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

Re: Steelites

Expand Messages
  • Edgar A. Ibarra Jr.
    ¡Bienvienido Hermano! The term Steelites was given to the Covenanters that continue to adhere to the entire Second Reformation of 1638-1649 (inclusive) and
    Message 1 of 11 , Nov 5 11:04 PM
      ¡Bienvienido Hermano!

      The term "Steelites" was given to the Covenanters that continue
      to adhere to the entire Second Reformation of 1638-1649 (inclusive)
      and to the faithful Covenanters during the "Killing Times" of 1660-
      1688, of today. The few Covenanters that were left at the
      Revolution of King William of Orange, refused to join the re-
      established Church of Scotland, since it was re-established on the
      King's terms and not on the terms of the Church. In 1650, when King
      Charles II assumed the throne to Scotland, England, & Ireland, he
      swore that he would uphold the Solemn League and Covenant and that
      he would punish any who sought to overturn it. His taking the
      throne to be King was dependant upon his faithfulness to the Solemn
      League and Covenant. He swore that he would maintain it and to
      break it meant he no longer could sit as King. Well, he broke it
      and unleashed a brutal persecution against any that stood in his
      way. King James II, his Papist brother, continued it. Richard
      Cameron and other faithful Covenanters resisted the King and
      continued to worship God as He had commanded and refused to go along
      with the King's usurpation. The civil magistrates became ruthless
      tyrants and used all means necessary (torturing the laypeople, taxes
      (also known as the cess), confiscation of property, imprisonment,
      rape of women, and murder) to hunt down and kill the ministers of
      Christ that still held the Covenants. King Charles passed the Acts
      Recissory stating that the Covenants were "seditious, treasonable,
      and against his crown, the very covenant he had sworn to uphold, the
      very covenant that defined him as a lawful civil magistrate and
      allowed him to be lawfully on the throne. At the Revolution
      Settlement, King William did not rescind the Acts Recessiory and he
      set up the Church of Scotland on his terms. Only the Westminster
      Confession of Faith was allowed to be the standard of the church
      without allowance of the others. When he and parliament (most of
      who were part of the persecution) had laid out how the Church of
      Scotland was to be restored, he called a GA the following year and
      told them how they were to be structured.

      The few remaining Covenanters protested and would not join the
      vast majority of already sold out/indulged ministers (these were
      those that made compromises to King Charles & King James to spare
      their lives, in exchange they had to submit to the Bishops and state
      that the Covenants were treasonable and they held no allegiance to
      them, among other things). When 3 ministers from the Covenanters
      tried to persuade the other ministers to press the King to rescind
      the Acts Recissory and renew the Solemn League and Covenant and make
      the Standards the charter of the Church as it was during 1638-1649,
      the 3 were rebuked and scolded. The 3 submitted and joined the
      Revolution Church and the most prolonged division in Presbyterian
      history began. That being the Covenanters, that remained faithful
      to the Church of Scotland and the Westminster Standards of 1638-1649
      vs. the Revolution Church, which was a brand new Presbyterian church
      with her own new constitution and charter.

      All but two Presbyterian churches in the United States descend
      from this Revolution Settlement Church (In Europe it is a similar
      situation). The two that do not are the Reformed Presbyterian
      Church of North America (RPCNA) and the Reformed Presbytery of North
      America (RPNA).

      Here is where we get to the heart of your question. The RPCNA
      held to the Covenanters' testimony until they changed their
      constitution in the mid-1800's and no longer held that the Solemn
      League & Covenant was binding upon the United States of America,
      although I am not sure if they still believe it is on the United
      Kingdom. They also adopted other items that were contrary to the
      Standards of Westminster and further broke their Covenanted oath.
      They continue to believe in the ordinance of Covenanting, so
      therefore they call themselves Covenanters because of that, but they
      do not hold to what the original Covenanters held to. During this
      defection of the RPCNA, one of their ministers along with some other
      Church Officers protested this defection. When there was no desire
      on the part of the Synod to repent of their Covenant breaking, they
      left the RPCNA to continue the faithful Covenanted Church and formed
      the Reformed Presbytery of North America (RPNA). The leading person
      was David Steele. These officers sought to maintain the Covenanted
      Testimony and to continue to uphold the Covenanted Reformation
      against all defection and back-sliding.

      So, when the Puritan Reformed Church in Edmonton rediscovered
      these Covenanted truths and decided to adopt them and thereby return
      to the faithful paths of true Biblical Presbyterianism they repented
      of their participation as a Church of being part of the schism of
      the Revolution Church/Settlement and of having backslidden from the
      Covenanted Second Reformation (1638-1649) and having adopted
      doctrines contrary to the Covenanted Second Reformation Church.
      Many decried them and wrote extensive papers against these Elders
      and were named "Steelites" by their opponents for being followers of
      David Steele. Many attributing the doctrinal distinctives as novel
      and made up by David Steele. Only a very few of our opponents
      recognize that we are Camerionian Covenanters, i.e. those who hold
      still that the Solemn League and Covenant is binding upon the UK,
      USA, Canada, and Australia (all of these being offspring of UK and
      since the Solemn League & Covenant bound all of her posterity, so
      then these nations are so bound). I have all of this (the Standards
      of Westminster) translated into Spanish: www.espanol.albanycrpc.org

      I am a member of the RPNA and live in Albany NY. Our doctrine is
      NOT new as even a brief glance of history pre-1700's will most
      readily demonstrate. The main problem in Presbyterianism today is
      the rampant mindset of American pluralism and toleration of other
      religions. This is most visible in the revision of the Westminster
      Standards in 1782, of ch. 23. In there it is not Presbyterianism
      that is of divine right and to be the only recognized Church form of
      government in the Country nor the Westminster doctrines either, per
      se. Instead the new revision states that the government will
      acknowledge ALL Christian denominations and protect them all. Now
      the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, the Presbyterian Church in
      America, and another (I cannot recall which) are the larger of the
      Presbyterian Churches that hold to this. Most of the smaller
      Presbyterian churches do not, including the RPNA, RPCNA, the PRC,
      and other smaller ones. Although they are all offspring of the
      Revolution Church (Except the RPCNA & RPNA).

