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

Re: Continuing

Expand Messages
  • covie1646
    Continuing says that although a denomination is founded or constituted in modern times (1970 s in the PCA s case), the church claims its lineage back to a
    Message 1 of 13 , Dec 3, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      "Continuing" says that although a denomination is founded or
      constituted in modern times (1970's in the PCA's case), the church
      claims its lineage back to a "root" church in history and also claims
      that it is just as faithful to Christ as the root. In the context of
      the various denominations that profess to be Presbyterian, the
      denominations would claim that their church "continues" back to the
      Church of Scotland (the Covenanted church, NOT the Resolutioner
      church) and is just as faithful to Christ as the (covenanted) Church
      of Scotland. "Continuing" does not say that the particular
      denomination existed all the way back to the root regarding
      constitution. The EPC, OPC, RPCNA, RPNA, PCUSA, CRC, PRC, FPC, and
      other professedly Presbyterian denominations, although constituted in
      the 1800's or later, would claim to be "continuing" to show they are
      just as faithful now as the Church of Scotland in the 1600's and hold
      to the same distinctives and doctrine. The PCA says: "The concept of
      the "continuing church" dates back to the Scottish Presbyterian
      churches of the 17th century and reflects the effort to maintain a
      faithful, Bible-believing Church, true to the Lordship of Christ."

      The question is: which of the Presbyterian denominations is indeed a
      faithful church relative to the (covenanted) Church of Scotland in
      the 1600's? Their claims are mere claims unless the denominations
      doctrine, life, and theology in fact demonstrates the same degree of
      faithfulness as the Kirk in the 1600's. One would only have to do a
      comparison of each Presbyterian denomination with the Kirk. In my
      study of the Covenanted Kirk and the 2nd Reformation and the claims
      of the present-day aforementioned Presbyterian denominations, the
      only Presbyterian church that I have concluded to be
      truly "continuing" is the RPNA, which is undoubtedly just as faithful
      to Christ as the Covenanted Kirk. Sadly, the other denominations
      (PCA, OPC, RPCNA, PRC, FPC, CRC, &c.) have not remained faithful to
      Christ as the Covenanted Kirk.

      Whit

      --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, Jasper
      <jasperh98@y...> wrote:
      > Hello All,
      >
      > Would someone please provide an overview of what it means for a
      church or denomination to be "continuing"? With not having a
      presbyterian background, I am unfamiliar with the significance of
      the "continuing" designation and what it means or does not mean.
      Thanks.
      >
      > Jasper
      >
      > __________________________________________________
      > Do You Yahoo!?
      > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
      > http://mail.yahoo.com
    • Kevin
      I m a Lutheran pastor seeking information on guidelines for ruling elders. In the Lutheran church we don t have elders as such, but a Church Council
      Message 2 of 13 , Dec 3, 2004
      • 0 Attachment
        I'm a Lutheran pastor seeking information on guidelines for ruling
        elders. In the Lutheran church we don't have elders as such, but a
        "Church Council" instead. Howevever, since my council seems to be
        rather confused (and often apathetic) regarding their roles, I took it
        upon myself to draw up some specific guidelines regarding their ministries.
        Does anyone have guidelines for the ruling elders of their church
        that could be emailed to me? I can also accept attachments. I simply
        need some basics to begin adapting things to our own particular needs.
        Thanks ahead of time.

        In Christ,
        Kevin Guillory
        Baltimore, MD
      • Shawn Anderson
        ... Does anyone have guidelines for the ruling elders of their church that could be emailed to me? I can also accept attach- ments. I simply need some basics
        Message 3 of 13 , Dec 3, 2004
        • 0 Attachment
          --- Kevin wrote:
          "Does anyone have guidelines for the ruling elders of their
          church that could be emailed to me? I can also accept attach-
          ments. I simply need some basics to begin adapting things to
          our own particular needs. Thanks ahead of time."

          I hope these links will help. There is a lot here, but you can look
          through the contents and titles to see what will help specifically.

          -Shawn Anderson
          Albany, NY

          An Assertion of the Government of the Church of Scotland.
          By George Gillespie
          http://truecovenanter.com/gillespie/gillespie_assertion_govt_kirk_sco
          tland.html

          A Treatise of Ruling Elders and Deacons.
          By James Guthrie
          http://truecovenanter.com/guthrie/guthrie_james_treatise_elders_and_d
          eacons.html

          The Form and Order of the Admission of Elders,
          as done by Mr. James Renwick
          http://truecovenanter.com/renwick/renwick_elders.html

          The Duties of Ruling Elders and the People over whom they are
          Appointed Overseers.
          By Thomas Boston
          http://truecovenanter.com/sermons/bostoncommand5.html#RulingElders

          The Form of Presbyterial Church-Government.
          By the Westminster Assembly
          http://www.reformed.org/documents/wcf_sub_standards/form_presby_gov.h
          tml

          -- General Articles --
          Articles on Church Government at www.TrueCovenanter.org
          http://truecovenanter.com/kirkgovt/index.htm

          Articles on Church Government at www.SWRB.com
          http://www.swrb.com/newslett/freebook/chugov.htm

          Articles on Church Government at www.Covenanter.org
          http://www.covenanter.org/ChurchGovt/churchgovt.htm
        • Jasper
          Whit, Thank you for your kind reply. Your explanation is helpful to me in understanding. The question is: which of the Presbyterian denominations is indeed
          Message 4 of 13 , Dec 6, 2004
          • 0 Attachment
            Whit,
             
            Thank you for your kind reply.  Your explanation is helpful to me in understanding.
             
            "The question is:  which of the Presbyterian denominations is indeed a faithful church relative to the (covenanted) Church of Scotland in the 1600's?" 
            Interesting perspective and emphasis.  Do I understand correctly that covenantors believe the covenanted Church of Scotland sometime during the 1600's was THE MOST FAITHFUL church ever?
             
