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

Re: [Covenanted Reformation] Re: PCA, OPC and other Presbyterian churches

Expand Messages
  • Wayne Whitmer
    I don t personally know members of those churches, so I can t comment on their members GMW So what am I Jerry, chop liver...(: I guess our lunch at Wendy s
    Message 1 of 10 , Feb 21, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      "I don't personally know members of those churches, so I can't comment on
      their members" GMW

      So what am I Jerry, chop liver...(: I guess our lunch at Wendy's near
      Presbyterian Reformed Theological Seminary in Pittsburgh was a figment of my
      imagination..(: (All tongue in cheek, of course)

      God Bless,

      Wayne Whitmer
      PCA Member
      Chandler, AZ
    • gmw
      Hey Wayne! I m sorry, I honestly forgot what church you were attending! (I did not forget you, however). I amend my statement -- I know Wayne, a member of the
      Message 2 of 10 , Feb 21, 2005
      • 0 Attachment
        Hey Wayne!

        I'm sorry, I honestly forgot what church you were attending! (I did not
        forget you, however).

        I amend my statement -- I know Wayne, a member of the PCA, and deem him
        to be an all around good guy.

        gmw.

        Wayne Whitmer wrote:

        > "I don't personally know members of those churches, so I can't comment on
        > their members" GMW
        >
        > So what am I Jerry, chop liver...(: I guess our lunch at Wendy's near
        > Presbyterian Reformed Theological Seminary in Pittsburgh was a figment
        > of my
        > imagination..(: (All tongue in cheek, of course)
        >
        > God Bless,
        >
        > Wayne Whitmer
        > PCA Member
        > Chandler, AZ
        >
        >
        > *Yahoo! Groups Sponsor*
        > <http://us.ard.yahoo.com/SIG=1292mut53/M=324658.6070095.7083352.3001176/D=groups/S=1706113926:HM/EXP=1109135260/A=2343726/R=0/SIG=12ib4btkc/*http://clk.atdmt.com/VON/go/yhxxxvon01900091von/direct/01/&time=1109048860103224>
        >
        >
        > Get unlimited calls to
        >
        > U.S./Canada
        >
        > <http://us.ard.yahoo.com/SIG=1292mut53/M=324658.6070095.7083352.3001176/D=groups/S=1706113926:HM/EXP=1109135260/A=2343726/R=1/SIG=12ib4btkc/*http://clk.atdmt.com/VON/go/yhxxxvon01900091von/direct/01/&time=1109048860103224>
        >
        >
        >
        > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
        > *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/>.
        >
        >
      • Larry Bump
        ... From: gmw ... I obviously wasn t there, but I haven t heard that any railed. I was born a Romanist, as I have said. My
        Message 3 of 10 , Feb 22, 2005
        • 0 Attachment
          ----- Original Message -----
          From: "gmw" <raging.calvinist@...>

          > Not in and of itself, necessarily, especially not in a day when the
          > covenants in question are (sadly) long forgotten. But if a biblically
          > faithful covenant was adopted by a nation and a church, and members of
          > that nation and church refused that covenant (which in essence is a
          > refusal to adhere to and defend the true religion), you have to at
          > least wonder what's up. Gillespie's quote is in such a context -- the
          > nation and the church swore to defend the Protestant Religion, and
          > some refused and reproached and railed against it. What else could be
          > thought of such people?

          I obviously wasn't there, but I haven't heard that any railed.
          I was born a Romanist, as I have said. My family patriarch came from France
          to Holland, then to London to embark on the Fortune in 1621. My physical
          blood had no part in the Covenants.

          As far as the Church goes, could some of you tell me how the Covenant
          between England, Scotland and the State Church there would be valid a) after
          the governments there abrogated it, and b) in a Land not in fealty to the
          above governments?
          I have never understood how that would work, what that would look like.
          This is an honest question; obviously the RPCNA has no theology about how
          the Solemn League and Covenant would work in the New World.
          It isn't that the Church has declared themselves opposed to the Covenants;
          many in the RPCNA hold them very dear indeed, and wish we *did* have a valid
          American expression of them, complete in every respect but *applicable* to
          the situation here. That has been the goal of the National Reform
          Association.

          For those not privy to this whole argument, that is the basis for the
          opinions held by the RPNA and its members against the RPCNA, and the
          occasion for their strong feelings about her. The rest, communion terms,
          method of psalms, names, deacons, etc is window dressing.