      The RPNA seeks to promote unity in the body of Christ WITHOUT
      compromising the Covenanted Reformation Attainments of 1638-1649.
      The Church of then achieved a Covenanted Uniformity of religion
      wherein all in the 3 kingdoms were of One Doctrine, One Worship, One
      Government, and One Discipline and based on the Solemn League and
      Covenant, which Covenant was in keeping with the Holy Scriptures.
      Sure not ALL in the UK did join in this unity, but it was the brief
      reality and fulfillment of John 17. This Covenant was promoted and
      upheld by all the Westminster Divines, including the Scottish
      Comissioners: Alexander Henderson, George Gillespie, Samuel
      Rutherford & etc. One of the English Covenanters that is well
      known, Christopher Love died in prison under Oliver Cromwell,
      because he refused to renounce the Covenant. The King was about to
      martyr Samuel Rutherford for the same, but God took him a few days
      before the King could kill him.

      It is a hard stand for us to be separated from our brethren at
      this time, but we believe, as did the Covenanters of old that
      loyalty to God and His Truth is to be valued and upheld above calls
      to compromise for the sake of a shaky and covenant breaking unity
      NOT based on that maintaince of Truth, even if it means a low-
      intensity persecution or ridiculing on the part of fellow brethren.
      The Covenanters during the "Killing Times" suffered more from fellow
      Indulged Presbyterians than by the ravenous King and his murderous
      soldiers.

      Below are links to historical works written by ministers. The
      first two are written by ministers of the Reformed Presbyterian
      Church of Scotland, the sister church to the RPCNA, back in the
      1800's. The first is brief summary of the history and rise of the
      Reformed Presbyterians (another term used to describe Covenanters)
      and the second outlines the reality of the Revolution Settlement and
      what it brought about. The third is a work written by Covenanters
      in 1806 and what they stood for and why they remained separate (you
      will find that what the RPNA holds to today is exactly what they did
      in 1806 and this PRE-DATES David Steele). The last one is the
      official history from the beginning of the First Reformation up to
      and including the founding of the RPNA under David Steele. It is
      one of the Covenanter's Standards today (I plan to translate this
      late next year or early 2007, if the Lord wills and gives me the
      ability).

      http://www.covenanter.org/RPScotland/Principles/lecture1.htm

      http://www.covenanter.org/RPScotland/Principles/lecture4.htm

      www.covenanter.org/RefPres/shortaccount.htm

      www.gutenberg.org/dirs/1/3/2/0/13200/13200.txt

      Now there is another Covenanter group, which the Moderador of this e-
      group belongs too, but they do not have any Church Officers,
      although we in the RPNA love these brethren very dearly and we are
      friends. Gerry (the Moderator), I count as a friend and fellow
      upholder of the Covenanter Testimony. Why were are not together, I
      rather not touch that here, now. Suffice it to say we are a lot
      closer than many think, IMO. I thought I would just mention that
      however, to be fair that the RPNA are not the only Camerionian
      Covenanters still around.

      I know that my post will generate many upset posts and make re-
      stir debates long debated on this e-group once again. That seems to
      be the legacy of the schism of the Revolution Church that plagues
      the Covenanted Church of Scotland BIBLICALLY established and
      promoted by faithful General Assemblies between 1638-1649, to this
      day. Not until the decendents of the Revolution Church recognize
      their continuing schism and covenant-breaking from the lawfully and
      faithfully established Church, established upon Biblical examples of
      true Covenanted Reformation, and repent of it and rejoin the
      Covenanted Church of Scotland, as we of the RPNA have, will the
      debate end.

      I hope that aids to answer your question. I am sure many more
      will arise, however.

      Hermano, lo siento sí se oye duro mi carta, pero la Verdad sigue
      siendo atacado, y soy firme en mantenerlo. Por otro tema, ¿conoce
      Ud a Ismael Nova? Se comunicó conmigo, pero su correo electrónico
      no fue aceptado cuando le conteste. Sí lo conoce, porque es de
      Colombia y mencionó que es de una iglesia Presbiteriana pequeña,
      como Ud lo mencionó, ¿favor de decirle que me escriba de nuevo?
      También me encantaría tener díagolo con Ud y otros hermanos de
      Colombia. He aquí mí correo personal: PuritanPresbyterian@...

      No offense brethren, I am bilingual and always speak both
      languages. I do not believe in American assimilation nor in keeping
      my language and culture in my house alone and private. I reject
      that part of the Right Wing rubbish (to put it mildly) that comes
      across the talk radio and by other American Nationalists (and I was
      a U.S. Marine for 8 yrs), I know who were the first immigrants here,
      pilgrims.
      Assimilation, HAH!!!


      Yours in Christ Jesus,
      in whom this Darwinian
      separation of peoples
      is null and void,

      Edgar Ibarra
      Communicant Member
      Reformed Presbytery of North America
      Albany, New York


      --- In
      covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, "theophilus_murray"
      <theophilus_murray@y...> wrote:
      >
      > Hello, I am new here. I am from Colombia and I belong to a
      > Presbyterian Church in my country.
      >
      > I would like to know what is the different between the Steelites
      and
      > the other covenanters?
      >
      > Thanks.
      >
    • Edgar Ibarra
      RE: “Steelites” Hermanos de Colombia and Brothers Larry, Chris, et al, I just want to make some clarifications, that I did not in my initial post, (for one
      Message 2 of 11 , Nov 6 8:45 PM

         

        RE: “Steelites”

         

        Hermanos de Colombia and Brothers Larry, Chris, et al,

         

         

            I just want to make some clarifications, that I did not in my initial post, (for one it was very late & two Theophilus had asked what were the differences), to address certain items.