            Again, a sincere thank you.
             
            Jasper

            covie1646 <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

            "Continuing" says that although a denomination is founded or
            constituted in modern times (1970's in the PCA's case), the church
            claims its lineage back to a "root" church in history and also claims
            that it is just as faithful to Christ as the root.  In the context of
            the various denominations that profess to be Presbyterian, the
            denominations would claim that their church "continues" back to the
            Church of Scotland (the Covenanted church, NOT the Resolutioner
            church) and is just as faithful to Christ as the (covenanted) Church
            of Scotland.  "Continuing" does not say that the particular
            denomination existed all the way back to the root regarding
            constitution.  The EPC, OPC, RPCNA, RPNA, PCUSA, CRC, PRC, FPC, and
            other professedly Presbyterian denominations, although constituted in
            the 1800's or later, would claim to be "continuing" to show they are
            just as faithful now as the Church of Scotland in the 1600's and hold
            to the same distinctives and doctrine.  The PCA says: "The concept of
            the "continuing church" dates back to the Scottish Presbyterian
            churches of the 17th century and reflects the effort to maintain a
            faithful, Bible-believing Church, true to the Lordship of Christ."

            The question is:  which of the Presbyterian denominations is indeed a
            faithful church relative to the (covenanted) Church of Scotland in
            the 1600's?  Their claims are mere claims unless the denominations
            doctrine, life, and theology in fact demonstrates the same degree of
            faithfulness as the Kirk in the 1600's.  One would only have to do a
            comparison of each Presbyterian denomination with the Kirk.  In my
            study of the Covenanted Kirk and the 2nd Reformation and the claims
            of the present-day aforementioned Presbyterian denominations, the
            only Presbyterian church that I have concluded to be
            truly "continuing" is the RPNA, which is undoubtedly just as faithful
            to Christ as the Covenanted Kirk.  Sadly, the other denominations
            (PCA, OPC, RPCNA, PRC, FPC, CRC, &c.) have not remained faithful to
            Christ as the Covenanted Kirk.  

            Whit

            --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, Jasper
            <jasperh98@y...> wrote:
            > Hello All,

            > Would someone please provide an overview of what it means for a
            church or denomination to be "continuing"?   With not having a
            presbyterian background, I am unfamiliar with the significance of
            the "continuing" designation and what it means or does not mean. 
            Thanks.

            > Jasper
            >
            > __________________________________________________
            > Do You Yahoo!?
            > Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
            > http://mail.yahoo.com





            Do you Yahoo!?
            The all-new My Yahoo! � Get yours free!

          • Whit
            Jasper, I ll leave the question to be answered by a full Covenanter. However, I do know that Covenanters view the covenanted Kirk to have made the highest
            Message 5 of 13 , Dec 6, 2004
            • 0 Attachment
              Jasper,

              I'll leave the question to be answered by a full Covenanter.
              However, I do know that Covenanters view the covenanted Kirk to have
              made the highest attainments in the Reformation.

              Whit

              --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, Jasper
              <jasperh98@y...> wrote:
              > Whit,
              >
              > Thank you for your kind reply. Your explanation is helpful to me
              in understanding.
              >
              > "The question is: which of the Presbyterian denominations is
              indeed a faithful church relative to the (covenanted) Church of
              Scotland in the 1600's?"
              >
              > Interesting perspective and emphasis. Do I understand correctly
              that covenantors believe the covenanted Church of Scotland sometime
              during the 1600's was THE MOST FAITHFUL church ever?
              >
              > Again, a sincere thank you.
              >
              > Jasper
              >
              > covie1646 <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
              >
              > "Continuing" says that although a denomination is founded or
              > constituted in modern times (1970's in the PCA's case), the church
              > claims its lineage back to a "root" church in history and also
              claims
              > that it is just as faithful to Christ as the root. In the context
              of
              > the various denominations that profess to be Presbyterian, the
              > denominations would claim that their church "continues" back to the
              > Church of Scotland (the Covenanted church, NOT the Resolutioner
              > church) and is just as faithful to Christ as the (covenanted)
              Church
              > of Scotland. "Continuing" does not say that the particular
              > denomination existed all the way back to the root regarding
              > constitution. The EPC, OPC, RPCNA, RPNA, PCUSA, CRC, PRC, FPC, and
              > other professedly Presbyterian denominations, although constituted
              in
              > the 1800's or later, would claim to be "continuing" to show they
              are
              > just as faithful now as the Church of Scotland in the 1600's and
              hold
              > to the same distinctives and doctrine. The PCA says: "The concept
              of
              > the "continuing church" dates back to the Scottish Presbyterian
              > churches of the 17th century and reflects the effort to maintain a
              > faithful, Bible-believing Church, true to the Lordship of Christ."
              >
              > The question is: which of the Presbyterian denominations is indeed
              a
              > faithful church relative to the (covenanted) Church of Scotland in
              > the 1600's? Their claims are mere claims unless the denominations
              > doctrine, life, and theology in fact demonstrates the same degree
              of
              > faithfulness as the Kirk in the 1600's. One would only have to do
              a
              > comparison of each Presbyterian denomination with the Kirk. In my
              > study of the Covenanted Kirk and the 2nd Reformation and the claims
              > of the present-day aforementioned Presbyterian denominations, the
              > only Presbyterian church that I have concluded to be
              > truly "continuing" is the RPNA, which is undoubtedly just as
              faithful
              > to Christ as the Covenanted Kirk. Sadly, the other denominations
              > (PCA, OPC, RPCNA, PRC, FPC, CRC, &c.) have not remained faithful to
              > Christ as the Covenanted Kirk.
              >
              > Whit
              >
              > --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, Jasper
              > <jasperh98@y...> wrote:
              > > Hello All,
              > >
              > > Would someone please provide an overview of what it means for a
              > church or denomination to be "continuing"? With not having a
              > presbyterian background, I am unfamiliar with the significance of
              > the "continuing" designation and what it means or does not mean.
              > Thanks.
              > >
              > > Jasper
              > >
              > > __________________________________________________
              > > Do You Yahoo!?
              > > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
              > > http://mail.yahoo.com
              >
              >
              >
              >
              > 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.
              >
              >
              >
              > ---------------------------------
              > Do you Yahoo!?
              > The all-new My Yahoo! – Get yours free!
            • gmw
              And I think that s a better way of putting it than the most faithful church ever. gmw.
              Message 6 of 13 , Dec 6, 2004
              • 0 Attachment
                And I think that's a better way of putting it than "the most faithful
                church ever."

                gmw.