          --
          No virus found in this outgoing message.
          Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
          Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 266.3.0 - Release Date: 2/21/2005
        • Cheryl
          Dear Larry, Some of my other brothers are more astute and adept at these arguments, but I offer this evidence from the SL&C itself for both the intent of the
          Message 4 of 10 , Feb 22, 2005
          • 0 Attachment
            Dear Larry,
             
            Some of my other brothers are more astute and adept at these arguments, but I offer this evidence from the SL&C itself for both the intent of the SL&C and the extent of who it covers:
             
            "THE Assembly having recommended unto a Committee appointed by them to join with the Committee of the Honourable Convention of Estates, and the Commissioners of the Honourable Houses of the Parliament of England, for bringing the kingdoms to a more near conjunction and union, received from the foresaid Committees the Covenant after mentioned, as the result of their consultations: and having taken the same, as a matter of so publick concernment and so deep importance doth require, unto their gravest consideration, did, with all their hearts, and with the beginnings of the feelings of that joy, which they did find in go great measure upon the renovation of the National Covenant of this kirk and kingdom, All with one voice approve ad embrace the same, as the most powerful mean, by the blessing of GOD, for settling and preserving the true Protestant religion with perfect peace in his Majesty’s *dominions,* and propagating the same to other nations, and for establishing his majesty’s throne to all ages and generations.
             
            In addition, the covenant was binding upon the posterity of those who swore it.  I am descended from covenanters on my father's side of the family who were Presbyterians straight out of the heart of Covenanting country in the lowlands of Scotland.  Both the US and Canada formed part of the dominions of England, whose king had sworn to uphold the SL&C and therefore they were, by extension, bound by this covenant as well.  The fact that they broke away from the rule of England did not end their lawful obligation to this covenant, imho.  This was also certainly the understanding of the many Covenanters who also emigrated to the New World as well. 
             
            Yours and His,
            Cheryl G.
            ----- Original Message -----
            Sent: Tuesday, February 22, 2005 7:36 AM
            Subject: Re: [Covenanted Reformation] Re: PCA, OPC and other Presbyterian churches


            ----- Original Message -----
            From: "gmw" <raging.calvinist@...>

            > Not in and of itself, necessarily, especially not in a day when the
            > covenants in question are (sadly) long forgotten.  But if a biblically
            > faithful covenant was adopted by a nation and a church, and members of
            > that nation and church refused that covenant (which in essence is a
            > refusal to adhere to and defend the true religion), you have to at
            > least wonder what's up.  Gillespie's quote is in such a context -- the
            > nation and the church swore to defend the Protestant Religion, and
            > some refused and reproached and railed against it.  What else could be
            > thought of such people?

            I obviously wasn't there, but I haven't heard that any railed.
            I was born a Romanist, as I have said.  My family patriarch came from France
            to Holland, then to London to embark on the Fortune in 1621.  My physical
            blood had no part in the Covenants.

            As far as the Church goes, could some of you tell me how the Covenant
            between England, Scotland and the State Church there would be valid a) after
            the governments there abrogated it, and b) in a Land not in fealty to the
            above governments?
            I have never understood how that would work, what that would look like.
            This is an honest question; obviously the RPCNA has no theology about how
            the Solemn League and Covenant would work in the New World.
            It isn't that the Church has declared themselves opposed to the Covenants;
            many in the RPCNA hold them very dear indeed, and wish we *did* have a valid
            American expression of them, complete in every respect but *applicable* to
            the situation here.  That has been the goal of the National Reform
            Association.

            For those not privy to this whole argument, that is the basis for the
            opinions held by the RPNA and its members against the RPCNA, and the
            occasion for their strong feelings about her.  The rest, communion terms,
            method of psalms, names, deacons, etc is window dressing.



            --
            No virus found in this outgoing message.
            Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
            Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 266.3.0 - Release Date: 2/21/2005


          • Larry Bump
            ... From: Cheryl The fact that they broke away from the rule of England did not end their lawful obligation to this covenant, imho.
            Message 5 of 10 , Feb 22, 2005
            • 0 Attachment
              ----- Original Message -----
              From: "Cheryl" <cherylgrenon@...>

              The fact that they broke away from the rule of England did not end their
              lawful obligation to this covenant, imho. This was also certainly the
              understanding of the many Covenanters who also emigrated to the New World as
              well.
              -------------------------------

              This doesn't answer the question of *how* it should now obtain and be
              observed. It cannot be properly observed; without a sovereign it cannot be
              observed, and the line of the Covenant was broken by England at the English
              Civil War, so the line isn't even the same Kings in England anyway.

              Without sin, or breaking the Covenant themselves, the RPCNA simply sees the
              basis for continuing the Covenant as not existing in the current reality.
              All of the other parties have broken or withdrawn from the Covenant; it is
              abrogated.