         

            The "Steelites", better termed Camerionian Covenanters (if one needs to label us) and the RPCNA (the generic covenanters, in that they do not recognize the SL&C anymore) agree in a lot of things as it pertains to the Gospel, the Regulative Principle of Worship, Church Government (to a point I guess), and may be a few other things, that fail to come to mind at this moment.  I did not mean to be uncharitable in that post, again, that was a misread of my intentions.  It is a fact that the RPCNA did renounce the Solemn League & Covenant (SL&C) and it is a fact that all maintainers of the Covenant of the past said that to do so was in fact a severe act of covenant-breaking, rebellion against God and His Church by those who were obligated to uphold it, and such. John Brown of Wamphray, the same Covenanter minister that wrote that great book on Reformed Spirituality/Sanctification (that being Christ, the Way, the Truth, and the Life) wrote another book (in 1665) named An Apologetical Relation of the Particular Sufferings of the Faithful Ministers and Professors of the Church of Scotland since August 1660 in which he defends the Covenanter wars against the tyrannical King and the perpetual obligation of the SL&C.  In it he calls abjuration and breaking of the SL&C, “a dreadful sin”, an aggravated sin “dreadful…perjury”.   I am just summing up what the Covenanted church has always maintained.  These are historical facts.  The RPCNA of today state that their fore-fathers in America were in error, mistaken, and unbiblically applied the SL&C to themselves and to America , therefore they had to rectify that and make the necessary corrections to their testimony & standards. This latter statement nor the former are not uncharitable in themselves, but rather are the views of two differing Presbyterian bodies.  This is the major divide between the Cameronians & the RPCNA.

         

          But, let us examine what the SL&C means, its purpose, and why it still is binding upon all Presbyterians that adopt the Westminster Standards and upon the civil nations that directly descend from the United Kingdom .  In order to do this I will cite men who had nothing to do with David Steele, but did maintain that the SL&C is a perpetual Covenant binding upon us today.

         

        First Thomas M’Crie, the church biographer that re-introduced the Presbyterians of his day to John Knox, also the author of the History of the Reformation in Spain .  From his book, The Unity of the Church, first published in 1821 (before David Steele came on the scene) he wrote the following in his book.  First it would serve well to briefly state in his words what the “Covenanted Reformation” is and the importance of maintaining Biblical attainments. 

         

                    By the good hand of God upon her, Scotland attained to a greater degree of purity in religion, and higher degrees of reformation, than any other Protestant country.  It is the duty of one generation to declare the works of God to another, and no people can depart from religious attainments without being deeply guilty.  But this is not all.  In no nation has the true religion been so solemnly avouched as in Scotland .  Every important step taken in reformation was accompanied with confessions, protestations, vows, covenants, and oaths, which were made and subscribed by all ranks, voluntarily, cheerfully, joyfully, repeated on every new emergency and call, and ratified by every authority in the land.  Hence, it has obtained the distinguishing name of the Covenanted Reformation. P.148 bold emphasis mine.

         

          You see that even M’Crie stated that the Covenanted Church of Scotland achieved such a purity in religion and higher degree in reformation that that example is what we should endeavor to follow and to build upon. To retrograde from that, as did the Revolution Church and the myriad of offspring that came from that schismatic church is a departure from purity and to be guilty of back slidding.  So why the SL&C?  Why is it still binding upon us all today?  M’Crie’s summation is great.  Here is what he states.

         

           The continued obligation of our National Covenants is of greater importance than any particular measure adopted in prosecuting them.  In what I have to say on this branch of the subject, I shall keep the Solemn League more particularly in eye, both because it comprehends the substance of the National Covenant of Scotland, and because it has the object of more frequent attack (boy, things have NOT changed since then!-Edgar).  It is not every lawful covenant, nor even every lawful covenant of a public nature, that is of permanent obligation.  Some of both kinds, from their very nature of from other circumstances, may undoubtedly be temporary.  The permanent obligation of the Solemn League results from the permanency of its nature and design, and of the parties entering into it, taken in connection with the public capacity in which it was established.  Some talk of it as if it were a mere temporary expedient to which our fore-fathers had recourse in defending their civil and religious liberty; and, when they have paid a compliment to it in this point of view, they think they have no more concern with the matter.  This is a very narrow and mistaken view of the deed…The emergency which led to the formation of the covenant is one thing, and the obligation of that covenant is quite another; the former might quickly pass away, while the latter may be permanent and perpetual.  Nor is the obligation of the covenant to be determined by the temporary or changeable nature of its subordinate and accessory articles. P. 194-195 bold emphasis mine.

         

           As you see M’Crie states that the SL&C is a permanent covenant and that we are not to view it as a one-sided covenant.  It was both a civil and religious covenant.  It was not a temporary covenant to help the Presbyterians of then to fight against King Charles I and then after the war to declare the covenant fulfilled in its intent and therefore no longer binding. No the SL&C was/is way much more than that.  The intent of the Covenant still lies unfulfilled, moreso today as the Presbyterian church has splintered since defecting from and breaking the SL&C, thereby causing a lamentable schism in the Body of Christ.  This schism the RPNA and Camerionian Covenanters seek to heal by recalling the church to its Covenant obligation and to return to faithful, pure, and Biblical attainments and advancement in spiritual growth that occurred during the Covenanted Second Reformation between 1638-1649, which testimony was sealed in blood during the “Killing Times”  M’Crie even agrees that the SL&C has yet to be fulfilled as he states on p.195, “But unhappily there is no need of having recourse to this line of argument (that being that the SL&C has been fulfilled & realized-Edgar); its grand stipulations remain to this day unfulfilled”.

