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

Re: [Covenanted Reformation] The Civil Magistrate (was re: Question Regarding Political Participation)

Expand Messages
  • covie1646
    ... Witherspoon ... Revolution, as well as ... and the US ... I strongly agree that the Constitution was and is unsound. How was the Revolution unsound? ...
    Message 1 of 30 , Aug 2, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, jparnellm@u...
      wrote:
      > The OPC is descended from the Presbyterian USA church which
      Witherspoon
      > moderated. It was a church which justified the American
      Revolution, as well as
      > the US Constitution, as sound. But both the American Revolution
      and the US
      > Constitution were unsound.

      I strongly agree that the Constitution was and is unsound. How was
      the Revolution unsound?

      > Yes, and the constitution gave to Parliament the power to restrain
      and judge the
      > monarch. It did not give it to the individual citizen.

      The British Constitution I take?

      Whit
      >
      > - Parnell McCarter
    • Edgar A. Ibarra Jr.
      Check this site out: http://www.covenanter.org.uk/ Read the page on Who were the Covenanters . A brief summary of the tyranny and murderous plot that the
      Message 2 of 30 , Aug 2, 2004
      • 0 Attachment
        Check this site out: http://www.covenanter.org.uk/

        Read the page on "Who were the Covenanters". A brief summary of the
        tyranny and murderous plot that the Covenanters suffered from King
        Charles II. And one wonders why Cameron would denounce Charles as a
        legit ruler...Charles, ha! a wicked and blasphemous impious wretch!!!


        -Edgar
      • gmw
        Fantastic website! Thanks Edgar. I m going to poke around there a little. gmw. ... From: Edgar A. Ibarra Jr. To: covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com
        Message 3 of 30 , Aug 2, 2004
        • 0 Attachment
          Fantastic website!  Thanks Edgar.  I'm going to poke around there a little.
           
          gmw.
          ----- Original Message -----
          Sent: Monday, August 02, 2004 9:14 PM
          Subject: Re: [Covenanted Reformation] Covenanter position on The Civil Magistrate

          Check this site out:  http://www.covenanter.org.uk/

          Read the page on "Who were the Covenanters".  A brief summary of the
          tyranny and murderous plot that the Covenanters suffered from King
          Charles II.  And one wonders why Cameron would denounce Charles as a
          legit ruler...Charles, ha! a wicked and blasphemous impious wretch!!!

           
          -Edgar


        • J. Parnell McCarter
          ... Revolution unsound? 1. Carried out using illegal and immoral means. 2. Involved an alliance with wicked heretics (like Jefferson and Franklin) and
          Message 4 of 30 , Aug 2, 2004
          • 0 Attachment

            >I strongly agree that the Constitution was and is unsound.  How was the Revolution unsound?

             

            1. Carried out using illegal and immoral means.

             

            2. Involved an alliance with wicked heretics (like Jefferson and Franklin) and Romanists (like the French govt, who subsidized the Revolutionaries, and the Carroll family) .  The real winners from the conflict were the secular heretics and the Romanists.

             


            >> Yes, and the constitution gave to
            Parliament the power to restrain and judge the monarch.  It did not give it to the individual citizen.

            >The British Constitution I take?

             

            Yes.

             

             

            The modern, post-Reformation era has been based on 2 Enlightenment pillars:

             

            1. Revolution

             

            2. Secularism

             

            Both are un-Biblical.  We should distinguish Reformation from Revolution.

             

            - Parnell McCarter

          • J. Parnell McCarter
            ... legit ruler...Charles, ha! a wicked and blasphemous impious wretch!!! These 2 propositions are distinct: 1. Charles II is a wicked king. 2. Charles II
            Message 5 of 30 , Aug 2, 2004
            • 0 Attachment

              > And one wonders why Cameron would denounce Charles as a
              legit ruler...Charles, ha! a wicked and blasphemous impious wretch!!!