              The intent of the writers of the Covenant has also been met to a limtied
              degree in this:
              "for settling and preserving the true Protestant religion with perfect peace
              in his Majesty's *dominions,* and propagating the same to other nations, and
              for establishing his majesty's throne to all ages and generations."

              As the USA is now an "other nation" and we see the true Protestant Religion
              settled here, (though imperfectly and certiany incompletely), the SL&C has
              been met.

              Larry




              --
              No virus found in this outgoing message.
              Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
              Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 266.3.0 - Release Date: 2/21/2005
            • Glenn Ferrell
              I have no doubt: 1. The SL&C continues as binding upon the kingdoms of England, Scotland and Ireland in perpetuity. 2. This includes the obligation to
              Message 6 of 10 , Feb 22, 2005
              • 0 Attachment
                I have no doubt:
                 
                1.  The SL&C continues as binding upon the kingdoms of England, Scotland and Ireland in perpetuity.
                 
                2.  This includes the obligation to support a continuing, settled, Protestant and Presbyterian church in these lands.
                 
                3)  Descendants of those individuals and churches coming from the Church of Scotland have a continuing obligation to preserve and settle the protestant and Presbyterian faith and church in whatever land they live, in other lands through mission efforts.
                 
                However, questions:
                 
                1.  Does this obligate North Americans to support more than the substance and principles of the SL&C, to maintain the faith of Westminster, the Protestant religion and a settled Presbyterian Church, to extirpate Popery and Prelacy, and to promote the cooperation among nations which enter into such a obligation?
                 
                2.  Are North Americans obligated to defend  the authority of the British monarch?
                 
                3.  Are we in violation of the covenants if we support the continuing independence of the United States and a republican or non-monarchical form of government here?
                 
                The current situation among many faithful American Presbyterians is:
                 
                1.  They are faithful to the Westminster Standards as they have received and know them.  Some prefer the original unamended forms of the Confession.  Subscription to the current form of the Confession in say the OPC does not preclude acceptance of the additional items in the original (e.g. the pope being the antichrist, established church).
                 
                2  They know little of (if they have even heard of) the Westminster Directory for the Public Worship of God, the Form of Presbyterian Church Government, National Covenant or Solemn League and Covenant.
                 
                3)  If they do know of the SL&C, they are unsure of it's continued obligation or whether these obligations continue to them.
                 
                If we are to attain a Reformation and settled Presbyterianism in America, it seems wise to build on what faithful Presbyterianism remains.  This means teaching the history, content, meaning and obligation of the Original Confessional standards, the DPWG, FOPG, NC and SL&G, demonstrating their truth from Scripture. 
                 
                The RPNA serves a useful purpose in reminding us of all the original attainments of the second Scottish Reformation.  Sometimes the impression is given that one must immediately accept all of their positions or be considered apostate.  My actual conversations with Covenanters, RPNA folks and reading of this list does not support this impression.  I have found most of you gracious in your approach to others and me.
                 
                Just remember, many of those in the RPCNA, OPC, PCA, ARP, etc. want to be faithful to Scripture and the Reformed tradition where ever it leads.  We need time to learn and answer the questions I ask above. 
                 
                Glenn Ferrell
                awaiting approval of a call as pastor to an OP congregation in Idaho
                 
                 
                ----- Original Message -----
                From: Cheryl
                Sent: Tuesday, February 22, 2005 10:28 AM
                Subject: Re: [Covenanted Reformation] Re: PCA, OPC and other Presbyterian churches

                Dear Larry,
                 
                Some of my other brothers are more astute and adept at these arguments, but I offer this evidence from the SL&C itself for both the intent of the SL&C and the extent of who it covers:
                 
                "THE Assembly having recommended unto a Committee appointed by them to join with the Committee of the Honourable Convention of Estates, and the Commissioners of the Honourable Houses of the Parliament of England, for bringing the kingdoms to a more near conjunction and union, received from the foresaid Committees the Covenant after mentioned, as the result of their consultations: and having taken the same, as a matter of so publick concernment and so deep importance doth require, unto their gravest consideration, did, with all their hearts, and with the beginnings of the feelings of that joy, which they did find in go great measure upon the renovation of the National Covenant of this kirk and kingdom, All with one voice approve ad embrace the same, as the most powerful mean, by the blessing of GOD, for settling and preserving the true Protestant religion with perfect peace in his Majesty’s *dominions,* and propagating the same to other nations, and for establishing his majesty’s throne to all ages and generations.
                 