                Whit wrote:

                >
                > Jasper,
                >
                > I'll leave the question to be answered by a full Covenanter.
                > However, I do know that Covenanters view the covenanted Kirk to have
                > made the highest attainments in the Reformation.
                >
                > Whit
                >
                > --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, Jasper
                > <jasperh98@y...> wrote:
                > > Whit,
                > >
                > > Thank you for your kind reply. Your explanation is helpful to me
                > in understanding.
                > >
                > > "The question is: which of the Presbyterian denominations is
                > indeed a faithful church relative to the (covenanted) Church of
                > Scotland in the 1600's?"
                > >
                > > Interesting perspective and emphasis. Do I understand correctly
                > that covenantors believe the covenanted Church of Scotland sometime
                > during the 1600's was THE MOST FAITHFUL church ever?
                > >
                > > Again, a sincere thank you.
                > >
                > > Jasper
                > >
                > > covie1646 <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
                > >
                > > "Continuing" says that although a denomination is founded or
                > > constituted in modern times (1970's in the PCA's case), the church
                > > claims its lineage back to a "root" church in history and also
                > claims
                > > that it is just as faithful to Christ as the root. In the context
                > of
                > > the various denominations that profess to be Presbyterian, the
                > > denominations would claim that their church "continues" back to the
                > > Church of Scotland (the Covenanted church, NOT the Resolutioner
                > > church) and is just as faithful to Christ as the (covenanted)
                > Church
                > > of Scotland. "Continuing" does not say that the particular
                > > denomination existed all the way back to the root regarding
                > > constitution. The EPC, OPC, RPCNA, RPNA, PCUSA, CRC, PRC, FPC, and
                > > other professedly Presbyterian denominations, although constituted
                > in
                > > the 1800's or later, would claim to be "continuing" to show they
                > are
                > > just as faithful now as the Church of Scotland in the 1600's and
                > hold
                > > to the same distinctives and doctrine. The PCA says: "The concept
                > of
                > > the "continuing church" dates back to the Scottish Presbyterian
                > > churches of the 17th century and reflects the effort to maintain a
                > > faithful, Bible-believing Church, true to the Lordship of Christ."
                > >
                > > The question is: which of the Presbyterian denominations is indeed
                > a
                > > faithful church relative to the (covenanted) Church of Scotland in
                > > the 1600's? Their claims are mere claims unless the denominations
                > > doctrine, life, and theology in fact demonstrates the same degree
                > of
                > > faithfulness as the Kirk in the 1600's. One would only have to do
                > a
                > > comparison of each Presbyterian denomination with the Kirk. In my
                > > study of the Covenanted Kirk and the 2nd Reformation and the claims
                > > of the present-day aforementioned Presbyterian denominations, the
                > > only Presbyterian church that I have concluded to be
                > > truly "continuing" is the RPNA, which is undoubtedly just as
                > faithful
                > > to Christ as the Covenanted Kirk. Sadly, the other denominations
                > > (PCA, OPC, RPCNA, PRC, FPC, CRC, &c.) have not remained faithful to
                > > Christ as the Covenanted Kirk.
                > >
                > > Whit
                > >
                > > --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, Jasper
                > > <jasperh98@y...> wrote:
                > > > Hello All,
                > > >
                > > > Would someone please provide an overview of what it means for a
                > > church or denomination to be "continuing"? With not having a
                > > presbyterian background, I am unfamiliar with the significance of
                > > the "continuing" designation and what it means or does not mean.
                > > Thanks.
                > > >
                > > > Jasper
                > > >
                > > > __________________________________________________
                > > > Do You Yahoo!?
                > > > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
                > > > http://mail.yahoo.com
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > > 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.
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > > ---------------------------------
                > > Do you Yahoo!?
                > > The all-new My Yahoo! – Get yours free!
                >
                >
                >
                >
                > *Yahoo! Groups Sponsor*
                > ADVERTISEMENT
                > click here
                > <http://us.ard.yahoo.com/SIG=12971ki52/M=298184.5639630.6699735.3001176/D=groups/S=1706113926:HM/EXP=1102457926/A=2434971/R=0/SIG=11eeoolb0/*http://www.netflix.com/Default?mqso=60185400>
                >
                >
                >
                > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                > *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
                > <mailto:covenantedreformationclub-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>
                > * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
                > Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>.
                >
                >
              • Jasper
                Thank you to both Whit and GMW, and for the better wording, the highest attainments in the Reformation . How is the (covenanted) Church of Scotland in the
                Message 7 of 13 , Dec 7, 2004
                • 0 Attachment
                  Thank you to both Whit and GMW, and for the better wording, "the highest attainments in the Reformation".
                   
                  How is the "(covenanted) Church of Scotland in the 1600's" viewed in regard to the first century church  -  was one more faithful than the other?   Or is the "highest attainment" designation viewed only in regard to "the Reformation" and not in regard to faithfulness to God?
                   
                  I should add that these are honest questions on my part and are not meant to be troublesome.
                   
                  Jasper

                  gmw <raging.calvinist@...> wrote:

                  And I think that's a better way of putting it than "the most faithful
                  church ever."

                  gmw.

