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

Reformation continuing at APURITANSMIND.COM

Expand Messages
  • gmw
    *This book was pointed out to me by my buddy Bander. I ve watched from a distance this man s gradual reformation. Gotta like the direction he s going in. As
    Message 1 of 5 , Jun 5, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      *This book was pointed out to me by my buddy Bander. I've watched from a
      distance this man's gradual reformation. Gotta like the direction he's
      going in. As well as adding many articles by Rutherfurd and Gillespie to
      A Puritan's Mind (http://www.apuritansmind.com/MainPage.htm ), and
      apparently coming around on the Pope being Antichrist
      (http://www.apuritansmind.com/ChristianWalk/McMahonPopeJohnPaulIIHell.htm
      ) he's also publishing a re-working of The Covenants and the Covenanters!

      ---*

      */The Covenanted Reformation/*
      Edited by Dr. C. Matthew McMahon

      *Description:* (From the Preface) This volume is a reworking of an older
      book compiled by Reverend James Kerr called “The Covenants and the
      Covenanters.” It was originally published in 19^th century to bring to
      light the covenants of Presbyterianism, or rather, the pact and
      agreement that the Scottish and English Divines agreed upon as the basis
      for worship through England, Ireland and Scotland...Some new material is
      added to create a more complete picture of the desire of the Westminster
      Assembly in their work for a covenanted Reformation. The Covenanters, as
      they are commonly known, are virtually /unknown /to the modern church.
      If only a small portion of their faithfulness to the Word of God should
      brush off upon the ministers and laymen of the church in our day, there
      would be great resolve in upholding the orthodox truths that are housed
      not only for true and holy worship, but in the /Confession/ as well.

      *Printed:* 580 pages, Paperback, perfect-bound.

      *Purchase:* Coming Soon

      ---
      *Keep Dr. McMahon in your prayers!*

      gmw.
    • trygvesson@aol.com
      In a message dated 6/10/2005 5:36:47 PM Eastern Daylight Time, putzfamily@msn.com writes: When you judge this man to be lost when you suggest that he doesn t
      Message 2 of 5 , Jun 10, 2005
      • 0 Attachment
        In a message dated 6/10/2005 5:36:47 PM Eastern Daylight Time, putzfamily@... writes:
        When you judge this man to be lost when you suggest that he doesn't know Christ because his view of Antichrist might be slightly erroneous, you are acting very presumptuously and you should pray that God doesn't judge you by the same standard you're judging him.  If you're anything like me, I'm sure we'd both be cast to hell, too, if we were judged lost for every eschatological error we maintain.

        Don't be haughty.

        Proverbs 18:12, "Before destruction the heart of man is haughty, and before honour is humility."
        Proverbs 27:5, "Open rebuke is better than secret love."

        Your brother in Christ,
        John Putz
        John,
         
        Greetings! Been a lurker here for a while, and I would like to add a comment in light of your post: I appreciate Keith's zeal for the truth as well. Thank you for this above caution and admonition to Keith. I agree, and would also add that such overstatement as Keith has added to what he otherwise has good to say is only ammunition to be used against us when discussing historicism with others.
         
        We should of course stand firm in the truth, and also winsomely present such truth as well where applicable. Even when called upon to present the truth bluntly to those bent upon pugilism towards us, it NEVER adds to our case to add such gross overstatements which ultimately undermine historicism in others consideration.
         
        ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
        Christopher Coombes
        Lynchburg Reformed Presbyterian Fellowship,
        Lynchburg, VA
        Member, Triangle RPC
        RPCNA

                                                                        _
                                                                       / )
                                                     (\__/)         ( (
                                                      )    (           ) )
                                                   ={      }=       //
                                                      )     `-------/ /
                                                     (               /
                                                      \              |
                                                      ,'\       ,    ,'
                                                      `-'\  ,---\   | \
                                                         _) )    `. \ /
                                                        (__/       ) )
                                                                  (_/
      • Benjamin Hart
        John, Thanks for saying to Keith what I wanted to say. You said it way nicer than I would ve. That said... Keith, 3 Questions for you: If it is true to know
        Message 3 of 5 , Jun 11, 2005
        • 0 Attachment
          John,
           
          Thanks for saying to Keith what I wanted to say.  You said it way nicer than I would've.
           
          That said...
           
          Keith,
           
          3 Questions for you: 
           
          If it is true 'to know Christ is to know Anti-Christ' (and other cognate concepts you produced ad nauseum,)
           
          1 - How can there be a being-well being distinction which encompasses the RC Church?  Doesn't this teach that there are true Christians even in 'that Papal whore' ruled over by 'AntiChrist' himself?
           
          2 - How can Christ tell *his* people (covenant language there buddy,) to come out from the beast?  If to know Christ is to know antiChrist, and they are in the seat of the beast, how can they be truly his people.
           
          3 - Did God's old covenant people know antichrist?  Surely some knew Christ; but did those who knew Christ know antichrist?
           