                In addition, the covenant was binding upon the posterity of those who swore it.  I am descended from covenanters on my father's side of the family who were Presbyterians straight out of the heart of Covenanting country in the lowlands of Scotland.  Both the US and Canada formed part of the dominions of England, whose king had sworn to uphold the SL&C and therefore they were, by extension, bound by this covenant as well.  The fact that they broke away from the rule of England did not end their lawful obligation to this covenant, imho.  This was also certainly the understanding of the many Covenanters who also emigrated to the New World as well. 
                 
                Yours and His,
                Cheryl G.
                ----- Original Message -----
                Sent: Tuesday, February 22, 2005 7:36 AM
                Subject: Re: [Covenanted Reformation] Re: PCA, OPC and other Presbyterian churches


                ----- Original Message -----
                From: "gmw" <raging.calvinist@...>

                > Not in and of itself, necessarily, especially not in a day when the
                > covenants in question are (sadly) long forgotten.  But if a biblically
                > faithful covenant was adopted by a nation and a church, and members of
                > that nation and church refused that covenant (which in essence is a
                > refusal to adhere to and defend the true religion), you have to at
                > least wonder what's up.  Gillespie's quote is in such a context -- the
                > nation and the church swore to defend the Protestant Religion, and
                > some refused and reproached and railed against it.  What else could be
                > thought of such people?

                I obviously wasn't there, but I haven't heard that any railed.
                I was born a Romanist, as I have said.  My family patriarch came from France
                to Holland, then to London to embark on the Fortune in 1621.  My physical
                blood had no part in the Covenants.

                As far as the Church goes, could some of you tell me how the Covenant
                between England, Scotland and the State Church there would be valid a) after
                the governments there abrogated it, and b) in a Land not in fealty to the
                above governments?
                I have never understood how that would work, what that would look like.
                This is an honest question; obviously the RPCNA has no theology about how
                the Solemn League and Covenant would work in the New World.
                It isn't that the Church has declared themselves opposed to the Covenants;
                many in the RPCNA hold them very dear indeed, and wish we *did* have a valid
                American expression of them, complete in every respect but *applicable* to
                the situation here.  That has been the goal of the National Reform
                Association.

                For those not privy to this whole argument, that is the basis for the
                opinions held by the RPNA and its members against the RPCNA, and the
                occasion for their strong feelings about her.  The rest, communion terms,
                method of psalms, names, deacons, etc is window dressing.



                --
                No virus found in this outgoing message.
                Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
                Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 266.3.0 - Release Date: 2/21/2005



              • Edgar A. Ibarra Jr.
                Glenn, ... Actually most church officers would know of the above, seeing that most of them own the edition of the Standards put out by the Free Presbyterian
                Message 7 of 10 , Feb 22, 2005
                • 0 Attachment
                  Glenn,
                  Real quick I will respond to this one statement of yours:

                  >2 They know little of (if they have even heard of) the Westminster
                  >Directory for the Public Worship of God, the Form of Presbyterian
                  >Church Government, National Covenant or Solemn League and Covenant.

                  Actually most church officers would know of the above, seeing that
                  most of them own the edition of the Standards put out by the Free
                  Presbyterian Church which contain all of the above. When I was a
                  member of the 1st OPC in San Francisco and coming to Covenanter
                  convictions, I asked why the OPC did not hold to Ch. 23 of the
                  Confession? Especially since that particular congregation was
                  selling that edition of the Standards to the members. He said that
                  the OPC holds to the American version and that this edition is a
                  good example of what our historical brethren held to, but that it
                  was too Erastian and not Presbyterian enough, whereas the current
                  Standards of the OPC are not Erastian and that the OPC has it's own
                  Form of Church Government, Worship Directory, and Confession that it
                  doesn't need to adopt the ones that the Church of Scotland adopted
                  ages ago. When I pressed for biblical justification, no one could
                  provide them, as to why the old Standard was not defensible
                  Biblically speaking and how the current OPC standards are superior.
                  I ran into the same before this when in the PCA when I became
                  convinced of the Regulative Principle of Worship. Glen, if you
                  believe in Exclusive Psalmody, prepare yourself, when you try to
                  teach it if you enter the OPC, after the honeymoon is over you will
                  be into it and it will not be pleasurably for you nor your wife.
                  The 1st OPC in SF worships only with Psalms but they keep it within
                  themselves and tolerate the idolatry of the rest of the OPC.
                  Reformation within is usually a failed venture, our history has
                  demonstrated this fact in a very sober way.

                  Most do know of the original Standards, most do not want to be held
                  to their accountability or they are persuaded, by years of
                  pluralistic teaching that is the fountain of the US, that as long as
                  we are somewhat on the same page, in this case we are all 5
                  pointers, the rest doesn't really matter.

                  More can be said and I can give you more thought out answers later
                  and I am sure others here will do so as well. (This just happened
                  to be the easier one to answer in a short amount of time).