                  Whit wrote:

                  >
                  > Jasper,
                  >
                  > I'll leave the question to be answered by a full Covenanter.
                  > However, I do know that Covenanters view the covenanted Kirk to have
                  > made the highest attainments in the Reformation.
                  >
                  > Whit
                  >
                  > --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, Jasper
                  > wrote:
                  > > Whit,
                  > >
                  > > Thank you for your kind reply. Your explanation is helpful to me
                  > in understanding.
                  > >
                  > > "The question is: which of the Presbyterian denominations is
                  > indeed a faithful church relative to the (covenanted) Church of
                  > Scotland in the 1600's?"
                  > >
                  > > Interesting perspective and emphasis. Do I understand correctly
                  > that covenantors believe the covenanted Church of Scotland sometime
                  > during the 1600's was THE MOST FAITHFUL church ever?
                  > >
                  > > Again, a sincere thank you.
                  > >
                  > > Jasper
                  > >
                  > > covie1646 wrote:
                  > >
                  > > "Continuing" says that although a denomination is founded or
                  > > constituted in modern times (1970's in the PCA's case), the church
                  > > claims its lineage back to a "root" church in history and also
                  > claims
                  > > that it is just as faithful to Christ as the root. In the context
                  > of
                  > > the various denominations that profess to be Presbyterian, the
                  > > denominations would claim that their church "continues" back to the
                  > > Church of Scotland (the Covenanted church, NOT the Resolutioner
                  > > church) and is just as faithful to Christ as the (covenanted)
                  > Church
                  > > of Scotland. "Continuing" does not say that the particular
                  > > denomination existed all the way back to the root regarding
                  > > constitution. The EPC, OPC, RPCNA, RPNA, PCUSA, CRC, PRC, FPC, and
                  > > other professedly Presbyterian denominations, although constituted
                  > in
                  > > the 1800's or later, would claim to be "continuing" to show they
                  > are
                  > > just as faithful now as the Church of Scotland in the 1600's and
                  > hold
                  > > to the same distinctives and doctrine. The PCA says: "The concept
                  > of
                  > > the "continuing church" dates back to the Scottish Presbyterian
                  > > churches of the 17th century and reflects the effort to maintain a
                  > > faithful, Bible-believing Church, true to the Lordship of Christ."
                  > >
                  > > The question is: which of the Presbyterian denominations is indeed
                  > a
                  > > faithful church relative to the (covenanted) Church of Scotland in
                  > > the 1600's? Their claims are mere claims unless the denominations
                  > > doctrine, life, and theology in fact demonstrates the same degree
                  > of
                  > > faithfulness as the Kirk in the 1600's. One would only have to do
                  > a
                  > > comparison of each Presbyterian denomination with the Kirk. In my
                  > > study of the Covenanted Kirk and the 2nd Reformation and the claims
                  > > of the present-day aforementioned Presbyterian denominations, the
                  > > only Presbyterian church that I have concluded to be
                  > > truly "continuing" is the RPNA, which is undoubtedly just as
                  > faithful
                  > > to Christ as the Covenanted Kirk. Sadly, the other denominations
                  > > (PCA, OPC, RPCNA, PRC, FPC, CRC, &c.) have not remained faithful to
                  > > Christ as the Covenanted Kirk.
                  > >
                  > > Whit
                  > >
                  > > --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, Jasper
                  > > wrote:
                  > > > Hello All,
                  > > >
                  > > > Would someone please provide an overview of what it means for a
                  > > church or denomination to be "continuing"? With not having a
                  > > presbyterian background, I am unfamiliar with the significance of
                  > > the "continuing" designation and what it means or does not mean.
                  > > Thanks.
                  > > >
                  > > > Jasper
                  > > >
                  > > > __________________________________________________
                  > > > Do You Yahoo!?
                  > > > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
                  > > > http://mail.yahoo.com
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > > 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.
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > > ---------------------------------
                  > > Do you Yahoo!?
                  > > The all-new My Yahoo! � Get yours free!
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > *Yahoo! Groups Sponsor*
                  > ADVERTISEMENT
                  > click here
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  > *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 .
                  >
                  >


                  ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
                  Make a clean sweep of pop-up ads. Yahoo! Companion Toolbar.
                  Now with Pop-Up Blocker. Get it for free!
                  http://us.click.yahoo.com/L5YrjA/eSIIAA/yQLSAA/GuTslB/TM
                  --------------------------------------------------------------------~->


                  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:
                  http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/




                  __________________________________________________
                  Do You Yahoo!?
                  Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
                  http://mail.yahoo.com

                • Whit
                  Here s my 2-cent understanding of church history. Christ established the church in the NT dispensation, and the church had its greatest purity/faithfulness
                  Message 8 of 13 , Dec 7, 2004
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Here's my 2-cent understanding of church history. Christ established
                    the church in the NT dispensation, and the church had its greatest
                    purity/faithfulness then. Over the next 1400 years, error and heresy
                    especially Catholicism infiltrated the church, and the church
                    declined in purity and faithfulness. God raised Luther and Calvin
                    (and few others) in the First Reformation to start reforming the
                    Church back to its original purity and faithfulness. The Reformation
                    reached its height in the Second Reformation, and the Church (&
                    State) reached its highest level of purity and faithfulness since the
                    start of the Reformation. Relative to the 1st century church, the
                    Covenanted Kirk was at or close to the faithfulness of the 1st
                    century church. I am still learning about the Covenanters and how
                    their live compared to the 1st century church or most importantly, to
                    God's Word. I have yet to find a Covenanter teaching or doctrine
                    contrary to Scripture, the alone infallible rule of faith which is
                    the main gage of faithfulness.

