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

Re: [Covenanted Reformation] Amazed

Expand Messages
  • gmw
    I was wondering when you d get back to this, one of your favorite tactics since you first showed up in this group. ... We do not hold that tradition is
    Message 1 of 4 , Jul 26 6:15 PM
    • 0 Attachment
       
      I was wondering when you'd get back to this, one of your favorite tactics since you first showed up in this group.
       
      ----- Original Message -----
       
      > I might as well be debating Romanists as I am Historicists, since both
      > make frequent appeals to tradition as if that
      > must never be questioned.
      We do not hold that tradition is infallible, or beyond question, nor do we claim all opinions of our forefathers as being correct.  It is only when we find those testimonies to be agreeable to the Word of God that we claim them as our own testimonies.  You have yet to demonstrate with overwhelming and undeniable Scriptural argument that we are required to dissent from this article of our Confession, or from the united testimony of the Reformers, which we accept because we find them to be agreeable to the Word of God.
       
      "Meanwhile, in exhibiting our testimony, we make no pretensions to infallibility or perfection. Our design, we hope, is good, but we are very sensible that human weakness and infirmity must always be discernible in our best performances. We do not assert, either with respect to our own, or the other testimonies which we approve, that there are no incautious expressions in these compositions.... But if none of the precious truths, stated and vindicated in these testimonies, be given up; if none of the errors or immoralities which they condemn be countenanced; or, in other words, if the whole substance be conscientiously retained; we mean not to differ with those who may plead that some particular modes of expression might be altered for the better.

      "Let it also be carefully observed here.... It is only after diligently perusing, pondering, and comparing these testimonies with the Word of God, and after finding them to be founded upon, and agreeable unto it, that we mean to rank them among the subordinate standards of our church.... And it is only to such of them as truly deserve the characteristic epithets of SCRIPTURAL AND FAITHFUL, that we require the assent of our church members. If any are disposed to question the propriety of applying these designations, either to our own, or to the rest which we approve, we are always ready, as opportunity offers, to reason the matter with them. If we can agree, it is well; 'Let us strive together for the faith of the Gospel, and continue steadfastly in the Apostle’s doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers.' If we cannot agree, we must part in peace. For we never entertained the remotest thought that these matters were to be adjusted by any other weapons than those of Scripture and reason, under the influence and direction of the Holy Spirit."  -- An Explanation and Defense of the Terms of Communion.

      If you think that's Romanist, go ahead and PART IN PEACE.

      gmw.
       

      ---
      Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free cuz Jerry's cool like that.
      Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
      Version: 6.0.726 / Virus Database: 481 - Release Date: 7/22/2004
    • Anglicananswer@aol.com
      Colin, You write, For the past week or so, I have been amazed at the emotional bondage to some church traditions that some have in this forum. It is only one
      Message 2 of 4 , Jul 26 6:16 PM
      • 0 Attachment
        Colin,   
             You write,
        "For the past week or so, I have been amazed at the emotional bondage to
        some church traditions that some have in this forum."

        It is only one set of traditions it seems. And I might add....that you are in "bondage" to your tradition....partial preterism.

        You write,
        "I might as well be debating Romanists as I am Historicists, since both make frequent appeals to tradition as if that must never be questioned."

        You have your tradition and proponents (Gentry, Chilton, etc).
        The difference is your tradition and advocates are johnny come lately.

        You write,
        "I have been further amazed at the extremism which expicitly echoes the
        extremism of Marc Carpenter and other hyper-calvinists.
        It seems that if a Christian dares to disagree even with *one word* of the
        original WCF, then he is deemed a "damnable heretic" and an "enemy of
        Christ".

        I would actually agree that the above is not true. It is not worth the effort to respond to Carpenter or hyper calvinists. I am not bound to the Westminster Confession.
        At my ordination Sunday I, in writing, subscribed and bound myself to all the 39 Articles of Religion and the TR/KJV of the Bible and promised to reverently obey my Bishop.

        You write,
        "What I have been trying to show is that the Reformers were not always
        right about everything and that Partial Preterist is just as much a
        *protestant* and *reformed* method of interpreting Bible Prophecy as
        Historicism is. It also has a very credible biblical case for it too, and
        it thus not a "Jesuit plot" as some have ignorantly imagined."

        Colin-I agree the Reformers were not always right about everything. You make a good point. I pointed out here that the Continental Reformed and Turretin allowed for Episcopacy(if it was Protestant), celebration of Christmas, etc.
        So no one on this list should say the Reformers were always right.
        But....the historicist understanding of the restrainer and the Man of Sin is not just Protestant...it is apostolic and found so clear in the church fathers. It is not a view that is isolated to one segment of the Protestant Reformation (Covenantors). It was believed before the Covenantors existed. In fact...the Covenantors owe much of their understanding of this to Luther, etc.