         

           Some closing question from Thomas M’Crie, before I move on.   From p. 200:

                   

                    Have the pledges given by the nation been yet redeemed?  Do not the principal stipulations in the covenant remain unfulfilled at this day?   Are we not as a people still bound by that engagement to see these things done?   Has the lapse of time cancelled the bond?  Or, will a change of sentiments and views set us free from its tie?  Is it not the duty of all the friends of reformation to endeavor to keep alive a sense of this obligation on the public mind?

         

          Before I conclude this part of the post and take it up on another, I wish to respond in particular to some words from my brother Larry.

         

        > Edgar, as usual, casts this particular part of the history according to his

        > bias,

        And Larry, do you not have a bias? We all have biases, the question is which bias is the correct bias to maintain?

        >and without the charity the other brothers (us) deserve.  He (and the

        > other Steelites) insist upon saying that we willfully defected... was it willful on the Synod's part to reject the Covenant or against thier will?  If the former  then they were cozignant of their actions, and therefore, yes willfully broke the Covenant!  If the latter, then what happended? Did some liberal strain in the RPCNA hijack the Synod proceedings and pass some ruling against the majorities desire to maintain and uphold the SL&C?  I do not think you worded that part correctly.


        >, when the  truth of the matter is that we, as a denomination, became convinced of

        > certain errors within the WCF and sought to, as we should, continue the

        > Reformation by becoming more and more consistent to the Biblical standards

        > for the Church.

        >

        > There were mistakes made; some of which have been repaired, some of which

        > are being repaired, and some that are beginning to be known.

         

        These latter statements already answered above.

         

        >  But to freeze  the Church to a particular age, calling it perfect Here again, Larry, you are misrepresenting us, and here I thought this was cleared up before in past posts.  We never claim to be a perfect church, instead we seek to be pure and to sanctify ouselves in the Lord and by His aid, as a corporate body as much as individuals.  Please restate this statement of yours and retract that one word, we seek purity of doctrine. 

        > is wrong in the face of a clear conviction that the secondary standards are wrong in a particular spot.

        >

        > Also, there is no way that the Covenants can, as they stand, be applied to

        > the US states.

         

        See M'Crie's & John Anderson's quotes I provided to clarify this erroneous claim.

         

        >

        > Not upset, just disappointed that you continue to misrepresent us as willful

        > rebels rather than brothers seeking to be true to God and His Covenant(s),

        > properly understood and applied..

        >

        >  

         

        Again you are our brothers, but our Covenanter fore-father would also call you covenant-breakers (you even admit above that the RPCNA broke their obligation to the SL&C, and state that the early RPCNA were mistaken and that mistake has since been corrected),  but would not deny you the name of brothers in Christ.  They (the Covenanters during 1660-1688) called the indulged/compromised Presbyterians, brothers, but would not attend to their preaching nor partake with them in communion in order to make that visible protestation against their sinful compromise and breach of covenant.

         

        For the cause of Christ

        & His kingdom,

         

        Edgar Ibarra

        RPNA

        Albany, NY



        www.espanol.albanycrpc.org       www.reformedpresbytery.org
         
                                      www.albanycrpc.org                      
           


        Yahoo! FareChase - Search multiple travel sites in one click.
      • Edgar Ibarra
        Brethren, I decided to break the post up into two parts, just to avoid making one lengthy post. So here are John Anderson s assessment of the situation
        Message 3 of 11 , Nov 6 10:18 PM
          Brethren,
           
             I decided to break the post up into two parts, just to avoid making one lengthy post.  So here are John Anderson's assessment of the situation concerning the SL&C.
           
             He wrote a book entitled: Alexander and Rufus; or a series of Dialogues on Church Communion in 1862. The quotes will be taken from part one, which part he entitled, "Vindication of Scriptural Church Communion in Opposition to Latitudinarian Schemes".
           
            I love this book, it is a devestating work against the rampant pluralism, toleration of contrary doctrines, and the cancer of latitudinarianism that plagues the majority of Presbyterian & Reformed churches, for example, NAPARC and other such endeavors.
           
              Many of the opponents of the Reformed Presbyterians (Camerionians/"Steelites") state that the SL&C is no longer binding today and that the Westminster Standards were their fulfilment and therefore when one keeps the Westminster Standards, one is upholding the spirit and intent of the SL&C.  This is nothing but downright revisionism of history and putting words in the mouths of the Covenanters of the past.  A total recasting and redefintion of the Covenanters that sealed their Covenant keeping with their very blood.  The Church of Scotland of then sought Uniformity in religion and to bring this about, they entered into the SL&C.  "Our forefathers accounted the open avowal of contrary opinions and practise in matters of religion an evil not to be tolerated in the communion of the visible saints; but to be struggled against, and if possible, prevented or removed", John Anderson p.168.  Here then is the purpose of the SL&C:
           
             "This Covenant was an engagement to endeavor to bring the churches of God in the three kingdoms to the nearest conjunction and uniformity in religion, confession of faith, form of church government, directory for worship and catechizing, in order that they and their posterity, might, as brethren, in faith and love, and that the Lord might delight to dwell in the midst of them.  It was an engagement to endeavor, without respect of persons, the extirpation of popery, prelacy, superstition, schism, profaneness, and whatsoever should be found contrary to sound doctrine and the power of godliness, that they might not partake of other men's sins, nor be in danger to receive of their plagues, and that the Lord might be one and his name one, in the three kingdoms.  It was an engagement against neutrality and indifference in the cause of God, with respect to all those particulars", p.169. Bold emphasis mine.