                  Yours in Christ,

                  Edgar

                  --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, "Glenn Ferrell"
                  <jglennferrell@m...> wrote:
                  > I have no doubt:
                  >
                  > 1. The SL&C continues as binding upon the kingdoms of England,
                  Scotland and Ireland in perpetuity.
                  >
                  > 2. This includes the obligation to support a continuing, settled,
                  Protestant and Presbyterian church in these lands.
                  >
                  > 3) Descendants of those individuals and churches coming from the
                  Church of Scotland have a continuing obligation to preserve and
                  settle the protestant and Presbyterian faith and church in whatever
                  land they live, in other lands through mission efforts.
                  >
                  > However, questions:
                  >
                  > 1. Does this obligate North Americans to support more than the
                  substance and principles of the SL&C, to maintain the faith of
                  Westminster, the Protestant religion and a settled Presbyterian
                  Church, to extirpate Popery and Prelacy, and to promote the
                  cooperation among nations which enter into such a obligation?
                  >
                  > 2. Are North Americans obligated to defend the authority of the
                  British monarch?
                  >
                  > 3. Are we in violation of the covenants if we support the
                  continuing independence of the United States and a republican or non-
                  monarchical form of government here?
                  >
                  > The current situation among many faithful American Presbyterians
                  is:
                  >
                  > 1. They are faithful to the Westminster Standards as they have
                  received and know them. Some prefer the original unamended forms of
                  the Confession. Subscription to the current form of the Confession
                  in say the OPC does not preclude acceptance of the additional items
                  in the original (e.g. the pope being the antichrist, established
                  church).
                  >
                  > 2 They know little of (if they have even heard of) the
                  Westminster Directory for the Public Worship of God, the Form of
                  Presbyterian Church Government, National Covenant or Solemn League
                  and Covenant.
                  >
                  > 3) If they do know of the SL&C, they are unsure of it's continued
                  obligation or whether these obligations continue to them.
                  >
                  > If we are to attain a Reformation and settled Presbyterianism in
                  America, it seems wise to build on what faithful Presbyterianism
                  remains. This means teaching the history, content, meaning and
                  obligation of the Original Confessional standards, the DPWG, FOPG,
                  NC and SL&G, demonstrating their truth from Scripture.
                  >
                  > The RPNA serves a useful purpose in reminding us of all the
                  original attainments of the second Scottish Reformation. Sometimes
                  the impression is given that one must immediately accept all of
                  their positions or be considered apostate. My actual conversations
                  with Covenanters, RPNA folks and reading of this list does not
                  support this impression. I have found most of you gracious in your
                  approach to others and me.
                  >
                  > Just remember, many of those in the RPCNA, OPC, PCA, ARP, etc.
                  want to be faithful to Scripture and the Reformed tradition where
                  ever it leads. We need time to learn and answer the questions I ask
                  above.
                  >
                  > Glenn Ferrell
                  > awaiting approval of a call as pastor to an OP congregation in
                  Idaho
                  >
                  >
                  > ----- Original Message -----
                  > From: Cheryl<mailto:cherylgrenon@l...>
                  > To:
                  covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com<mailto:covenantedreformatio
                  nclub@yahoogroups.com>
                  > Sent: Tuesday, February 22, 2005 10:28 AM
                  > Subject: Re: [Covenanted Reformation] Re: PCA, OPC and other
                  Presbyterian churches
                  >
                  >
                  > Dear Larry,
                  >
                  > Some of my other brothers are more astute and adept at these
                  arguments, but I offer this evidence from the SL&C itself for both
                  the intent of the SL&C and the extent of who it covers:
                  >
                  > "THE Assembly having recommended unto a Committee appointed by
                  them to join with the Committee of the Honourable Convention of
                  Estates, and the Commissioners of the Honourable Houses of the
                  Parliament of England, for bringing the kingdoms to a more near
                  conjunction and union, received from the foresaid Committees the
                  Covenant after mentioned, as the result of their consultations: and
                  having taken the same, as a matter of so publick concernment and so
                  deep importance doth require, unto their gravest consideration, did,
                  with all their hearts, and with the beginnings of the feelings of
                  that joy, which they did find in go great measure upon the
                  renovation of the National Covenant of this kirk and kingdom, All
                  with one voice approve ad embrace the same, as the most powerful
                  mean, by the blessing of GOD, for settling and preserving the true
                  Protestant religion with perfect peace in his Majesty's *dominions,*
                  and propagating the same to other nations, and for establishing his
                  majesty's throne to all ages and generations.
                  >
                  > In addition, the covenant was binding upon the posterity of
                  those who swore it. I am descended from covenanters on my father's
                  side of the family who were Presbyterians straight out of the heart