                    Whit

                    --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, Jasper
                    <jasperh98@y...> wrote:
                    > Thank you to both Whit and GMW, and for the better wording, "the
                    highest attainments in the Reformation".
                    >
                    > How is the "(covenanted) Church of Scotland in the 1600's" viewed
                    in regard to the first century church - was one more faithful than
                    the other? Or is the "highest attainment" designation viewed only
                    in regard to "the Reformation" and not in regard to faithfulness to
                    God?
                    >
                    > I should add that these are honest questions on my part and are not
                    meant to be troublesome.
                    >
                    > Jasper
                    >
                    > gmw <raging.calvinist@v...> wrote:
                    >
                    > And I think that's a better way of putting it than "the most
                    faithful
                    > church ever."
                    >
                    > gmw.
                    >
                    > Whit wrote:
                    >
                    > >
                    > > Jasper,
                    > >
                    > > I'll leave the question to be answered by a full Covenanter.
                    > > However, I do know that Covenanters view the covenanted Kirk to
                    have
                    > > made the highest attainments in the Reformation.
                    > >
                    > > Whit
                    > >
                    > > --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, Jasper
                    > > wrote:
                    > > > Whit,
                    > > >
                    > > > Thank you for your kind reply. Your explanation is helpful to me
                    > > in understanding.
                    > > >
                    > > > "The question is: which of the Presbyterian denominations is
                    > > indeed a faithful church relative to the (covenanted) Church of
                    > > Scotland in the 1600's?"
                    > > >
                    > > > Interesting perspective and emphasis. Do I understand correctly
                    > > that covenantors believe the covenanted Church of Scotland
                    sometime
                    > > during the 1600's was THE MOST FAITHFUL church ever?
                    > > >
                    > > > Again, a sincere thank you.
                    > > >
                    > > > Jasper
                    > > >
                    > > > covie1646 wrote:
                    > > >
                    > > > "Continuing" says that although a denomination is founded or
                    > > > constituted in modern times (1970's in the PCA's case), the
                    church
                    > > > claims its lineage back to a "root" church in history and also
                    > > claims
                    > > > that it is just as faithful to Christ as the root. In the
                    context
                    > > of
                    > > > the various denominations that profess to be Presbyterian, the
                    > > > denominations would claim that their church "continues" back to
                    the
                    > > > Church of Scotland (the Covenanted church, NOT the Resolutioner
                    > > > church) and is just as faithful to Christ as the (covenanted)
                    > > Church
                    > > > of Scotland. "Continuing" does not say that the particular
                    > > > denomination existed all the way back to the root regarding
                    > > > constitution. The EPC, OPC, RPCNA, RPNA, PCUSA, CRC, PRC, FPC,
                    and
                    > > > other professedly Presbyterian denominations, although
                    constituted
                    > > in
                    > > > the 1800's or later, would claim to be "continuing" to show they
                    > > are
                    > > > just as faithful now as the Church of Scotland in the 1600's and
                    > > hold
                    > > > to the same distinctives and doctrine. The PCA says: "The
                    concept
                    > > of
                    > > > the "continuing church" dates back to the Scottish Presbyterian
                    > > > churches of the 17th century and reflects the effort to
                    maintain a
                    > > > faithful, Bible-believing Church, true to the Lordship of
                    Christ."
                    > > >
                    > > > The question is: which of the Presbyterian denominations is
                    indeed
                    > > a
                    > > > faithful church relative to the (covenanted) Church of Scotland
                    in
                    > > > the 1600's? Their claims are mere claims unless the
                    denominations
                    > > > doctrine, life, and theology in fact demonstrates the same
                    degree
                    > > of
                    > > > faithfulness as the Kirk in the 1600's. One would only have to
                    do
                    > > a
                    > > > comparison of each Presbyterian denomination with the Kirk. In
                    my
                    > > > study of the Covenanted Kirk and the 2nd Reformation and the
                    claims
                    > > > of the present-day aforementioned Presbyterian denominations,
                    the
                    > > > only Presbyterian church that I have concluded to be
                    > > > truly "continuing" is the RPNA, which is undoubtedly just as
                    > > faithful
                    > > > to Christ as the Covenanted Kirk. Sadly, the other denominations
                    > > > (PCA, OPC, RPCNA, PRC, FPC, CRC, &c.) have not remained
                    faithful to
                    > > > Christ as the Covenanted Kirk.
                    > > >
                    > > > Whit
                    > > >
                    > > > --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, Jasper
                    > > > wrote:
                    > > > > Hello All,
                    > > > >
                    > > > > Would someone please provide an overview of what it means for
                    a
                    > > > church or denomination to be "continuing"? With not having a
                    > > > presbyterian background, I am unfamiliar with the significance
                    of
                    > > > the "continuing" designation and what it means or does not mean.
                    > > > Thanks.
                    > > > >
                    > > > > Jasper
                    > > > >
                    > > > > __________________________________________________
                    > > > > Do You Yahoo!?
                    > > > > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
                    > > > > http://mail.yahoo.com
                    > > >
                    > > >
                    > > >
                    > > >
                    > > > 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.
                    > > >
                    > > >
                    > > >
                    > > > ---------------------------------
                    > > > Do you Yahoo!?
                    > > > The all-new My Yahoo! – Get yours free!
                    > >
                    > >
                    > >
                    > >
                    > > *Yahoo! Groups Sponsor*
                    > > ADVERTISEMENT
                    > > click here
                    > >
                    > >
                    > >
                    > >
                    > > ------------------------------------------------------------------
                    ------
                    > > *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 .
                    > >
                    > >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    > Yahoo! Groups Links
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    > __________________________________________________
                    > Do You Yahoo!?
                    > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
                    > http://mail.yahoo.com
                  • Shawn Anderson
                    How is the (covenanted) Church of Scotland in the 1600 s viewed in regard to the first century church - was one more faithful than the other? Or is the
                    Message 9 of 13 , Dec 8, 2004
                    • 0 Attachment
                      "How is the "(covenanted) Church of Scotland in the 1600's" viewed
                      in regard to the first century church - was one more faithful than
                      the other? Or is the "highest attainment" designation viewed only
                      in regard to "the Reformation" and not in regard to faithfulness to
                      God?" - Jasper

                      Phil 3:16ff "Nevertheless, whereto we have already attained, let us
                      walk by the same rule, let us mind the same thing."

