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

Re: [Covenanted Reformation] Foreign Jurisdiction

Expand Messages
  • Whit
    How would you explain that in the context of the UK Parliament, of which is 2 houses: the Commons and the Lords? The Commons make Bills and pass laws (having
    Message 1 of 57 , Aug 11, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      How would you explain that in the context of the UK Parliament, of
      which is 2 houses: the Commons and the Lords? The Commons make
      Bills and pass laws (having the Royal Assent from the Queen). Since
      the 1600's, Bills written by the Commons to raise taxes and make an
      expenditure cannot be amended by the Lords. The Lords reviews and
      revise Bills and all others laws yet are still part of Parlianment
      (in addition to being the UK "Supreme Court", the final court of
      Appeal). However, if the Lords stop a Bill, it may be proposed
      again in Commons, and the Commons may pass it without the Lord's
      review or consent. (REF: "House of Lords Briefing", 2003, UK
      Parliament: House of Lords)

      Whit

      --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, "Fred blahous"
      <fritzbau@y...> wrote:
      > Parliaments are neither sovereign, nor legislative bodies. They
      > merely propose legislation for parliament. Then it is reviewed by
      > the Lords, then it requires the assent and publication by the
      > executive power. Once this has taken place, then there is a law.
      > Parliament is merely an advisory body. It has no power to make
      laws.
      > It only proposes the laws. The reason for opposing Charles I
      > attempts to get out of the Covenants was because he had already
      > given Royal Assent to the acts and published them as acts to be
      > observed forever. If he had objected when they were merely being
      > debated, then they could have been set aside temporarily as non-
      > binding and discussed further. Instead, he gave his approbation,
      and
      > then sought to withdraw it afterwards. If this had been allowed,
      it
      > would have made a mockery of his own government, strengthened his
      > enemies who sought to assassinate him to bring back popery, and
      > involved the whole United Kingdom in covenant breaking and brought
      > the wrath of God upon all of the Kingdoms and dominions. When the
      > covenants where buried, ano 1690, this is what happened to us, and
      > is the reason for all miseries that have resulted since. The point
      > is, that no legislative body has sovereign power to make laws,
      only
      > propose them.
      >
      > All the best,
      > Fred.
      >
      > --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, "Edgar A. Ibarra
      > Jr." <puritanpresbyterian@y...> wrote:
      > > > That matter is little understood; but is *vital* to understand
      > the
      > > > actions taken by godly men. They did not leave it undone, it
      > was
      > > just
      > > > done by the States, not the Feds.
      > > >
      > > > Larry
      > >
      > > Hence the War of Northern Aggression or the Civil War, which
      ever
      > > one prefers...
      > >
      > > It was, I believe, States rights (the South) vs. a Central govt
      > (the
      > > Union)intruding upon those rights that States had via the U.S.
      > > Constitution.
      > >
      > > Is that your thought as well Larry? That is how I pretty much
      sum
      > > it up...slavery was a secondary issue, that even Lincoln told
      > > Douglas, in their debate before the war, that he would not
      > abolish.
      > > A political tool, that sadly enough was one of the evil
      > > manisfestations of this country's refusal to abide by the Word
      of
      > > God that condemns the the form of slavery that this nation used.
      > >
      > > Edgar
      > >
      > > --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, Larry Bump
      > > <lbump@b...> wrote:
      > > > jparnellm@u... wrote:
      > > >
      > > > >>That happened in 1789, not 1776. The articles of
      Confederation
      > > were
      > > > >>between Sovereign, Christian States. The Constitution made
      it
      > a
      > > > >>Republic, and denied the test oath. But even that wasn't
      anti-
      > > (or
      > > > >>non-) Christian, since it didn't apply to the several States
      > > until
      > > > >>after 1865. The "no religious test" clause was to prevent
      > > > >>discrimination against a particular State's established
      > > > >>denomination. Not to enshrine a secular humanism as the
      > > established
      > > > >>church.
      > > > >>-Larry
      > > > >>
      > > > >>
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > >Several thoughts:
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > >
      > > > >2. When one joins with infidels and heretics in a political
      > > party/movement, one
      > > > >should not be surprised when the results are not religiously
      > > sound.
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > I'll give you that. I am on record in Synod for a similar
      point.
      > > >
      > > > >3. It is the duty of *every* govt to be professedly
      Protestant
      > > and to nurse the
      > > > >true church. The Continental Congress was neither
      professedly
      > > Protestant nor
      > > > >was properly constituted to nurse the true church.
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > The C.C. was NOT the Sovereign Government with this authority,
      > > this
      > > > authority resided in the States (as it always had, even under
      > the
      > > King)
      > > > Most of those governments *were* proffessedly Christian, and
      > > remained so
      > > > until the Supreme Court usurped the power to force an
      impossible
      > > neutrality.
      > > >
      > > > The CC was *NOT* the overarching sovereign government. It was
      a
      > > looser
      > > > confederation than even the EU today.
      > > >
      > > > >4. No govt is religiously neutral. By establishing a govt
      in
      > > 1776 which was
      > > > >not reformed Protestant, it was effectively anti-reformed
      > > Protestant, as is the
      > > > >current US federal govt.
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > You still ask the CC and Articles to establish something that
      > was
      > > not in
      > > > its power or authority. That matter rested with the
      individual
      > > states.
      > > >
      > > > That matter is little understood; but is *vital* to understand
      > the
      > > > actions taken by godly men. They did not leave it undone, it
      > was
      > > just
      > > > done by the States, not the Feds.
      > > >
      > > > Larry
    • 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.