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

Re: [Covenanted Reformation] Foreign Jurisdiction

Expand Messages
  • Whit
    Indeed true!. Very good point as Psalms, Isaiah, and the other books have warnings and exhortations to kiss the Son lest he be angry , the Kings shall be
    Message 1 of 57 , Aug 11, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      Indeed true!. Very good point as Psalms, Isaiah, and the other
      books have warnings and exhortations to "kiss the Son lest he be
      angry", "the Kings shall be thy nursing fathers", etc.

      Whit

      --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, "Fred blahous"
      <fritzbau@y...> wrote:
      > Nations are under obligation to establish Presbyterianism because
      it
      > is the true religion required in God's Word, with or without a
      > covenant to do so. God did not tell us that "nations have no
      > obligation to Presbyterianism" in Acts 15, did he? And I repeat,
      > what was stopping them from simply not including non-Presbyterian
      > states in their compacts? There is no call for war, certainly, but
      > this does not mean they can form a compact with idolators. Just my
      > thoughts.
      >
      > All the best,
      > Fred.
      >
      > --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, Larry Bump
      > <lbump@b...> wrote:
      > > Shawn Anderson wrote:
      > >
      > > >"to prevent discrimination against a particular State's
      > > >established denomination"
      > > >
      > > >Is not even this idea Anti-Christian as well as Anti-
      Presbyterian?
      > > >
      > > >
      > > No, it's not. How can that be said?
      > > Virginia was not under any Covenant except her Constitution, nor
      > was New
      > > Hampshire. Neither had a prior obligation to be Presbyterian,
      > > congregational, or Anglican. Both were equally sovereign. How
      > should
      > > the issue be resolved? By not involving either state in the
      > matters of
      > > the other; i.e. as it was by aknowledging the sovereignty of
      > either state.
      > >
      > > Sure, it's no-Presbyterian. But so were some of the States. We
      > did not
      > > need a war to force Presbyterianism on the other states, now did
      > we?
      > > That's not how the Kingdom is built.
      > >
      > > You are blinded by your pre-suppositions. The states were
      > sovereign,
      > > the Feds had no jurisdiction, and their was no previous
      obligation
      > to
      > > Presbyterianism or other denomination. The States were mostly
      > founded
      > > with an Established Church, which varied by State. The SL&C had
      > never
      > > been applied, nor required; so the denominational landscape was
      > very
      > > different than in the Three Kingdoms.
    • Fred blahous
      Thanks, Whit. Won t it be great when we see all the other kingdoms establishing the same unified religion, and abolishing both Popery and the Eastern
      Message 57 of 57 , Aug 13, 2005
      • 0 Attachment
        Thanks, Whit.

        Won't it be great when we see all the other kingdoms establishing
        the same unified religion, and abolishing both Popery and the
        Eastern anti-filioque religion in Russia and Serbia? Then we will
        finally be rid of church divisions and the so-called "three great
        traditions" nonsense, bandied about so much.

        All the best,
        Fred.

        --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, "Whit"
        <covie_pres.1646@v...> wrote:
        > Indeed true!. Very good point as Psalms, Isaiah, and the other
        > books have warnings and exhortations to "kiss the Son lest he be
        > angry", "the Kings shall be thy nursing fathers", etc.
        >
        > Whit
        >
        > --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, "Fred blahous"
        > <fritzbau@y...> wrote:
        > > Nations are under obligation to establish Presbyterianism
        because
        > it
        > > is the true religion required in God's Word, with or without a
        > > covenant to do so. God did not tell us that "nations have no
        > > obligation to Presbyterianism" in Acts 15, did he? And I repeat,
        > > what was stopping them from simply not including non-
        Presbyterian
        > > states in their compacts? There is no call for war, certainly,
        but
        > > this does not mean they can form a compact with idolators. Just
        my
        > > thoughts.
        > >
        > > All the best,
        > > Fred.
        > >
        > > --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, Larry Bump
        > > <lbump@b...> wrote:
        > > > Shawn Anderson wrote:
        > > >
        > > > >"to prevent discrimination against a particular State's
        > > > >established denomination"
        > > > >
        > > > >Is not even this idea Anti-Christian as well as Anti-
        > Presbyterian?
        > > > >
        > > > >
        > > > No, it's not. How can that be said?
        > > > Virginia was not under any Covenant except her Constitution,
        nor
        > > was New
        > > > Hampshire. Neither had a prior obligation to be Presbyterian,
        > > > congregational, or Anglican. Both were equally sovereign.
        How
        > > should
        > > > the issue be resolved? By not involving either state in the
        > > matters of
        > > > the other; i.e. as it was by aknowledging the sovereignty of
        > > either state.
        > > >
        > > > Sure, it's no-Presbyterian. But so were some of the States.
        We
        > > did not
        > > > need a war to force Presbyterianism on the other states, now
        did
        > > we?
        > > > That's not how the Kingdom is built.
        > > >
        > > > You are blinded by your pre-suppositions. The states were
        > > sovereign,
        > > > the Feds had no jurisdiction, and their was no previous
        > obligation
        > > to
        > > > Presbyterianism or other denomination. The States were mostly
        > > founded
        > > > with an Established Church, which varied by State. The SL&C
        had
        > > never
        > > > been applied, nor required; so the denominational landscape
        was
        > > very
        > > > different than in the Three Kingdoms.
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.