                      Eph 4:11-16 "And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and
                      some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; For the
                      perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the
                      edifying of the body of Christ: Till we all come in the unity of the
                      faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man,
                      unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ: That we
                      [henceforth] be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried
                      about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, [and]
                      cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive; But
                      speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things,
                      which is the head, [even] Christ: From whom the whole body fitly
                      joined together and compacted by that which every joint
                      supplieth, according to the effectual working in the measure of
                      every part, maketh increase of the body unto the edifying of itself
                      in love."

                      "Highest Attainments" might not be as helpful a term as "Faithful
                      Attainments". The "faithful attainment" designation is viewed in
                      regard to faithful obedience of the Church in response to the
                      progression of revelation of the Covenant of Grace. This does not
                      only consider a select time in the Churches' history, but includes
                      the whole life of the Church as ONE Bride, ONE Body or ONE Moral
                      Person, primarily in Her relationship to Christ, and secondarily with
                      those in that ONE Body.

                      The Reformers would not have considered themselves MORE faithful
                      than the Apostles, but rather maintaining the same faithfulness
                      found in the Apostolic Doctrine taught by the Apostles, and upheld
                      in the Church of Christ. As we see the progression of revelation
                      from infant Church, Israel to young Church and then having Gentiles
                      grafted into Her, we see her attainments progress, and grow. To
                      properly understand "progressive revelation" we must define this
                      not as a delivery of NEW doctrine, but rather an unveiling of the
                      Covenant of Grace, or a blossoming of such.

                      The Apostles only had a glimpse of "denominationalism" and really
                      in their day, you were in the Church of Christ, or you weren't. So
                      the unity they saw in their day was relative to the separation
                      manifested in their day. Though the Apostles envisioned a
                      Covenanted Reformation, they did not attain to such in their day.
                      The Reformers did, and so as God shed more light on the glorious
                      Kingdom of Christ advancing to the ends of the Earth, our
                      Reformation forefathers (especially those of the Covenanted
                      Scottish Church) understood a greater degree of unity. Considering
                      the separation and independency they witnessed, as well as that
                      Man of Sin being revealed in their age, all the more magnificent
                      was the Covenanted Unity and Uniformity of Religion.

                      Of course, the Church's Testimony (Rev 12:11) will continue to
                      expand as she continues to MARK those who have followed after the
                      Apostolic "tradition" (Phil 3:17 – the faithful testimony) and those
                      who cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which
                      she has learned (Rom 16:17 – the unfaithful testimony) until she
                      become mature or perfect. So the attainments are to help the
                      Christians know who they should avoid, and who they should be in
                      communion with. So Attainments can also be called Terms of
                      Communion. And since it is maturity that is our full attainment,
                      which shall be reached, as Paul says, when Christ "shall change our
                      vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body,
                      according to the working whereby he is able even to subdue all
                      things unto himself," (Phil 3:21) then we shall see a continual
                      progression of clarity and precision in our Terms of Communion
                      according to this "attainment principle".

                      I guess the more appropriate question as to our contemporary
                      context is…

                      How is the Covenanted Church of Scotland's Terms of Communion
                      viewed in regard to:

                      1) Other Church's Terms of Communion? (in relation to the
                      opportunity to be united in Truth)

                      2) The Terms of Communion of those Churches that claim to be the
                      posterity of that Covenanted Church of Scotland? (in relation to
                      who is really maintaining the ancient landmarks)

                      There are other things to consider, and I do not pretend to have
                      even formulated the right questions, let alone having answers. It
                      would not be edifying to bring them up unless some of these other
                      issues have been dealt with first.

                      I doubt that this will aid in the understanding of "faithful
                      attainments", because I am typing this off the top of my head, but
                      potentially this could be picked apart, and bring out further clarity
                      of our position? *smiles

                      May God help us in our endeavor to be united in His Truth,
                      -Shawn Anderson
                      Albany, NY
                    • thebishopsdoom
                      ... That was a good post, I would only add a word or two, also off the top of my head. We all regard creeds and other constitutional documents of the church to
                      Message 10 of 13 , Dec 9, 2004
                      • 0 Attachment
                        --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, "Shawn Anderson"
                        <christ_saves_sinners@y...> wrote:
                        >> I doubt that this will aid in the understanding of "faithful
                        > attainments", because I am typing this off the top of my head