        You write,
        "Thus, for any *reformed* Christian to separate over this particular
        issue, is schismatic and unbiblical. Roman Catholicism is still
        antichristian and idolatrous and blasphemous *regardless* of one's view of
        prophecy. So preterism does not at all weaken the protestant witness
        against Rome, as Dr. Boettner has clearly demonstrated in his book."

        Colin,
             I am not sure what you mean by seperate. Remember...Covenantors seperate from anyone and everyone (in an ecclesastical sense) if they do not follow the Orginal Westminster and Solemn League, etc. As for the Hyper Calvinists...I dont think the Covenantors are that and it would be alarming if they allowed Carpenterism to go un opposed.
        I appreciate your remarks against Rome.
        I just believe you are sadly mistaken in your understanding of this issue.
        But if you believe in the ancient Catholic Creeds and trust in Christ alone for your salvation..then I consider you(and anyone else on this list) a fellow Christian and would welcome you to the Lord's Table in our church.

        Paul





      • RevRayJoseph
        When you brethren start judging one another as born again or not born again - you turn into a bunch of Pharisees. Not only is such practice an ad hominem
        Message 3 of 4 , Jul 31 11:26 AM
        • 0 Attachment
          When you brethren start judging one another as born again or
          not born again - you turn into a bunch of Pharisees.
          Not only is such practice an ad hominem attack - it is a sinful practice.
           
          rpj
          ----- Original Message -----
          Sent: Monday, July 26, 2004 9:16 PM
          Subject: Re: [Covenanted Reformation] Amazed

          Colin,   
               You write,
          "For the past week or so, I have been amazed at the emotional bondage to
          some church traditions that some have in this forum."

          It is only one set of traditions it seems. And I might add....that you are in "bondage" to your tradition....partial preterism.

          You write,
          "I might as well be debating Romanists as I am Historicists, since both make frequent appeals to tradition as if that must never be questioned."

          You have your tradition and proponents (Gentry, Chilton, etc).
          The difference is your tradition and advocates are johnny come lately.

          You write,
          "I have been further amazed at the extremism which expicitly echoes the
          extremism of Marc Carpenter and other hyper-calvinists.
          It seems that if a Christian dares to disagree even with *one word* of the
          original WCF, then he is deemed a "damnable heretic" and an "enemy of
          Christ".

          I would actually agree that the above is not true. It is not worth the effort to respond to Carpenter or hyper calvinists. I am not bound to the Westminster Confession.
          At my ordination Sunday I, in writing, subscribed and bound myself to all the 39 Articles of Religion and the TR/KJV of the Bible and promised to reverently obey my Bishop.

          You write,
          "What I have been trying to show is that the Reformers were not always
          right about everything and that Partial Preterist is just as much a
          *protestant* and *reformed* method of interpreting Bible Prophecy as
          Historicism is. It also has a very credible biblical case for it too, and
          it thus not a "Jesuit plot" as some have ignorantly imagined."

          Colin-I agree the Reformers were not always right about everything. You make a good point. I pointed out here that the Continental Reformed and Turretin allowed for Episcopacy(if it was Protestant), celebration of Christmas, etc.
          So no one on this list should say the Reformers were always right.
          But....the historicist understanding of the restrainer and the Man of Sin is not just Protestant...it is apostolic and found so clear in the church fathers. It is not a view that is isolated to one segment of the Protestant Reformation (Covenantors). It was believed before the Covenantors existed. In fact...the Covenantors owe much of their understanding of this to Luther, etc.

          You write,
          "Thus, for any *reformed* Christian to separate over this particular
          issue, is schismatic and unbiblical. Roman Catholicism is still
          antichristian and idolatrous and blasphemous *regardless* of one's view of
          prophecy. So preterism does not at all weaken the protestant witness
          against Rome, as Dr. Boettner has clearly demonstrated in his book."

          Colin,
               I am not sure what you mean by seperate. Remember...Covenantors seperate from anyone and everyone (in an ecclesastical sense) if they do not follow the Orginal Westminster and Solemn League, etc. As for the Hyper Calvinists...I dont think the Covenantors are that and it would be alarming if they allowed Carpenterism to go un opposed.
          I appreciate your remarks against Rome.
          I just believe you are sadly mistaken in your understanding of this issue.
          But if you believe in the ancient Catholic Creeds and trust in Christ alone for your salvation..then I consider you(and anyone else on this list) a fellow Christian and would welcome you to the Lord's Table in our church.

          Paul






        • Tony
          I agree that no one can know one s heart particularly and whether they are born again(regenerate)or not. Now whether one is to adjudge their brother as an
          Message 4 of 4 , Jul 31 12:21 PM
          • 0 Attachment
            I agree that no one can know one's heart particularly and whether
            they are born again(regenerate)or not. Now whether one is to adjudge
            their brother as an erring brother that is backsliding and going
            contrary to the truth. I believe that is something we are obligated
            to do as brethren in the Lord. Though I just joined back on the list
            I would hope that we would not say we believe any such person is or
            is not regenerate unless they of course they don't believe upon
            Christ alone for salvation.(then of course we would say they may not
            yet be regenerate but very well be one of God's chosen though we
            don't know we are to desire the best for all men including their
            salvation).