                  of Covenanting country in the lowlands of Scotland. Both the US and
                  Canada formed part of the dominions of England, whose king had sworn
                  to uphold the SL&C and therefore they were, by extension, bound by
                  this covenant as well. The fact that they broke away from the rule
                  of England did not end their lawful obligation to this covenant,
                  imho. This was also certainly the understanding of the many
                  Covenanters who also emigrated to the New World as well.
                  >
                  > Yours and His,
                  > Cheryl G.
                  > ----- Original Message -----
                  > From: Larry Bump<mailto:lbump@b...>
                  > To:
                  covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com<mailto:covenantedreformatio
                  nclub@yahoogroups.com>
                  > Sent: Tuesday, February 22, 2005 7:36 AM
                  > Subject: Re: [Covenanted Reformation] Re: PCA, OPC and other
                  Presbyterian churches
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > ----- Original Message -----
                  > From: "gmw"
                  <raging.calvinist@v...<mailto:raging.calvinist@v...>>
                  >
                  > > Not in and of itself, necessarily, especially not in a day
                  when the
                  > > covenants in question are (sadly) long forgotten. But if a
                  biblically
                  > > faithful covenant was adopted by a nation and a church, and
                  members of
                  > > that nation and church refused that covenant (which in
                  essence is a
                  > > refusal to adhere to and defend the true religion), you have
                  to at
                  > > least wonder what's up. Gillespie's quote is in such a
                  context -- the
                  > > nation and the church swore to defend the Protestant
                  Religion, and
                  > > some refused and reproached and railed against it. What
                  else could be
                  > > thought of such people?
                  >
                  > I obviously wasn't there, but I haven't heard that any railed.
                  > I was born a Romanist, as I have said. My family patriarch
                  came from France
                  > to Holland, then to London to embark on the Fortune in 1621.
                  My physical
                  > blood had no part in the Covenants.
                  >
                  > As far as the Church goes, could some of you tell me how the
                  Covenant
                  > between England, Scotland and the State Church there would be
                  valid a) after
                  > the governments there abrogated it, and b) in a Land not in
                  fealty to the
                  > above governments?
                  > I have never understood how that would work, what that would
                  look like.
                  > This is an honest question; obviously the RPCNA has no
                  theology about how
                  > the Solemn League and Covenant would work in the New World.
                  > It isn't that the Church has declared themselves opposed to
                  the Covenants;
                  > many in the RPCNA hold them very dear indeed, and wish we
                  *did* have a valid
                  > American expression of them, complete in every respect but
                  *applicable* to
                  > the situation here. That has been the goal of the National
                  Reform
                  > Association.
                  >
                  > For those not privy to this whole argument, that is the basis
                  for the
                  > opinions held by the RPNA and its members against the RPCNA,
                  and the
                  > occasion for their strong feelings about her. The rest,
                  communion terms,
                  > method of psalms, names, deacons, etc is window dressing.
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > --
                  > No virus found in this outgoing message.
                  > Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
                  > Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 266.3.0 - Release Date:
                  2/21/2005
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
                  >
                  <http://us.ard.yahoo.com/SIG=129b5vmqo/M=324658.6070095.7083352.30011
                  76/D=groups/S=1706113926:HM/EXP=1109179931/A=2343726/R=0/SIG=12ie2p0l
                  8/*http://clk.atdmt.com/VON/go/yhxxxvon01900091von/direct/01/&time=11
                  09093531306817>
                  > Get unlimited calls to
                  >
                  > U.S./Canada
                  >
                  >
                  <http://us.ard.yahoo.com/SIG=129b5vmqo/M=324658.6070095.7083352.30011
                  76/D=groups/S=1706113926:HM/EXP=1109179931/A=2343726/R=1/SIG=12ie2p0l
                  8/*http://clk.atdmt.com/VON/go/yhxxxvon01900091von/direct/01/&time=11
                  09093531306817>
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > -------------------------------------------------------------------
                  ---------
                  > Yahoo! Groups Links
                  >
                  > a.. To visit your group on the web, go to:
                  >
                  http://groups.yahoo.com/group/covenantedreformationclub/<http://group
                  s.yahoo.com/group/covenantedreformationclub/>
                  >
                  > b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                  > covenantedreformationclub-
                  unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com<mailto:covenantedreformationclub-
                  unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>
                  >
                  > c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms
                  of Service<http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>.
                • forisraelssake
                  Dear Glenn, I ll try my hand at answering these propositions and questions. ... Scotland and Ireland in perpetuity. ... Protestant and Presbyterian church in
                  Message 8 of 10 , Feb 22, 2005
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Dear Glenn, I'll try my hand at answering these propositions and
                    questions.