                        That was a good post, I would only add a word or two, also off the
                        top of my head.
                        We all regard creeds and other constitutional documents of the church
                        to mark out the boundaries of the church - not necessarily the
                        boundaries of the invisible church, but they mark of what a
                        particular body of the church believe to be the correct
                        interpretation of Scriptural doctrine.
                        When we pass from the apostles's own days into the early subapostolic
                        age, we find that while supernatural revelation granted to the
                        inspired apostles was perfectly suited by God to apply to a variety
                        of situations, controversies, and issues that would come up through
                        the history of the church, many of these issues had not as yet in
                        fact come up. As a result, the church was left with a guide for the
                        further understanding of the truth in various areas that were not
                        immediately at the fore in the 1st century. The same may be said with
                        respect to the OT. I don't think we need understand that the 1st
                        century church knew and perfectly understood everything that we would
                        find in any one of the reformed creeds, and that their progeny simply
                        decided to ignore these truths and forge their own way. There were
                        issues that had not yet come up, ways of thinking about certain
                        things which were not yet considered, which the Scripture is adequate
                        to address - such as the relationship between the covenant of grace
                        and of redemption, which I don't think anyone in the 1st century
                        church was really asking, and so the church made no official
                        pronouncements therein, nor gave much consideration to exactly how
                        systematically to work such things together. So while the church was
                        founded perfectly upon the Holy Writ, we today have "Bible churches"
                        who say "no creed but the Bible" and find that amongst them there can
                        continue to exist a wide variety of opinion on how it is to be
                        interpreted. Though the 1st century church did have the apostles to
                        declare and explain to them, surely the apostles did not explain in
                        exhaustive detail every possible nuance of everything that was
                        written and how it would apply to every possible theological
                        question, including those that noone was yet asking in their day. It
                        would also be a mistake if one were to assume the 1st century
                        churches themselves always fully understood every word delivered by
                        the apostles. We find the varied conditions of the churches of
                        Asia in the Apocalypse, and we see in Corinth apparent evidence of
                        questions still floating about whether the dead were raised!
                        In fact, when we look into the 2nd and 3rd century patristic authors
                        that we have reasonable access to, we find that the extent of creed
                        that was passed onto them was overall quite minimal. You can find it
                        occasionally laid down in their writings, and it amounts to little
                        more than the apostles' creed. As a result, there were in fact
                        errours that early crept. Various, sometimes new questions led down a
                        certain paths in attempt as to how to explain it all, not all of
                        which, of course, we hold to be consistent with the Scriptures. Now
                        we may argue that the Scriptures have the answer, but they may not
                        have fully understood it. Further, some of the churches at least
                        early on probably did not have a full NT in their possession to draw
                        from in evaluating different explanations. And I have heard more than
                        once that by the 4th century, much had arisen in thought and
                        practice, but there had been little previous attempt to
                        systematically compare everything going on with Scripture and
                        philosophy to explain the church's beliefs and practice for some
                        time. By the 4th century, there was push more to justify everything
                        somehow, than try to prune things. After all, they thought, this is
                        what we have recieved. There were some necessary corrections, as when
                        Augustine got the Western church to collectively recognize the
                        doctrine of original sin in some more official manner, and while in
                        his defense he was able to show that hints of the doctrine were not
                        entirely unheard of in previous generations. There had to be some
                        understanding that some of the earlier fathers had in not fully
                        comprehending the matter erred in some of their thoughts and
                        statements when they seemed to deny the concept of original sin by
                        some of their statements.
                        Augustine of course had his detractors as well, being labelled an
                        innovator on the point. But even among his detractors, Vincent of
                        Lerins had to admit that there must be some legitimate sense in which
                        the church could progress at least in some manner to better
                        understand some matters than had been understood before, tho he
                        denied that there could be any alteration, only further progressive
                        understanding or the like. In the progression of history in fact some
                        things did get better, other things got worse. Furthermore, there
                        were a lot of issues to which even the default position taken into
                        and thru the medieval era were not themselves necessarily "official"
                        positions. Debates continued, sometimes at a national level, over the
                        relationship between church and state, the limits of ecclesiastical
                        power, predestination, and a number of other issues. Some other
                        issues we should like to have seen debated were taken for granted.
                        The few centuries prior to the reformation, things were quite bad.
                        The push for a reform in fact had gone on for some time. But Trent's
                        answer by and large was not the answer given by the protestants.
                        The protestant reformation may be seen as correcting a number of
                        errours which had crept into the church in eras when some
                        of these matters were not so well understood, as well as new errours
                        that developed either out of pure corruption or based upon the
                        unfolding of earlier erroneous pathways that had been followed. Now
                        of course, I don't want to in stating it that way belittle the
                        serious magnitude of what those errours in fact were, and how
                        necessary the reformation was. The protestant reformers also loosed
                        themselves from the bonds of the man of sin, as well as those
                        abusesthat may have benefitted the ecclesiastics in the hierarchy,
                        but were false means of profiting the souls of those seeking refuge
                        in those paths.
                        In dealing with various matters, the reformed churches were able to
                        give their own sense, both correcting errour and finetuning the
                        limits of what they held as a church to be the true understanding of
                        the Biblical religion.
                        They were able to draw from the Scriptures, as well as the study
                        therein of men gone by, as well as having the opportunity to see
                        where some previous mistaken answers had led, to the better see why
                        this or that answer that had been pressed before by this or that
                        party had been wrong. At times, they were able to draw from the
                        reasoning of others where they had also been correct. As an end
                        product, you will note that their creeds were more detailed than what
                        they called the "rule of faith" in the early patristic era. In this,
                        they attained to a greater precision and broader
                        scope of what they held forth to the world to be the teachings of the
                        Holy Scriptures. In addition, they were able to take the testimony of
                        the unfolding of history, and identify the man of sin, as well as
                        testify against various things, giving their official sense as a
                        church as to why it was wrong. As errours arose, and cmae to be
                        recognized by the church as such, there was a need to finetune the
                        creed and attain to a more detailed understanding and explanation of
                        what is the faith of the church.
                        Anyway, you can disagree with me, this is just a thought off the top
                        of my head anyway, for whatever it's worth.
                        -doom
                      • thebishopsdoom
                        ... I. The unity of the spirit in the bond of peace, ought to be the endeavour of all that are members of the one body of Christ, partakers of his one Spirit,
                        Message 11 of 13 , Dec 9, 2004
                        • 0 Attachment
                          --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, "Shawn Anderson"
                          <christ_saves_sinners@y...> wrote:

                          > How is the Covenanted Church of Scotland's Terms of Communion
                          > viewed in regard to:
                          >
                          > 1) Other Church's Terms of Communion? (in relation to the
                          > opportunity to be united in Truth)
                          >
                          > 2) The Terms of Communion of those Churches that claim to be the
                          > posterity of that Covenanted Church of Scotland? (in relation to
                          > who is really maintaining the ancient landmarks)