               

              These 2 propositions are distinct:

               

              1. "Charles II is a wicked king."

               

              2. "Charles II is not a king."

               

              If Richard Cameron had simply stated the first, I would agree.  But Cameron had no right to state the second, for he was not the Parliament.

               

              Contrast Cameron's statements with statements of the following:

               

              1. John the Baptist on King Herod.

               

              2.  John Knox on Queen Mary Stuart.

               

              3.  Andrew Melville on King James.

               

              4. Elijah on King Ahab.

               

               

               

              - Parnell McCarter

              www.puritans.net

               

               

               

            • Edgar A. Ibarra Jr.
              Dear brother Parnell, ... But Cameron ... THE SOLEMN LEAGUE AND COVENANT, for reformation and defence of religion, the honour and happiness of the King, and
              Message 6 of 30 , Aug 6, 2004
              • 0 Attachment
                Dear brother Parnell,

                You wrote:
                > These 2 propositions are distinct:
                >
                >
                > 1. "Charles II is a wicked king."
                >
                >
                > 2. "Charles II is not a king."
                >
                >
                > If Richard Cameron had simply stated the first, I would agree.
                But Cameron
                > had no right to state the second, for he was not the Parliament.


                THE SOLEMN LEAGUE AND COVENANT, for reformation and defence of
                religion, the honour and happiness of the King, and the peace and
                safety of the three kingdoms of Scotland, England, and Ireland;

                (And again renewed in Scotland, with an acknowledgement of sins and
                engagements to duties, by all ranks, anno 1648, and by Parliament,
                1649; and taken and subscribed by ***King Charles II.***, at Spey,
                June 23, 1650; and at Scoon, January 1, 1651.) [emphasis mine]

                Notice that King Charles II swore to the Solemn League & Covenant.

                This is what he swore, I shall quote certain sections of the
                Covenant:

                I. That we shall sincerely, really, and constantly, through the
                grace of GOD, endeavor, in our several places and callings, the
                preservation of the reformed religion in the Church of Scotland, in
                doctrine, worship, discipline, and government, against our common
                enemies; the reformation of religion in the kingdoms of England and
                Ireland, in doctrine, worship, discipline, and government, according
                to the Word of GOD, and the example of the best reformed Churches;
                and shall endeavour to bring the Churches of GOD in the three
                kingdoms to the nearest conjunction and uniformity in religion,
                Confession of Faith, Form of Church Government, Directory for
                Worship and Catechising; that we, and our posterity after us, may,
                as brethren, live in faith and love, and the Lord may delight to
                dwell in the midst of us.

                Kin Charles II was, by way of oath and in upholding his kingly
                duties to preserve and promote the true religion and ensure her
                safety. Did he? Soon after he had the hangman burn the covenant and
                usurped the true religion (Presbyterianism) and replaced it with
                Prelacy, that spawn of Rome! What else, he ensured that all who did
                not get ordained by a bishop, whether that person was a Prelate or
                not, were branded as traitors. Were his laws that he had passed
                after his breach of covenant, "...lawful commands..." therefore
                ensure that he was a "just and legal authority"? A pre-condition
                for his assuming the throne was for him to uphold the Covenant and
                the breach therefrom was in effect his own de-thronement.

                Richard Cameron & Donald Cargill were the brave ones to call him
                on it and to testify to this fact. They followed the example of the
                Old Testament prophets that did the same. Also they were keeping in
                line with WCF 23.4, King Charles II was no longer a King described
                in WCF 23.4.

                II. That we shall, in like manner, without respect of persons,
                endeavour the extirpation of Popery, Prelacy (that is, Church
                government by archbishops, bishops, their chancellors and
                commissioners, deans, deans and chapters, archdeacons, and all other
                ecclesiastical officers depending on that hierarchy), superstition,
                heresy, schism, profaneness, and whatsoever shall be found contrary
                to sound doctrine and the power of Godliness; lest we partake in
                other men's sins, and thereby be in danger to receive of their
                plagues; and that the Lord may be one, and his name one, in the
                three kingdoms.