           

             You see that the Covenant was understood to bind the posterity of the subscribers.  Now who are the posterity?  Well if one thinks of the physical flesh, then, hey I myself am not bound at all.  I am not Scot nor have a drop of blood from those islands.  I am of Mayan blood and of Spainard blood (and I think some Lebanese).  But that is the Pharisical view of Biblical covenants.  Jesus refuted that and so did the Apostle Paul.  If we are of the faith of Abraham, then we are the children of Abraham (though we are gentiles), even though physical Israel remains part and parcel of the Abrahamic covenant and promise, to this day.  That is the Biblical way to view Covenants.  So, when one sees that the Covenant bound the posterity, that was a triad posterity.  The physical offspring of the subjects of three kingdoms are bound (1), including the nations birthed by England/U.K. as England was bound and so was Scotland and Ireland and all of the king's dominions, plantations, & territories (including the 13 colonies) (2).  Moreover, the spiritual descendants of the Covenanted Church of Scotland are also bound to the covenant, when they swear to own the Westminster Standards, for they are part and parcel, no matter what modern day opponents may say (3).  The Westminster Standards were birthed by the SL&C. As a citizen by birth of this nation and having sworn to uphold the Westminster Standards as a Deacon in the PCA (back then I only knew of the original 1647, it blew my mind when I found out the PCA held to an unfaithful version of the Confession), I am part of that posterity.

           
            Though there were a few Independants/Congregationalists at the Westminster Assembly that swore the Covenant, later in 1648, the Independant form of church government is listed as a national sin, by the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland.
           
             "It may be added, that when the Church of Scotland renewed the Solemn League and Covenant in the year 1648, Independency is first mentioned in a catalogue of national sins, against which they engaged to contend and testify, as contrary to their covenanted uniformity, and the purity of religion; and therefore, it is not supposable, that the Church of Scotland would admit to sacramental communion, such as avowed their obstinate persisting in this evil", p.172.  Bold emphasis mine.
           
             Note that, contrary to modern day Presbyterian practice rampant in so many churches, in which just about anyone can come to the Lord's Table WITHOUT examination, and even then with just a bare minimum of a profession in Christ, in the time of Reformation, the Lord's Table was fenced and protected to keep out those that were ignorant of the Lord's body or walked disorderly.  Note that John Anderson, not I, called Independent Church Government "evil".
           
            Also note the author's correct term to describe the pursuit of the Church of Scotland, "purity of religion" NOT "perfection" as some of our opponents maintain.
           
            As to binding the spiritual posterity as I briefly laid out as #3 above, this should flesh it out some more.  Here Anderson argues from the greater (the SL&C) to the lesser (the Westminster Standards that came from that covenant), whereas the above in #3 was an argument from the lesser to the greater.  Then don't forget about the doctrine of the MORAL PERSON either.
           
             "When the Westminster Confession of Faith was formed, a considerable progress was made in the reformation of the church of God in England and Scotland: ministers and people were bound by the command of God, to hold fast what they had attained, and to carry on the good work they had begun.  These nations were also bound to all the reformation they had attained by the oath of God, into which they had entered.  Nothing could be more absurd than the attempts that were sometimes made to reconcile the Solemn League and Covenant to their complainces with the heirarchy and superstition which these nations were bound to the covenant to eradicate.  Some have said, that the Solemn League and Covenant could not bind any to an adherence to the Confession of Faith, form of presbyterial church government, and directory for public worship; because these formularies were not then composed.  This would have had some color of reason, if they had not precisely corresponded with what was sworn to; that is, if they had not actually exhibited the several parts of reformation mentioned in the covenant, a confession of faith, a form of church government, a directory for worship, according to the Word of God, and the example of the best reformed churches; in opposition to popery, prelacy, superstition, heresey, schism and profaneness.  But this correspondence was evident and undeniable; and therefore these nations were bound, by that covenant, to adhere to the whole of the Reformation described in these forms of sound words.  While that was the covenanted reformation, it is plain, that the falling away from any part of it, was an open violation of that covenant. " p. 192-193. Bold and underline emphasis mine.
           
            This should clearly up why we Camerionians or at times called "Steelites", are different from the RPCNA and the posterity of the Schismatic/Erastian Revolution Church.  Why we state that the SL&C is still for today, in addition to the rest of the Westminster Standards.  The Covenanters of old, did not fight for a generic religious freedom, as modern day revisionists claim, but for the Divine Rights and Royal Prerogatives of King Jesus Christ, the only Head of the Church.  It was for Presbyterial church government (which is of divine right and to be the ONLY form to govern the Church, all others being sinful and therefore unlawful), Biblical-Calvinistic Doctrine, the Regulative Principle of Worship (only the Lord's Day is to be kept holy and Xmas, Easter and such Popish and superstitious holy-days are to be banished; Exclusive Psalmody without instruments-man-made hymns being an innovation/idolatry and violation (therefore sinful) of the Word of God; the Lord's Supper is spiritual, no elements to be described in the Popish or Lutheran manner, and not just a mere memorial as the Baptists teach, one Common Cup and sitting around One Common Table, (none of this communion in the pew stuff), and faithful church discipline.
           
            Much more historical evidence from the Covenanters and those that understood that the SL&C is binding (as some may know M'Crie and Anderson were Seceders and not Camerionian Covenanters, which I think strengths our position that this view is not novel or confined to a few) can be quoted, but I do not have that luxury of time to type, having to go to rest and be with my 5 children in the AM and then go to work.
           
