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

PCEA (was Re: [Covenanted Reformation] Re: Christian greetings from Australia

Expand Messages
  • jparnellm@usxchange.net
    Mr. Winzer, how does the PCEA differ from the FPCS (Free Pres Church of Scotland)? How does it differ from the Free Church Contg? I am curious why it has
    Message 1 of 4 , Jul 6, 2005
      Mr. Winzer, how does the PCEA differ from the FPCS (Free Pres Church of
      Scotland)? How does it differ from the Free Church Contg?

      I am curious why it has chosen to be separate from each of these church bodies,
      which also I believe have congregations in Australia.

      - Parnell McCarter


      Quoting Matthew Winzer <mwinzer@...>:

      > Hello Fred,
      >
      > It is not the Paisley group. The AFC resulted when the PCEA disciplined a
      > minister for resisting modern versions in the early 80s. We would be close
      > to the Free Church (Continuing).
      >
      > I accept that covenants bind lineal descendants, but in the event of
      > revolutions, I find it inapplicable. Certainly those involved in the initial
      > revolution are guilty of backsliding, rebellion, malignity, etc. But from
      > that time on, descendants inherit a new constitution. If it were otherwise
      > we would have to involve ourselves in endless genalogical inquiries. I would
      > have to find out if the Culdees, etc., bound us to certain obligations as a
      > church descended from Scotland. Where would it end?
      >
      > Concerning the changing of the national covenant of Scotland, and the SL&C
      > for the three kingdoms: if it needs changing in order to take in different
      > situations, then it cannot be applicable; if it is inapplicable it must be
      > non-binding. This is the same difficulty that I have with the practice of
      > neo-covenanters; they do not subscribe the original documents. Their changes
      > are essentially what, in the post-revolution church, would have required a
      > declaratory statement by means of the Barrier Act. At which point each
      > individual may legitimately ask the question: it is one thing to acknowledge
      > that I am bound to the original covenants, but how can I be bound to
      > subsequent changes? And again, where would it end?
      >
      > The best method, in my humble opinion, is to simply adopt the covenants in
      > their original form into the constitution of the church.
      >
      > Yours sincerely,
      > Matthew Winzer
      >
      >
      > ----- Original Message -----
      > From: Fred blahous
      > To: covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com
      > Sent: Tuesday, July 05, 2005 10:51 PM
      > Subject: [Covenanted Reformation] Re: Christian greetings from Australia
      >
      >
      > G'day Mathew.
      >
      > I didn't know there was a Free Church down under. Is that Paisley's
      > group or the FPCOS? Just curious.
      >
      > As regards lineal binding, if we were settled by British, then our
      > commonwealth clearly inherits the obligations of the mother country
      > as do Rhodesians, Kiwis, Canadians, Americans,etc. Aborigines
      > obviously are not bound, since they are not our kin, but surely if
      > Britian establishes a colony, all acts of the mother country would
      > be transferred over, and since William did not have legal authority
      > to reject the bond of a covenant Britain swore with God, the
      > obligations would transfer over to any subsequent settlements, even
      > if our own country has not formally adopted them upon independence.
      >
      > I don't believe we could simply apply the existing covenants as
      > written to Europe, as you rightly point out, but we could modify the
      > SL&C as a multinational alliance of protestant kingdoms to take on
      > the pope's United Nations by simply transferring its British
      > references to Europe as a whole, and add other continents and
      > countries into the document as they sign on. (Hopefully Israel, for
      > instance). The National Covenant could change the name Scotland to
      > whatever the country be as a National standard for each kingdom. If
      > the country be a Republic, it would only need to crown a king, and
      > if there be no native noble class (as here), the king could simply
      > knight suitable people to establish one. The conversion of each
      > kingdom's inhabitants, once covenanted to, could take place by
      > granting a temporal accommodation until each objecters concerns and
      > disagreements were dealt with individually, and non-believers could
      > be required to attend conversionist sermons and receive a token from
      > the minister each week which they would have to present to continue
      > to live amongst us. (At least until the preaching bears fruit in
      > there hearts.) This is what I had in mind.
      >
      > All the best to you,
      > Fred.
      >
      >
      > --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, "Matthew Winzer"
      > <mwinzer@p...> wrote:
      > > Hi Fred,
      > > I am in Burnie, Tassie; a minister of the Australian Free Church
      > here.
      > > I do not know anybody today who has personally sworn the
      > covenants. You are a covenanter if you believe the covenants are
      > binding and endeavour to faithfully follow out its great principles
      > as God's grace enables.
      > > I do not personally believe that Australia as a nation or a church
      > is bound lineally by the covenants, given that our's is an
      > individual constitution that has started from scratch as it were.
      > Therefore, as John Brown (Wamphray) says (this is a paraphrase): we
      > must bear with certain failures in a reforming church, because they
      > are not defections from previous attainments.
      > > Having said that, the PCA is certainly a defecting church so far
      > as their history is concerned, having introduced many doctrines and
      > practices that are contrary to their once avowed confession.
      > > Regarding European Christendom, the covenants were never framed
      > for that situation, and correspondence between the covenanters and
      > the continent indicate that they hoped a *new* covenantal bind would
      > tie them together in the fight for the crown rights of the Redeemer.
      > >
      > >
      > > Yours sincerely,
      > > Matthew Winzer
      > > ----- Original Message -----
      > > From: Fred blahous
      > > To: covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com
      > > Sent: Saturday, July 02, 2005 2:20 AM
      > > Subject: [Covenanted Reformation] Re: Christian greetings from
      > Australia
      > >
      > >
      > > I am an Aussie too, albeit a Queenslander first. I live over in
      > Chapel
      > > Hill on the north side of Brisbane and attend the University of
      > > Queensland (BofA- Double English major). I write novels and
      > short
      > > stories (particularly in the horror field) and specialise in
      > Central
      > > European history of the 15-1600's. I currently worship at the
      > Brisbane
      > > City Presbyterian church of Dr F N Lee, but unlike our PCA, have
      > been
      > > convinced of the need to personally swear the covenants.
      > > Unfortunately, there is nothing like an RPNA or RPCNA
      > congregation to
      > > worship at near where I live, so the squables between Brother
      > Larry
      > > and Brother Walter seem kind of academic to me. I disagree with
      > > Brother Larry's belief that the old covenants are dead, but
      > would be
      > > happy to attend a church like his. Dr Lee was in the old RPCES
      > in the
      > > American South back in his early days, and believes in
      > principles of
      > > social covenanting but not the actual British covenants. Even
      > that
      > > principle is a minority position in Australian Presbyterianism.
      > We are
      > > a long way from the restoration of a covenanted Pan-British King
      > as
      > > head of state either here in the commonwealth or in the three
      > > kingdoms. But so was John Knox back in 1520's Romish Scotland,
      > and
      > > that changed very quickly. I hope the same will happen again
      > soon, and
      > > that European Christiandom as a whole will swear to the
      > Reformation
      > > and sign on to the old covenants as seperate kingdoms, and that
      > the
      > > Jews will be converted, the throne of Papal Anti-Christ
      > overthrown and
      > > the gospel age begin.
      > >
      > > All the best to you,
      > > Fred.
      > >
      > > --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, "Matthew
      > Winzer"
      > > <mwinzer@p...> wrote:
      > > > Christian greetings from Australia.
      > > >
      > > > Are there any fellow Aussies here.
      > > >
      > > > Yours sincerely,
      > > > Matthew Winzer
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > > -------------------------------------------------------------------
      > -----------
      > > YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
      > >
      > > a.. Visit your group "covenantedreformationclub" on the web.
      > >
      > > b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
      > > covenantedreformationclub-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
      > >
      > > c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms
      > of Service.
      > >
      > >
      > > -------------------------------------------------------------------
      > -----------
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      > YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
      >
      > a.. Visit your group "covenantedreformationclub" on the web.
      >
      > b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
      > covenantedreformationclub-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
      >
      > c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
      >
      >
      >
      >
      ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      >
      >
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.