          As an aside - I don't know if you and the gentleman who maintain that website consider yourselves covenanters or not, but either way, I think it's people who have attitudes and hold unncessarily offensive positions (like you do) that turns a lot of people off to us.  To take such a dogmatic stance that comes off arrogant isn't building any bridges but makes you sound like you're pontificating.  Sure the truth is important, but so are the people to whom your bringing it. 
           
          How much interaction do you have with other Christians outside of internet forums?  (just curious)
           
          Pax,
          Ben

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

        • Daniel
          Hi, this is what you wrote: As an aside - I don t know if you and the gentleman who maintain that website consider yourselves covenanters or not, but either
          Message 4 of 5 , Jun 11, 2005
          • 0 Attachment
            Hi, this is what you wrote:

            "As an aside - I don't know if you and the gentleman who maintain
            that website consider yourselves covenanters or not, but either way,
            I think it's people who have attitudes and hold unncessarily
            offensive positions (like you do) that turns a lot of people off to
            us. To take such a dogmatic stance that comes off arrogant isn't
            building any bridges but makes you sound like you're pontificating.
            Sure the truth is important, but so are the people to whom your
            bringing it."

            (end of quote)

            While I really admire Keiths zeal against the Romish Antichrist, I
            agree that since there are different degrees of faithfulness, we
            should recognize that even the Church of Rome has true believers
            (which I don't think keith denies) and that when an erring brother
            comes closer to the truth in any way, we should rejoice (which he
            doesn't deny either). A priciple which even applies to experienced
            pastors (and this is where I differ from him). So I would not take
            Keiths side on this.

            But the comment which I just quoted above in the first paragragh, I
            think, *seems* to have an attitude of, "gee, I hope that a Roman
            Catholic or a liberal is reading this so that they can know that we
            just love them so much even though I am yelling at Keith, my brother
            in Christ because I don't extend the same love towards him, but who
            cares, he's not popular in the world." Well, don't you want to win
            Kieth over to your position as well? I say this with all respect to
            you, but this comment reflects hypocracy. It is only a false humility
            because it brings across the idea that we can yell at true
            protestants who stand up for the truth and may err a little but never
            at papists or liberals who worship Satan.

            I know that this sounds like nit picking but I AM TIRED
            OF "CONSERVATIVES" WHO MAKE IT SO MUCH A PRIORITY TO SUCK UP TO OUR
            OPPONANTS THAT THEY ARE EVEN WILLING TO, AND EVEN SEEM TO DELIGHT IN,
            MAKING FUN OF OTHER CONSERVATIVES SO THAT LIBERALS WILL ACCEPT THEM.
            I just graduated from Gordon College, a so called Evangelical college
            which has done this for a long time and do you know what? They not
            only make fun of conservative protestants and encourage liberals but
            this has resulted in them actually now ambracing ecumenism, feminism,
            liberal positions on scripture (in some cases), the pope and so forth.

            Also, why is Keith arrogant? He is not saying that it is true because
            he by his own working, without God, some how discovered these things.
            He is merely saying what he believes God has by his grace, revealed
            it to him. When you tell someone as Peter did to Simeon that they
            are "not right with God," are you being arogant? Of course not, so
            neither is Keith. The proper way to refute Keith is not to resort to
            this illogical name calling.

            On the other hand, I totally disagree with Keith and think that he
            has shown no scriptural basis for why the line for a pastor is that
            strict. I agree that it is stricter than that for a lay man but I
            can't see why McMahon is really that bad especially since he hates
            Romanism so much! And even when pastors are not believeing in all the
            doctrines which would constitute "sound doctrine to exhort and to
            refute the gainsayer," I wouldn't even say they are neccesarilly
            wolves either, whose purpose it is to bring people away from the
            gospel (and thereby bring them to hell). McMahon isn't doing that. So
            while McMahon is wrong, he isn't a wolve, in the same way that you,
            Keith, are NOT a wolve for teaching that he is one.

            It might feel good to stand up for our opponents but I assure you,
            it's a sin. And I agree that these types of illogical comments like
            many of those made against Keith are effeminate and bring across the
            idea that they are more out of rage than out of true conviction and
            THAT will be the thing that hinders the reformed witness.

            In Christ,

            Daniel Drost
          • Ben Hart
            Daniel, ... Seemings are just that - seemings; that wasn t the intent. No need to worry. I don t see any profit in addressing the rest of your post. Perhaps
            Message 5 of 5 , Jun 12, 2005
            • 0 Attachment
              Daniel,

              > But the comment which I just quoted above in the first paragragh, I
              > think, *seems* to have an attitude of, "gee, I hope that a Roman
              > Catholic or a liberal is reading this so that they can know that we
              > just love them so much even though I am yelling at Keith, my brother
              > in Christ because I don't extend the same love towards him, but who
              > cares, he's not popular in the world."

              Seemings are just that - seemings; that wasn't the intent. No need to
              worry.

              I don't see any profit in addressing the rest of your post. Perhaps
              we can move on to something more edifying and pick this conversation
              up some other time.

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