            Therefore I will refer to those interested, especialy my Colombian brethren to read the documents found at the following sites:
           
          The official web site of the RPNA
          Where one can listen to sermons by Pastor Greg Price in MP3 & on PDF
           
          The web site by our fellow Cameronian Covenanters, that are not part of the RPNA.
          This site has a multitude of source documents that are excellent and that demonstrate that the Covenanters held these views before David Steele was even born.    Not to bag on David Steele at all, just to squash the notion that our doctrines are novel and have their start from this faithful Pastor.
           
            Again this will disappoint, upset, or otherwise generate another thread of debate, hashed out, how many times here before?  If you need clarification on something I wrote, then I will respond, otherwise I think I will avoid another prolonged debate.
           
            Hermanos de Colombia, favor de preguntarme cual quier preguntas o decirme cual quier comentarios que venga a mente.  Estoy dispuesto de corresponder con Uds con todo gusto y placer.
           
           
          Para la corona
          y pacto de Cristo
          nuestro Rey,
           
          Edgar Ibarra
          RPNA
          Albany, NY


          www.espanol.albanycrpc.org       www.reformedpresbytery.org
           
                                        www.albanycrpc.org                      
             


          Yahoo! FareChase - Search multiple travel sites in one click.
        • nodelink7
          Greg Barrow and Dr. Larry Birger, Jr. have provided a great service to the RPCNA by outlining a history of the RPCNA s Terms of Communion. This history is
          Message 4 of 11 , Nov 7 9:06 AM
            Greg Barrow and Dr. Larry Birger, Jr. have provided a great service to
            the RPCNA by outlining a history of the RPCNA's Terms of Communion.
            This history is provided in their paper: Reformation Principles
            Re-Exhibited: An Historical Witness & Brotherly Entreaty - Summary and
            Analysis of Changes within Terms of Communion of the Reformed
            Presbyterian Churches of Scotland and America from 1761 to the
            Present, and a Particular Analysis and Testimony Against the Present
            Day RPCNA. See: http://www.reformedpresbytery.org/books/rpcna/rpcna.pdf

            A series of changes in the RPCNA's Terms of Communion are described
            through to the latest changes around 1980. In the Constitution of the
            RPCNA (aka The Blue Book), there is a section called the History of
            the Standards. As I read this section, no clear date is given for the
            beginning of the RPCNA. Dates that are suggested include 1738, 1774,
            1798, and 1809. I want to suggest 1980 as another date for the
            beginning of the present-day RPCNA.

            The earlier Terms of Communion of the professing RPCNA were more
            restrictive than are the present terms of communion as expressed in
            the RPCNA's Covenant of Communicant Church Membership. Therefore,
            modern-day RPCNA members after 1980 could not be admitted to communion
            at the Lord's Supper with earlier generations of the RPCNA.

            Terms of Communion define the standards by which a church assembly
            define their union, communion, and fellowship. TOC's define the
            measure by which an assembly prepares itself to be "perfectly joined
            together in the same mind and in the same judgment" (1Co 1:10) that
            they may be obedient to the Word and with "one mind and one mouth
            glorify God" (Romans 15:6, See also 2Co 13:11; Phlp 1:27,2:2; 1 Peter 3:8.

            Presumably, different denominations exist because each denomination
            considers its worship, doctrine, discipline and government to be
            essential and that it would be sin to be joined together with any
            other assembly. Presumably, as Christians, we seek to love the Lord
            Jesus Christ and to seek oneness in obedience to John 17:11,21-23.
            Right administration of the sacraments is widely-recognized as an
            essential attribute of faithful churches. Right adminsistration is
            essential lest "he who eats and drinks in an unworthy manner eats and
            drinks judgment to himself, not discerning the Lord's body" (1Co
            11:29). Even among churches professing themselves to be reformed, are
            there not many who are barren and unfruitful (2Pe 1:8) but also weak,
            sick, and sleepy (1CO 11:30)? Right discernment requires being one of
            one, right mind.

            Churches that are able to take the Lord's Supper with each other are
            essential proclaiming to each other that they are not in sin. Thus,
            when the psalm-singing RPCNA admits members of NAPARC churches such as
            the OPC, PCA, and RCUS to its Lord's Supper and its pulpits, it is
            essentially saying that their hymn-singing and use of musical
            instruments in worship is not a sin. If the varying practices of
            different denominations that take the Lord's Supper together are not
            sin, then existing sin may be the scandal of maintaining separate
            denominations when it's not necessary.

            Earlier generations calling themselves by the name of RPCNA subscribed
            to the Solemn League and Covenant. Earlier generations subscribed to
            historical testimony and practiced political dissent. Earlier
            generations required a more restrictive Terms of Communion to define
            their essential agreement. As described by Greg Barrow and Dr. Larry
            Birger, the requirements on members of the RPCNA have changed several
            times and become increasingly less restrictive. Today's RPCNA goes so
            far as to admit both members and non-members in their administration
            of the Lord's Supper. In administering the Lord's Supper, today's
            RPCNA applies one standard for admission to members and another to
            non-members. In practical application, the standards for non-members
            sometime fall as low as "credible profession of faith" in violation of
            WLC #173.

            Under the one name of the RPCNA, there have been different communions
            and essentially different denominations. Today's RPCNA members would
            not qualify to partake in the Lord's Supper under the Terms of
            Communion of earlier generations of the RPCNA. Earlier generations of
            the RPCNA would consider the practices of today's RPCNA to be sin.
            Today's RPCNA is a different denomination than the earlier RPCNA.