                Again, what did King Charles do? Did he extirpate Prelacy?? No
                way, he endeavored to extirpate Presbyterianism, whether, by
                confiscation, bribery, or murder of the non-conforming ministers.

                IV. We shall also, with all faithfulness, endeavour the discovery of
                all such as have been or shall be incendiaries, malignants, or evil
                instruments, be hindering the reformation of religion, dividing the
                king from his people, or one of the kingdoms from another, or making
                any faction or parties among the people, contrary to this League and
                Covenant; that they may be brought to public trial, and receive
                condign punishment, as the degree of their offences shall require or
                deserve, or the supreme judicatories of both kingdoms respectively,
                or others having power from them for that effect, shall judge
                convenient.

                Richard Cameron was being faithful to the Covenant here, when he
                denounced Charles II. He rightly identified King Charles II as a
                malignant incendiary bent on the use of evil instruments to destroy
                the one true religion and establish his wicked Prelacy over everyone
                else. He (King Charles II), NOT the Covenanters divided the king
                from his people by his murderous and hellish laws and acts!

                I'll stop here and pick it up later. I just realized I have to go...

                but i'll be back (to quote the now famous governator of CA).

                Yours in Christ,

                Edgar

                www.albanycrpc.org

                www.ecn.ab.ca/prce.org

                --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, "J. Parnell
                McCarter" <jparnellm@u...> wrote:


                > - Parnell McCarter
                >
                > www.puritans.net
              • J. Parnell McCarter
                [I m allowing this post with the same caution about those who are here to argue against Covenanter distinctives: It shall be allowed for a time, that the
                Message 7 of 30 , Aug 9, 2004
                • 0 Attachment

                  Dear brother Parnell,

                  Parnell wrote:
                  >> These 2 propositions are distinct:
                  >
                  >  
                  > 1. "Charles II is a wicked king."
                  >
                  >  
                  > 2. "Charles II is not a king."
                  >
                  >  
                  > If Richard Cameron had simply stated the first, I would agree. 
                  >>But Cameron
                  > had no right to state the second, for he was not the Parliament.

                  Edgar wrote:
                  "…They followed the example of the Old Testament prophets that did the same.  Also they were keeping in
                  line with WCF 23.4, King Charles II was no longer a King described in WCF 23.4…."

                   

                   

                   

                  Edgar, please prove it.  Please show me the quotes in scripture and in uninspired history where:

                   

                  1. John the Baptist proclaimed Herod no longer to be the king, because he was a wicked king.

                   

                  2. Elijah proclaimed Ahab no longer to be the king, because he was a wicked king.

                   

                  3.  Any prophet proclaimed Solomon no longer to be the king, because he was an unfaithful  king.

                   

                  4.  David proclaimed Saul no longer to be the king, because he was an unfaithful  king.

                   

                  5. Elijah proclaimed Ahab no longer to be the king, because he was a wicked king.

                   

                  6.  John Knox proclaimed Mary Stuart no longer to be the queen, because she was a wicked queen.

                   

                  7. Andrew Melville proclaimed King James no longer to be the king, because he was an unfaithful  king.

                   

                  - Parnell

                   

                   

                • Edgar A. Ibarra Jr.
                  Here is the statment put out by the faithful Presbyterians who would not submit to compromised brethren nor to the tyrannous persecution direct by King Charles
                  Message 8 of 30 , Aug 12, 2004
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Here is the statment put out by the faithful Presbyterians who would
                    not submit to compromised brethren nor to the tyrannous persecution
                    direct by King Charles II, whose tyranny also usurped Parliment.

                    The
                    Declaration & Testimony
                    of the
                    True Presbyterian, Anti-prelatic, Anti-erastian, persecuted party in
                    Scotland.
                    Published at
                    Sanquhar, June 22, 1680.