            Also a sinful practice misrepresenting those whom we are seeking to
            be unified with broad brushed statements.(see my previous message) I
            myself have been guilty of such and so know that due to human frailty
            (remnants of sin remaining within) and also a mixed zeal for Christ
            we often can do such though we are to try not to, especially those
            that have had more years in the faith as yourself.

            I would desire a public apology to those in this group concerning
            such a misrepresentation as I believe it to be the christian thing
            to do and also that which would help us endeavor toward further
            discussion as to faith and practice. Because I know most who read
            this list would not agree with your broad statement as being
            applicable to those called covenanters,i.e. steelites.

            In Christ, our Prophet, Priest and King,

            Tony





            --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, "RevRayJoseph"
            <RevRayJoseph@r...> wrote:
            > When you brethren start judging one another as born again or
            > not born again - you turn into a bunch of Pharisees.
            > Not only is such practice an ad hominem attack - it is a sinful
            practice.
            >
            > rpj
            > ----- Original Message -----
            > From: Anglicananswer@a...
            > To: covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com
            > Sent: Monday, July 26, 2004 9:16 PM
            > Subject: Re: [Covenanted Reformation] Amazed
            >
            >
            > Colin,
            > You write,
            > "For the past week or so, I have been amazed at the emotional
            bondage to
            > some church traditions that some have in this forum."
            >
            > It is only one set of traditions it seems. And I might
            add....that you are in "bondage" to your tradition....partial
            preterism.
            >
            > You write,
            > "I might as well be debating Romanists as I am Historicists,
            since both make frequent appeals to tradition as if that must never
            be questioned."
            >
            > You have your tradition and proponents (Gentry, Chilton, etc).
            > The difference is your tradition and advocates are johnny come
            lately.
            >
            > You write,
            > "I have been further amazed at the extremism which expicitly
            echoes the
            > extremism of Marc Carpenter and other hyper-calvinists.
            > It seems that if a Christian dares to disagree even with *one
            word* of the
            > original WCF, then he is deemed a "damnable heretic" and
            an "enemy of
            > Christ".
            >
            > I would actually agree that the above is not true. It is not
            worth the effort to respond to Carpenter or hyper calvinists. I am
            not bound to the Westminster Confession.
            > At my ordination Sunday I, in writing, subscribed and bound
            myself to all the 39 Articles of Religion and the TR/KJV of the
            Bible and promised to reverently obey my Bishop.
            >
            > You write,
            > "What I have been trying to show is that the Reformers were not
            always
            > right about everything and that Partial Preterist is just as
            much a
            > *protestant* and *reformed* method of interpreting Bible
            Prophecy as
            > Historicism is. It also has a very credible biblical case for it
            too, and
            > it thus not a "Jesuit plot" as some have ignorantly imagined."
            >
            > Colin-I agree the Reformers were not always right about
            everything. You make a good point. I pointed out here that the
            Continental Reformed and Turretin allowed for Episcopacy(if it was
            Protestant), celebration of Christmas, etc.
            > So no one on this list should say the Reformers were always
            right.
            > But....the historicist understanding of the restrainer and the
            Man of Sin is not just Protestant...it is apostolic and found so
            clear in the church fathers. It is not a view that is isolated to
            one segment of the Protestant Reformation (Covenantors). It was
            believed before the Covenantors existed. In fact...the Covenantors
            owe much of their understanding of this to Luther, etc.
            >
            > You write,
            > "Thus, for any *reformed* Christian to separate over this
            particular
            > issue, is schismatic and unbiblical. Roman Catholicism is still
            > antichristian and idolatrous and blasphemous *regardless* of
            one's view of
            > prophecy. So preterism does not at all weaken the protestant
            witness
            > against Rome, as Dr. Boettner has clearly demonstrated in his
            book."
            >
            > Colin,
            > I am not sure what you mean by seperate.
            Remember...Covenantors seperate from anyone and everyone (in an
            ecclesastical sense) if they do not follow the Orginal Westminster
            and Solemn League, etc. As for the Hyper Calvinists...I dont think
            the Covenantors are that and it would be alarming if they allowed
            Carpenterism to go un opposed.
            > I appreciate your remarks against Rome.
            > I just believe you are sadly mistaken in your understanding of
            this issue.
            > But if you believe in the ancient Catholic Creeds and trust in
            Christ alone for your salvation..then I consider you(and anyone else
            on this list) a fellow Christian and would welcome you to the Lord's
            Table in our church.
            >
            > Paul
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            > Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
            > ADVERTISEMENT
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            > -------------------------------------------------------------------
            -----------
            > Yahoo! Groups Links
            >
            > a.. To visit your group on the web, go to:
            > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/covenantedreformationclub/
            >
            > b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
            > covenantedreformationclub-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
            >
            > c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms
            of Service.
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.