            The title of Barrow and Birger's paper (mention above) is clearly a
            play on the RPCNA's constitutional document of 1806 called
            "Reformation Principles Exhibited". See
            http://www.truecovenanter.com/reformedpresbyterian/rpe.html. This
            document is an essential resource for the early RPCNA. Reformation
            Principles Exhibited (RPE) of 1806 is included among the The Faithful
            Subordinate Standards of the RPNA. See
            http://www.reformedpresbytery.org/ss_order.html. Thus, RPE of 1806 is
            shared in the heritage of both the RPCNA and the RPNA of Edmonton,
            Albany, etc.

            FYi, Edgar Ibbara's history below is very helpful. The RPCNA moved
            away from adherence to the Scotish National Covenant and the Solemn
            League and Covenant when it declined to explicitly name these
            covenants in its Covenant of 1871. Other defections from earlier
            standards happened at other times.

            GG

            --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, "Edgar A. Ibarra
            Jr." <puritanpresbyterian@y...> wrote:
            >
            > ¡Bienvienido Hermano!
            >
            > The term "Steelites" was given to the Covenanters that continue
            > to adhere to the entire Second Reformation of 1638-1649 (inclusive)
            > and to the faithful Covenanters during the "Killing Times" of 1660-
            > 1688, of today. The few Covenanters that were left at the
            > Revolution of King William of Orange, refused to join the re-
            > established Church of Scotland, since it was re-established on the
            > King's terms and not on the terms of the Church. In 1650, when King
            > Charles II assumed the throne to Scotland, England, & Ireland, he
            > swore that he would uphold the Solemn League and Covenant and that
            > he would punish any who sought to overturn it. His taking the
            > throne to be King was dependant upon his faithfulness to the Solemn
            > League and Covenant. He swore that he would maintain it and to
            > break it meant he no longer could sit as King. Well, he broke it
            > and unleashed a brutal persecution against any that stood in his
            > way. King James II, his Papist brother, continued it. Richard
            > Cameron and other faithful Covenanters resisted the King and
            > continued to worship God as He had commanded and refused to go along
            > with the King's usurpation. The civil magistrates became ruthless
            > tyrants and used all means necessary (torturing the laypeople, taxes
            > (also known as the cess), confiscation of property, imprisonment,
            > rape of women, and murder) to hunt down and kill the ministers of
            > Christ that still held the Covenants. King Charles passed the Acts
            > Recissory stating that the Covenants were "seditious, treasonable,
            > and against his crown, the very covenant he had sworn to uphold, the
            > very covenant that defined him as a lawful civil magistrate and
            > allowed him to be lawfully on the throne. At the Revolution
            > Settlement, King William did not rescind the Acts Recessiory and he
            > set up the Church of Scotland on his terms. Only the Westminster
            > Confession of Faith was allowed to be the standard of the church
            > without allowance of the others. When he and parliament (most of
            > who were part of the persecution) had laid out how the Church of
            > Scotland was to be restored, he called a GA the following year and
            > told them how they were to be structured.
            >
            > The few remaining Covenanters protested and would not join the
            > vast majority of already sold out/indulged ministers (these were
            > those that made compromises to King Charles & King James to spare
            > their lives, in exchange they had to submit to the Bishops and state
            > that the Covenants were treasonable and they held no allegiance to
            > them, among other things). When 3 ministers from the Covenanters
            > tried to persuade the other ministers to press the King to rescind
            > the Acts Recissory and renew the Solemn League and Covenant and make
            > the Standards the charter of the Church as it was during 1638-1649,
            > the 3 were rebuked and scolded. The 3 submitted and joined the
            > Revolution Church and the most prolonged division in Presbyterian
            > history began. That being the Covenanters, that remained faithful
            > to the Church of Scotland and the Westminster Standards of 1638-1649
            > vs. the Revolution Church, which was a brand new Presbyterian church
            > with her own new constitution and charter.
            >
            > All but two Presbyterian churches in the United States descend
            > from this Revolution Settlement Church (In Europe it is a similar
            > situation). The two that do not are the Reformed Presbyterian
            > Church of North America (RPCNA) and the Reformed Presbytery of North
            > America (RPNA).
            >
            > Here is where we get to the heart of your question. The RPCNA
            > held to the Covenanters' testimony until they changed their
            > constitution in the mid-1800's and no longer held that the Solemn
            > League & Covenant was binding upon the United States of America,
            > although I am not sure if they still believe it is on the United
            > Kingdom. They also adopted other items that were contrary to the
            > Standards of Westminster and further broke their Covenanted oath.
            > They continue to believe in the ordinance of Covenanting, so
            > therefore they call themselves Covenanters because of that, but they
            > do not hold to what the original Covenanters held to. During this
            > defection of the RPCNA, one of their ministers along with some other
            > Church Officers protested this defection. When there was no desire
            > on the part of the Synod to repent of their Covenant breaking, they
            > left the RPCNA to continue the faithful Covenanted Church and formed
            > the Reformed Presbytery of North America (RPNA). The leading person
            > was David Steele. These officers sought to maintain the Covenanted
            > Testimony and to continue to uphold the Covenanted Reformation
            > against all defection and back-sliding.
            >
            > So, when the Puritan Reformed Church in Edmonton rediscovered
            > these Covenanted truths and decided to adopt them and thereby return
            > to the faithful paths of true Biblical Presbyterianism they repented
            > of their participation as a Church of being part of the schism of
            > the Revolution Church/Settlement and of having backslidden from the
            > Covenanted Second Reformation (1638-1649) and having adopted
            > doctrines contrary to the Covenanted Second Reformation Church.
            > Many decried them and wrote extensive papers against these Elders