                    > I have no doubt:
                    >
                    > 1. The SL&C continues as binding upon the kingdoms of England,
                    Scotland and Ireland in perpetuity.
                    >
                    > 2. This includes the obligation to support a continuing, settled,
                    Protestant and Presbyterian church in these lands.
                    >
                    > 3) Descendants of those individuals and churches coming from the
                    Church of Scotland have a continuing obligation to preserve and settle
                    the protestant and Presbyterian faith and church in whatever land they
                    live, in other lands through mission efforts.
                    >

                    What I understand you to be saying here is that you accept the
                    bindingness of the covenants on the moral 'persons' of the Three
                    Kingdoms, and the moral substance of the covenants remain in force so
                    long as these moral persons exist. I believe you also are saying that
                    the moral substance of covenants are binding on all Presbyterian
                    churches throughout the world, because they all Presbyterian churches
                    descend from the moral person of the Church of Scotland.

                    The Reformed Presbyterian Church teaches that the covenants (which
                    covenant to a very high degree of reformation, to unity with other
                    swearers of the covenants, and to disunity and opposition to the
                    opposers of the covenants) are of continued obligation upon the moral
                    person. A moral person is an individual or corporate body, persisting
                    in time, that can place itself under moral obligations. Corporately,
                    I recognize three valid types of entities that can place itself under
                    covenant-obligation to God (there maybe be others but these three are
                    of particular relevance to the British covenants): the family, the
                    nation, and the church. And of course private persons can covenant
                    with God's privately to their own edification.

                    The Reformed Presbyterian Church is saying that the moral substance of
                    the Solemn League and Covenant is binding on the moral persons of the
                    British and Irish states and churches, British and Irish families and
                    individuals, ***and upon their descendents.***

                    The United States, although now a separate nation, is a daughter
                    legally, politically, nationally of Great Britain. To think as a
                    traducianist, it was *in the moral person of England and Scotland* in
                    1643 when the covenant was subscribed to. The fact that many Americans
                    then and especially now have now English or Scots blood running in
                    them is not germane. It is the American states themselves, and the
                    central government they themselves raised above them in the 18th
                    century that are the politically of the same moral person as the
                    country that they separated from in the late 18th century.

                    A faithful covenant renovation was sworn at Auchensaugh, Scotland,
                    1712, which recognized the perpetual moral obligations of the SL&C on
                    the moral persons that swore to it but adapted the particular local
                    references to the current situation then pertaining.

                    Link to the Auchensaugh renovation of the Solemn League and Covenant:
                    http://www.covenanter.org/RefPres/auchensaugh.htm

                    We do not need to make a new covenant for America and Canada today to
                    put these countries under oath to God, because we are already under
                    covenant. What we need and hope for is a faithful covenant renovation,
                    like what took place at Auchensaugh 1712 to spell out what are
                    _already_ our duties and obligations and to show them forth clearly.

                    > However, questions:
                    >
                    > 1. Does this obligate North Americans to support more than the
                    substance and principles of the SL&C, to maintain the faith of
                    Westminster, the Protestant religion and a settled Presbyterian
                    Church, to extirpate Popery and Prelacy, and to promote the
                    cooperation among nations which enter into such a obligation?
                    >

                    Canada and the fifty American states are qua nation-states under the
                    moral substance of the Solemn League and Covenant and therefore have
                    an obligation to fulfil their covenant obligations.

                    > 2. Are North Americans obligated to defend the authority of the
                    British monarch?
                    >

                    Actually the current line of British royals, from William & Mary in
                    1688 to the present Elizabeth II are unlawful magistrates to which no
                    Covenanter, in Britain, Ireland, or Canada and America, can homologate
                    and honour as their true sovereign. You really should read the
                    Auchensaugh renovation to see this unpacked. Canadians and Americans
                    are obligated by the Covenant to defend the authority of their
                    respective lawful supreme civil magistrates. However, in 2005, neither
                    in fact have lawful supreme magistrates to which fealty is *owed*.

                    > 3. Are we in violation of the covenants if we support the
                    continuing independence of the United States and a republican or
                    non-monarchical form of government here?
                    >

                    No, I don't believe so. 'When in the course of human events' it is
                    sometime appropriate and necessary for one peoples to disassociate
                    itself from another for a variety of lawful reasons.

                    Further, the bible enforces no one model of civil government as being
                    of divine-right, unlike how it does for church government (where
                    Presbyterianism is of course the alone lawful form of eccelessiastical
                    polity).