                    It is not amongst the smallest of the Lord's mercies to this poor
                    land, that there have been always some who have given their
                    testimony against every cause of defection that many are guilty of;
                    which is a token for good, that He doth not, as yet, intend to cast
                    us off altogether, but that He will leave a remnant in whom He will
                    be glorious, if they, through His grace, keep themselves clean
                    still, and walk in His way and method as it has been walked in, and
                    owned by Him in our predecessors of truly worthy memory; in their
                    carrying on of our noble work of reformation, in the several steps
                    thereof, from Popery, Prelacy, and likewise Erastian supremacy - so
                    much usurped by him who, it is true, so far as we know, is descended
                    from the race of our kings; yet he hath so far debased from what he
                    ought to have been, by his perjury and usurpation in Church matters,
                    and tyranny in matters civil, as is known by the whole land, that we
                    have just reason to account it one of the Lord's great controversies
                    against us, that we have not disowned him, and the men of his
                    practices, whether inferior magistrates or any other, as enemies to
                    our Lord and His Crown, and the true Protestant and Presbyterian
                    interest in this land - our Lord's espoused bride and Church.
                    Therefore, although we be for government and governors, such as the
                    Word of God and our covenant allows; ***yet we, for ourselves, and
                    all that will adhere to us as the representative of the true
                    Presbyterian Kirk and covenanted nation of Scotland, considering the
                    great hazard of lying under such a sin any longer, do by these
                    presents, disown Charles Stuart, that has been reigning, or rather
                    tyrannising, as we may say, on the throne of Britain these years
                    bygone, as having any right, title to, or interest in, the said
                    Crown of Scotland for government, as forfeited, several years since,
                    by his perjury and breach of covenant both to God and His Kirk, and
                    usurpation of His Crown and royal prerogatives therein, and many
                    other breaches in matters ecclesiastic, and by tyranny and breach of
                    the very leges regnandi in matters civil.*** For which reason we
                    declare, that several years since he should have been denuded of
                    being kind, ruler, or magistrate, or of having any power to act or
                    to be obeyed as such. As also we, being under the standard of our
                    Lord Jesus Christ, Captain of Salvation, do declare a war with such
                    a tyrant and usurper, and all the men of his practices, as enemies
                    to our Lord Jesus Christ, and His cause and covenants; and against
                    all such as have strengthened him, sided with, or anywise
                    acknowledged him in his tyranny, civil or ecclesiastic; yea, against
                    all such as shall strengthen, side with, or anywise acknowledge any
                    other in like usurpation and tyranny - far more against such as
                    would betray or deliver up our free reformed mother Kirk unto the
                    bondage of Antichrist the Pope of Rome. And, by this, we homologate
                    that testimony given at Rutherglen, the 29th of May, 1679, and all
                    the faithful testimonies of those who have gone before, as also of
                    those who have suffered of late: and we do disclaim that Declaration
                    published at Hamilton, June, 1679, chiefly because it takes in the
                    king's interest, which we are several years since loosed from,
                    because of the aforesaid reasons, and other which may, after this,
                    if the Lord will, be published. As also we disown and by this resent
                    the reception of the Duke of York, that professed Papist, as
                    repugnant to our principles and vows to the Most High God, and as
                    that which is the great, though not alone, just reproach of our Kirk
                    and nation. We also, by this, protest against his succeeding to the
                    Crown, and whatever has been done, or any are essaying to do in this
                    land, given to the Lord, in prejudice to our work of reformation.
                    And to conclude, we hope, after this, none will blame us for, or
                    offend at, our rewarding those that are against us as they have done
                    to us, as the Lord gives opportunity. This is not to exclude any
                    that have declined, if they be willing to give satisfaction
                    according to the degree of their offence.

                    Emphasis mine.

                    Scripture proofs forthcoming.

                    Humbly,

                    Edgar
                  Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.