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

Re: [Covenanted Reformation] Even Answers.com dictionary concurs

Expand Messages
  • Parnell McCarter
    Cheryl, the Sanquhar Declaration states: ...we, being under the standard of our Lord Jesus Christ, Captain of Salvation, do declare a war with such a tyrant
    Message 1 of 4 , Oct 22, 2005
      Cheryl, the Sanquhar Declaration states:
       
      "...we, being under the standard of our Lord Jesus Christ, Captain of Salvation, do declare a war with such a tyrant and usurper, and all the men of his practices, as enemies to our Lord Jesus Christ, and His cause and covenants; and against all such as have strengthened him, sided with, or anywise acknowledged him in his tyranny, civil or ecclesiastic..."
       
      But the WCF states:
       
      "...It is the duty of the people to pray for magistrates, to honor their persons, to pay them tribute and other dues, to obey their lawful commands, and to be subject to their authority, for conscience' sake. Infidelity, or difference in religion, doth not make void the magistrate's just and legal authority, nor free the people from their obedience to him: from which ecclesiastical persons are not exempted..."
       
      [12] 1PE 2:13 Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake: whether it be to the king, as supreme; 14 Or unto governors, as unto them that are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers, and for the praise of them that do well.
       
      (Peter was writing when ruled over even by wicked men.)
       
      I might add, by the logic of the Sanquhar Declaration, American Christians should also declare war on President George W. Bush, for he is a wicked and religiously unfaithful magistrate like Charles II.  Have you declared war on him?  Why not post public notices saying that you have declared war on him?
       
      The reason I do not is because I think such would violate the Word of God. 
       
      That is very different from praying that God would either cause President George W. Bush to repent or else to urge the Congress to impeach him.  The Congress/Parliament has legal right to impeach presidents/kings, but not so the citizenry, including "ecclesiastical persons".   Cameron should have simply urged Parliament to impeach Charles II, but not himself declare war on the unimpeached King Charles II.
       
      But as I have said before, this issue lies at the heart of the difference between the Cameronian dissenters, and the main body of the historic CofS.
       
      - Parnell McCarter
       
       
       
       
      ----- Original Message -----
      Sent: Saturday, October 22, 2005 1:13 PM
      Subject: Re: [Covenanted Reformation] Even Answers.com dictionary concurs

      Dear Parnell,
       
      What about the instance of the priest Jehoiada who rescued one of Athalia's grandsons from her slaughter and later had her deposed and her grandson placed on the throne instead?  What of prophets sent to rebuke kings?  From what you say below, neither of these actions are legitimate examples of political protest.  Or perhaps I am misunderstanding you?
       
      I have just read over the Sanquhar Declaration, and Richard Cameron denounced King Charles II as one who broke the vows the gave him access to the throne and therefore was no longer eligible, but I don't see where he claimed to be acting on behalf of the entire church.  It appears to me that he was just pointing out to others the facts of the case and calling others to act on the information as well.   If a king gains a throne based on the promise to do such and so, and then violates those terms upon assuming office, do the people who gave it to him not have a right to remove him?
       
      In our own case, since we live under governmental institutions that are supposed to be representative in nature, it doesn't appear to me to be a contradiction of Presbyterian principles nor prohibited that private citizens, or even a members of a church body,  may ask their representatives to impeach a president who violates the terms of his office.
       
      Would you be so kind as to explain how the above Scriptural examples are contrary to what Richard Cameron did?
       
      Sincerely,
      Cheryl Grenon
      RPNA Society of Prince George 
       
       
      ----- Original Message -----
      Sent: Friday, October 14, 2005 5:58 AM
      Subject: Re: [Covenanted Reformation] Even Answers.com dictionary concurs

      Quoting Edgar Ibarra <puritanpresbyterian@...>:

      > in 1680 the more extreme members of
      > the party signed a document known as the "Sanquhar Declaration," and were
      > afterwards called Cameronians from the name of their leader, Richard Cameron.


      Richard Cameron did err in the Sanquhar Declaration.  Its Cameronian political
      philosophy is contrary to the political philosophy taught in the WCF, and more
      importantly in scripture.  The Parliament/Congress, and *not* the Church, has
      the power to pronounce a king/president illegitimate.  (Nor can the Church enact
      and enforce civil law, for it is outside its ordained sphere of authority.)

      Hence, President George W. Bush is the legitimate president of the USA until
      such time as the Congress impeaches him, even though he be a wicked magistrate
      who refuses to uphold and enforce both tables of the Ten Commandments. (BTW- he
      and the people are ill served by churches which deny the Establishment
      Principle)

      This issue is the central issue in the divide between Cameronian dissenters and
      the mainstream established CofS of the Revolution Settlement which fully
      subscribed to the WCF.


      - Parnell McCarter
      Seek member in FPCS
      Attender, ARP of GR
      GR, MI
      www.puritans.net


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