                    > The current situation among many faithful American Presbyterians is:
                    >
                    > 1. They are faithful to the Westminster Standards as they have
                    received and know them. Some prefer the original unamended forms of
                    the Confession. Subscription to the current form of the Confession in
                    say the OPC does not preclude acceptance of the additional items in
                    the original (e.g. the pope being the antichrist, established church).
                    >

                    Well a few thoughts:
                    1) Those deletions were unlawful and scandalous and is an apostasy or
                    falling away from faithful attainments.
                    2) The modification to the chapter on the Civil Magistrate precludes
                    the true and orthodox position of the Wesminster Confession and
                    imposes on church members the obligation to believe the false and
                    contrary doctrine of the civil magistrate in the American revision.
                    3) Church history is not discrete and isolated but if a denomination
                    was unlawful 25 years ago because of scandalous falling away from
                    faithful attainments, then it continues to be unlawful even to the
                    present if the change was not repented of and revoked. No passage of
                    time can bury the fact that was wrong even if people's standards have
                    fallen.

                    > 2 They know little of (if they have even heard of) the Westminster
                    Directory for the Public Worship of God, the Form of Presbyterian
                    Church Government, National Covenant or Solemn League and Covenant.
                    >

                    Most don't even recognize they are using an ammended Westminster
                    Confession of Faith or in fact believe the original one to be
                    heretical in places. And then we have the fact that exceptions and
                    reservations are allowed to the American WCF, and this can differ from
                    presbytery to presbytery in good standing with each other, so the
                    'bottom line' of required orthodoxy that must be embraced by all is in
                    fact much less than even appears in the American WCF.

                    > 3) If they do know of the SL&C, they are unsure of it's continued
                    obligation or whether these obligations continue to them.
                    >
                    > If we are to attain a Reformation and settled Presbyterianism in
                    America, it seems wise to build on what faithful Presbyterianism
                    remains. This means teaching the history, content, meaning and
                    obligation of the Original Confessional standards, the DPWG, FOPG, NC
                    and SL&G, demonstrating their truth from Scripture.
                    >

                    Sounds like a plan. We have a lot of work to do.

                    > The RPNA serves a useful purpose in reminding us of all the original
                    attainments of the second Scottish Reformation. Sometimes the
                    impression is given that one must immediately accept all of their
                    positions or be considered apostate. My actual conversations with
                    Covenanters, RPNA folks and reading of this list does not support this
                    impression. I have found most of you gracious in your approach to
                    others and me.
                    >
                    > Just remember, many of those in the RPCNA, OPC, PCA, ARP, etc. want
                    to be faithful to Scripture and the Reformed tradition where ever it
                    leads. We need time to learn and answer the questions I ask above.
                    >

                    I recognize that. Time is always given for someone who is still
                    working out in good faith the issues. Yet time cannot be given to
                    active opposer of the truth and those who obstinately oppose it. By
                    doing so, they lamentably mark themselves to the faithful as being
                    enemies of the covenants.


                    > Glenn Ferrell
                    > awaiting approval of a call as pastor to an OP congregation in Idaho
                    >


                    Chris Tylor
                    Montreal,QC
                    RPNA
                  • Jason Robert Schuiling
                    ... Idaho Where in ID, Glenn?
                    Message 9 of 10 , Mar 1, 2005
                    • 0 Attachment
                      > Glenn Ferrell
                      > awaiting approval of a call as pastor to an OP congregation in
                      Idaho


                      Where in ID, Glenn?
                    • Glenn Ferrell
                      Sovereign Redeemer Presbyterian Church (OPC) in Boise has registered me a call as their pastor with their presbytery. Presbytery meets April 22-23; so
                      Message 10 of 10 , Mar 1, 2005
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Sovereign Redeemer Presbyterian Church (OPC) in Boise has "registered" me a call as their pastor with their presbytery.  Presbytery meets April 22-23; so almost two more months to wait.
                         
                        However, we're now living in Meridian, just outside of Boise.
                         
                        Are you in or near Idaho?
                         
                        Glenn
                        ----- Original Message -----
                        Sent: Tuesday, March 01, 2005 2:05 AM
                        Subject: [Covenanted Reformation] Re: PCA, OPC and other Presbyterian churches



                        > Glenn Ferrell
                        > awaiting approval of a call as pastor to an OP congregation in
                        Idaho


                        Where in ID, Glenn?





                        ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
                        What would our lives be like without music, dance, and theater?
                        Donate or volunteer in the arts today at Network for Good!
                        http://us.click.yahoo.com/WwRTUD/SOnJAA/i1hLAA/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/
                         



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