                          "I. The unity of the spirit in the bond of peace, ought to be the
                          endeavour of all that are members of the one body of Christ,
                          partakers of his one Spirit, called in one hope, professing one Lord,
                          confessing one faith, sealed with one baptism, Eph. 4:3, etc. And for
                          brethren to dwell together in unity, is good and pleasant, and like
                          the precious ointment upon the head, that ran down upon Aaron's
                          beard, Psal. 133:1,2. A fragrant ointment indeed, if it be composed
                          aright of gospel simples, according to divine art, and the wisdom
                          that is from above, which is pure, and then peaceable: and not made
                          up of adulterate politics: that union that hath the spirit for its
                          author; the scripture for its rule, peace for its bond and beauty,
                          love for its cement, faith for its foment, Christ for its foundation,
                          and truth and holiness for its constant companions, cannot but be
                          intensely desired, enixly endeavoured, and fervently followed by all
                          the professors of the gospel of peace, and subjects of the prince of
                          peace: which makes division and schism not only a great misery, but a
                          grand sin. But it must be in the way of truth and duty, and
                          consistent with holiness and the honour of Christ, otherwise if it be
                          in the way of apostasy and defection, it is but a confederacy and
                          conspiracy against the Lord. And true union can neither be attained,
                          nor retained, nor recovered, except the sinful cause of division,
                          defection; and the holy overruling cause, the anger of the Lord be
                          removed in turning to and following him.
                          II. Though there be not perfect union, but diversity both of
                          judgments and practices, in several cases there may be communion with
                          a church in its ordinances and ministry. As,
                          1. We may have a catholic communion with all christian ministers and
                          members of the catholic church, considered as such; holding the head
                          Christ, and the fountain sure. And so we may meet for worship with
                          all devout men in every nation under heaven, whether they be
                          Parthians, or Medes, or Elamites, or French or Dutch, etc. though
                          differing in controversies of lesser moment, not overturning that; if
                          they hold the universal testimony of the gospel, against the common
                          enemies thereof, Jews, Turks, or Pagans: for there is neither Greek
                          nor Jew, if he be a christian, Christ is all and in all, Col. 3:11.
                          But if they be heretics, we can have no communion with them.
                          2. We may have a more special communion with all Protestant ministers
                          and members of the Reformed church, considered as such, more
                          strictly, and upon stricter conditions: providing they hold, not only
                          the universal of Christians, but the general testimony of
                          Protestants, against the greater and lesser Antichrists; though
                          differing from us in some circumstantial points, not Reformed, and
                          not contradictory unto the Protestant testimony against Popery, and
                          all heresy; nor declining from their own reformation, by defection or
                          schism. And consequently, it is lawful to own communion with the
                          churches of the United Provinces, and take ordination from them,
                          though they have some forms not allowable, from which they were never
                          Reformed, because they are sound in the Protestant testimony. But
                          with the Sectarians, or Schismatics, or Apostates among them, we
                          cannot own that special communion.
                          3. We may have a more particular communion upon yet stricter
                          conditions with all our Covenanted brethren, ministers and members of
                          the churches of Britain and Ireland, considered as such: providing
                          they hold, not only the universal; not only the more special,
                          Protestant testimony against the greater and lesser Antichrists, but
                          the Covenanted testimony for the reformation in doctrine, worship,
                          discipline, and government, against popery, Prelacy, superstition,
                          heresy, schism, and profaneness, according to the Covenant; though
                          differing from us in those controversial points, never Reformed, and
                          which were never the word of Christ's patience, and do not overturn
                          the covenanted testimony. But with those that contradict and
                          counteract that, we cannot own that particular communion.
                          4. We may have yet a nearer organical communion, upon stricter
                          conditions still with all the ministers and members of the national
                          church of Scotland constitute and confederate under one Reformed
                          government, according to the rule of Christ: providing they hold, not
                          only all the former testimonies under the foresaid considerations,
                          but the Presbyterian testimony as stated in the ecclesiastical
                          constitution, and sworn to in the national covenants and engagements
                          of that church, founded upon the word of God, against popery,
                          Prelacy, Erastianism, sectarianism, toleration, schism and defection;
                          though differing in some things from us, never Reformed, never
                          considered in ecclesiastical judicatories, never engaged against in
                          our covenants, never stated as the word of patience and matter of
                          testimony. But with these that oppose, suppress, reproach, and
                          abandon this testimony, we cannot own this organical communion, in
                          this broken state of the church. We may have yet a stricter
                          congregational communion, upon stricter conditions, and with the
                          ordinary or extraordinary meetings or societies of the Lord's people
                          for gospel ordinances, with any minister or ministers, duly and truly
                          admitted to that function according to Christ's appointment, and the
                          call of the people, whether in a fixed or unfixed relation; providing
                          he holds the testimony of Christ, under all the considerations, and
                          owns and adheres unto the true received principles of the church of
                          Scotland, in doctrine, worship, discipline and government, founded
                          upon the written word of God, and whatsoever declarations or
                          testimonies, former or latter, particular or more general, are
                          agreeable thereunto; though differing from us in some of the integral
                          and not essential parts of our testimony against the enemies of our
                          covenanted reformation. But with such as deny or decline from it, by
                          schism or defection, or compliance with the enemies thereof, we
                          cannot own this congregational communion, in this broken state of the
                          church."
                          -Alexander Shields (A Hind Let Loose. 1797 edition. pp 262ff.)
                        • thebishopsdoom
                          ... And just off the top of my head indeed. Sorry for all the poor grammar in that post. I trust it s at least somewhat readable. -thegrammariansdoom
                          Message 12 of 13 , Dec 9, 2004
                          • 0 Attachment
                            --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, thebishopsdoom
                            <no_reply@y...> wrote:
                            > just a thought off the top
                            > of my head anyway, for whatever it's worth.
                            And just off the top of my head indeed. Sorry for all the poor
                            grammar in that post. I trust it's at least somewhat readable.
                            -thegrammariansdoom
                          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.