dangers often precluded family life. They traversed Italy and had stations organized in many places with thousands of secret adherents in most of the towns. And not only Italy , but Valdese missionaries spread the Gospel over the greater part of Europe.19

                                            High up in the impenetrable remoteness of their highest mountains stands still today the small stone building of the college of the barbe, in a tri-level construction to fit the slope. Modern travelers today draw in breath as they gaze at the smoke-blackened walls, the tiny windows, the fireplace, and the great slabbed table-top, said to be six to seven hundred years old. It is not hard to imagine the student-barbe seated around that huge stone slab. Today on the center of the slab is an open Olivetan Bible, and thereon hangs a tale.

                                            A Legacy of Light
                                            At the time of the Reformation, the Valdese heard with amazement the news of a spiritual renewal within the apostate Roman Catholic Church throughout Europe . In 1526 and 1530 they sent messengers down the mountains to ascertain the truth of such reports. The French and Swiss reformers were just as amazed to hear of believers who had kept the faith through the centuries. It was as if they heard the voice of the primitive and apostolic church bidding them welcome to the truth. William Farel returned the visit when he with others traveled in 1532 to the Valdese Synod at Chanforan up in the mountainous valleys. There for six days they hammered out the truths of the Reformed Faith. The reformers accepted the Noble Lesson as an orthodox statement of faith. But it would seem that the Valdese understanding of predes-tination needed a clarification and a polish, given and received.
                                            At that time the Valdese had been in a period of great discouragement and disarray, and had frequently hidden their faith by worshipping in caves and other secret places. Often members would outwardly conform by attending Roman Catholic mass and confession in order to avoid the deadly, relentless pursuit and tortures of the Roman Church. Four centuries of it! Throw the first stone if thou darest!

                                            The reformers instructed them that they must leave the caves and worship in the open; they must build churches and there worship and cease all conforming. This the Valdese did. As Wylie puts it, thus did the new church repay the old for her faithfulness in past ages, and thus did the older receive the counsels of the younger. "The first" had become "the last," and "the last" first. Nonetheless, the Valdenses had somewhat also to offer. They said in their firm way, "We who have received the Scriptures from the Apostles or their immediate successors, and have always pre-served to ourselves this blessing, do now wish to pass on these Scriptures to others who have been without."20 And they initiated a French translation of the whole Bible.

                                            Robert, a cousin of John Calvin, was chosen to be the translator. It took him three years. Holed away up in the tiny college of the barbe, and working probably on that very stone slab we can see today, he toiled night and day. The common folk would trek down to the towns to procure for him the pure olive oil, the best for the light, and so much of this he used, that he acquired the nickname "Olivetan." To this day history still calls him Robert Olivetan, and his great work the Olivetan Bible. These poor mountain folk, the Valdese, paid for the whole of the project, the translation, the printing and the publishing. This was an immense expense for so poor a people, but they gave what their fathers had preserved with their blood, the Word of God. This gift blessed the French-speaking churches of Europe for three hundred years. Now who was "the first" and who "the last"?

                                            These people had somewhat to glory of in their long history of continuous adherence to the truth, but not before God. They had a pressure of guiltiness and a sensitivity to sin, so strong that "they never cease to bring forward the expression of it again and again in their different works."21 "We have turned aside from the path of truth. The light of righteousness shines not in us." Or, "The sun of understanding is covered with clouds; iniquity holds us fast in its trammels." Or, "The works of man are of little avail for salvation." Or, "I am timorous and very slow to do good." Or, "I pray you affectionately, by the love of the Lord, to abandon the world, and to serve God without fear."

                                            And with that word, let us leave our sketch of the history, the thinking, the spirit and the contribution of a great people to the ever-reforming church of Jesus Christ . Their descendants have not kept their fathers' faith. Today the Waldensian Church , which held out against persecution for centuries, has succumbed to the temptations of liberal theology. Their young men, sent abroad for studies, imbibed what would soon kill the church, namely, the unbelief of theological liberalism.

                                            The Waldensian Church today is a member of the World Council of Churches, and few are the pastors who still maintain the faith in the Scriptures that their forefathers died for. Perhaps the best thing we today can do to repay those brave stalwarts of history is to pray for the revival of their faith amongst their descendants. "

                                             

                                            - Parnell McCarter

                                          • Dan Fraas
                                            ... living faith in a living confession. The thing is that we Lutherans, are not Protestants, as I told you before now. This was a name given to some Earls
                                            Message 21 of 24 , Jul 6, 2004
                                            • 0 Attachment
                                              --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, A Mighty Fortress
                                              <edftepregon@y...> wrote:
                                              > Dear Edgar:
                                              >
                                              > It seems to me that one cannot see the other convictions out of a
                                              living faith in a living confession. The thing is that we Lutherans,
                                              are not Protestants, as I told you before now. This was a name given
                                              to some Earls that protested against the Pope's damnation on Luther.
                                              I recognize that Covenanters and many Reformed theologians did it
                                              very well, and we learn from them, accepting return to Luther's
                                              doctrine on predestination (I will send you and some other friends
                                              here a copy of our last Doctrinal Sum, "Augustinus"). I know that
                                              many Reformed divines have been more loyal to Luther than same
                                              Lutherans from the 1600's until know. But, albeit confessing the 5
                                              points, I see that there are many things that sunder us from
                                              Reformed. Not in Justification by Faith and other main doctrines, in
                                              which we all agree. But we will never surrender the Scriptural
                                              doctrine on the Supper, and we will never confound the hidden church
                                              >with the outward church

                                              Dear brother, it seems to me that we're the ones distinguishing
                                              between the hidden church and the outward church, while you are
                                              confounding them.

