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

RE: [Covenanted Reformation] RE: OPC/FPCS/RPNA & the need to uphold the Covenants

Expand Messages
  • J. Parnell McCarter
    Edgar, so it is your position and that of the RPNA, that there was no descending obligation upon Scotland relating to any of its national covenants previous to
    Message 1 of 2 , Apr 20, 2005
    • 0 Attachment

      Edgar, so it is your position and that of the RPNA, that there was no descending obligation upon Scotland relating to any of its national covenants previous to the National Covenant of 1638?  That seems to be the position you are taking in your quote in blue below.

       

      I would point out that you acknowledge that in the terms of communion of the CofS between 1638-1648 there was no explicit reference to every covenant Scotland had entered into previous to 1638.

       

      - Parnell McCarter

      www.puritans.net

       


      From: covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com [mailto:covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Edgar Ibarra

      2. The FPCS does not *expressly* mention the SLC in her official terms of communion because they carry on the legacy of defection that the Church of Sctoland fell into at the Revolution Settlement, any more that the Church of Scotland in the 1640s put in its terms
      of communion an explicit reference to every covenant Scotland had previously entered into Again, because they were not binding to posterity, except for the National Covenant, which was established before the Westminister Assembly and a Covenant that the GA recognzied as well as the SLC and the Westminister Formularies.


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