                                              >--while we see that you are doing it, since
                                              > you say that this or that manner of church rule is of jure divino.

                                              It seems to me that Luther and the Lutherans have an insufficiently-
                                              developed understanding of the Kingly office of Christ. That's where
                                              I think these differences are coming from. You guys wonderfully
                                              emphasize Christ in his High Priestly office, but don't say much
                                              about his Kingly office.

                                              >There are another issues, as the concept of a inner assurance; I
                                              agree in some way with this, whilst the thing proves to be
                                              Scriptural; but our confidence is always grounded in an aliena
                                              iustitia and in the finished work of a crucified Christ, died in the
                                              >room & in stead of sinners.

                                              Right. I agree that Christ's death and resurrection is the only
                                              ground and hope of our assurance of salvation. Sometimes new
                                              believers are afraid to come to Christ because they are not sure they
                                              will find grace. To them we should never cease preaching the gospel,
                                              that Jesus is the Savior of all who trust in him. There are times
                                              when Cristians begin to doubt whether Christ died for them, and
                                              whether they truly believe. Often these are times of chastisement
                                              when the Spirit is withdrawing assurance temporarily in order to
                                              bring his sheep back to repentance. When we lose this assurance of
                                              salvation, we have only one thing to cling to, Christ crucified and
                                              risen. That is all the assurance anyone needs of pardon.

                                              Blessings in Christ,

                                              Riley

                                              >
                                              > I honestly think, and in this some comments of
                                              Paul "Anglicananswer" (I'm still waiting your letter, dear friend
                                              PM) and other suggestions of "bishopdoom" look as very appropriate.
                                              Gnesio Lutherans reclaim be the Catholick Church of the West, not
                                              this perhaps too much comprehensive but may be exceedingly narrower
                                              thought & speech, "Protestants". I think that, despite my sincere
                                              love to all Reformed, we are very far one to the other. May be this
                                              not happens betwist Anglicans & Lutherans, proved that they were
                                              disposed to talk in the basis of their Auld Homelies on the Supper of
                                              the Lorde. In this way I hope that Br. Paul could be open to a
                                              dialogue with me (in private post). I am sure that you, well-esteemed
                                              Edgar, be a great fellow & honest Christian, and I bless our Saviour
                                              for this. But, dear friend, you would never really understand our
                                              standing, out of a Lutheran life. Of course, is not "your guilt"; and
                                              I deeply respect the wise ways the Lord has for each one of us. Then,
                                              so,
                                              > come forward and be a bold Covenanter! We all very well know that
                                              the Great Tribulation is at hand, and soon we all will be with our
                                              dear Lord in heavens.
                                              >
                                              > Saying this, and since I will unsuscribe from this site, I pray our
                                              God bless you all, and want express my sincere gratitude to you, and
                                              friends Raging Calvinist, Bishopsdoom and Paul.
                                              >
                                              > Edgar, when I finish my Spanish Version on Rutherford's "Against
                                              Universal Atonement" I gladly will send you and Pastor P. a copy.
                                              >
                                              > Sincerely yours,
                                              >
                                              > In Christ,
                                              > Rev Enrique Ivaldi, Lutheran Pastor.
                                              >
                                              > edftepregon@y...
                                              >
                                              > "Edgar A. Ibarra Jr." <puritanpresbyterian@y...> wrote:
                                              > Pastor Enrique,
                                              >
                                              > Why do you continue to insist that God used Luther 1st to take
                                              > down the Pope and try to undercut the other men/women that God saw
                                              > fit to use for the extension of His Kingdom? Wycliff and Huss were
                                              > bright stars that shone before the dawn broke upon the kingdom of
                                              > antichrist. When tried, the papists tried to pin Luther as a
                                              > follower of Huss. Luther did great and maravelous works, he was a
                                              > great defender of the faith, I don't take that from him. However,
                                              so
                                              > were Calvin, Knox, and Melville for example. The Calvinists were
                                              > consistent and applied God's Word to every sphere of human
                                              > influence. Therefore, and without undercutting what Luther did,
                                              the
                                              > Calvinist Reformation was more expansive and all-encompassing. The
                                              > Covenanters took it all the way as they were allowed, given their
                                              > circumstances and hence more faithful to God's Word.
                                              >
                                              > Please keep the instruments that God used in perspective. Luther
                                              > did not, due to Providence, go further than he did.
                                              >
                                              > Yours in Christ,
                                              >
                                              > Edgar
                                              >
                                              >
                                              >
                                              >
                                              > ---------------------------------
                                              > ALL-NEW Yahoo! Messenger - sooooo many all-new ways to express
                                              yourself
                                            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.