            > and were named "Steelites" by their opponents for being followers of
            > David Steele. Many attributing the doctrinal distinctives as novel
            > and made up by David Steele. Only a very few of our opponents
            > recognize that we are Camerionian Covenanters, i.e. those who hold
            > still that the Solemn League and Covenant is binding upon the UK,
            > USA, Canada, and Australia (all of these being offspring of UK and
            > since the Solemn League & Covenant bound all of her posterity, so
            > then these nations are so bound). I have all of this (the Standards
            > of Westminster) translated into Spanish: www.espanol.albanycrpc.org
            >
            > I am a member of the RPNA and live in Albany NY. Our doctrine is
            > NOT new as even a brief glance of history pre-1700's will most
            > readily demonstrate. The main problem in Presbyterianism today is
            > the rampant mindset of American pluralism and toleration of other
            > religions. This is most visible in the revision of the Westminster
            > Standards in 1782, of ch. 23. In there it is not Presbyterianism
            > that is of divine right and to be the only recognized Church form of
            > government in the Country nor the Westminster doctrines either, per
            > se. Instead the new revision states that the government will
            > acknowledge ALL Christian denominations and protect them all. Now
            > the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, the Presbyterian Church in
            > America, and another (I cannot recall which) are the larger of the
            > Presbyterian Churches that hold to this. Most of the smaller
            > Presbyterian churches do not, including the RPNA, RPCNA, the PRC,
            > and other smaller ones. Although they are all offspring of the
            > Revolution Church (Except the RPCNA & RPNA).
            >
            > The RPNA seeks to promote unity in the body of Christ WITHOUT
            > compromising the Covenanted Reformation Attainments of 1638-1649.
            > The Church of then achieved a Covenanted Uniformity of religion
            > wherein all in the 3 kingdoms were of One Doctrine, One Worship, One
            > Government, and One Discipline and based on the Solemn League and
            > Covenant, which Covenant was in keeping with the Holy Scriptures.
            > Sure not ALL in the UK did join in this unity, but it was the brief
            > reality and fulfillment of John 17. This Covenant was promoted and
            > upheld by all the Westminster Divines, including the Scottish
            > Comissioners: Alexander Henderson, George Gillespie, Samuel
            > Rutherford & etc. One of the English Covenanters that is well
            > known, Christopher Love died in prison under Oliver Cromwell,
            > because he refused to renounce the Covenant. The King was about to
            > martyr Samuel Rutherford for the same, but God took him a few days
            > before the King could kill him.
            >
            > It is a hard stand for us to be separated from our brethren at
            > this time, but we believe, as did the Covenanters of old that
            > loyalty to God and His Truth is to be valued and upheld above calls
            > to compromise for the sake of a shaky and covenant breaking unity
            > NOT based on that maintaince of Truth, even if it means a low-
            > intensity persecution or ridiculing on the part of fellow brethren.
            > The Covenanters during the "Killing Times" suffered more from fellow
            > Indulged Presbyterians than by the ravenous King and his murderous
            > soldiers.
            >
            > Below are links to historical works written by ministers. The
            > first two are written by ministers of the Reformed Presbyterian
            > Church of Scotland, the sister church to the RPCNA, back in the
            > 1800's. The first is brief summary of the history and rise of the
            > Reformed Presbyterians (another term used to describe Covenanters)
            > and the second outlines the reality of the Revolution Settlement and
            > what it brought about. The third is a work written by Covenanters
            > in 1806 and what they stood for and why they remained separate (you
            > will find that what the RPNA holds to today is exactly what they did
            > in 1806 and this PRE-DATES David Steele). The last one is the
            > official history from the beginning of the First Reformation up to
            > and including the founding of the RPNA under David Steele. It is
            > one of the Covenanter's Standards today (I plan to translate this
            > late next year or early 2007, if the Lord wills and gives me the
            > ability).
            >
            > http://www.covenanter.org/RPScotland/Principles/lecture1.htm
            >
            > http://www.covenanter.org/RPScotland/Principles/lecture4.htm
            >
            > www.covenanter.org/RefPres/shortaccount.htm
            >
            > www.gutenberg.org/dirs/1/3/2/0/13200/13200.txt
            >
            > Now there is another Covenanter group, which the Moderador of this e-
            > group belongs too, but they do not have any Church Officers,
            > although we in the RPNA love these brethren very dearly and we are
            > friends. Gerry (the Moderator), I count as a friend and fellow
            > upholder of the Covenanter Testimony. Why were are not together, I
            > rather not touch that here, now. Suffice it to say we are a lot
            > closer than many think, IMO. I thought I would just mention that
            > however, to be fair that the RPNA are not the only Camerionian
            > Covenanters still around.
            >
            > I know that my post will generate many upset posts and make re-
            > stir debates long debated on this e-group once again. That seems to
            > be the legacy of the schism of the Revolution Church that plagues
            > the Covenanted Church of Scotland BIBLICALLY established and
            > promoted by faithful General Assemblies between 1638-1649, to this
            > day. Not until the decendents of the Revolution Church recognize
            > their continuing schism and covenant-breaking from the lawfully and
            > faithfully established Church, established upon Biblical examples of
            > true Covenanted Reformation, and repent of it and rejoin the
            > Covenanted Church of Scotland, as we of the RPNA have, will the
            > debate end.
            >
            > I hope that aids to answer your question. I am sure many more
            > will arise, however.
            >
            > Hermano, lo siento sí se oye duro mi carta, pero la Verdad sigue
            > siendo atacado, y soy firme en mantenerlo. Por otro tema, ¿conoce
            > Ud a Ismael Nova? Se comunicó conmigo, pero su correo electrónico
            > no fue aceptado cuando le conteste. Sí lo conoce, porque es de
            > Colombia y mencionó que es de una iglesia Presbiteriana pequeña,
            > como Ud lo mencionó, ¿favor de decirle que me escriba de nuevo?
            > También me encantaría tener díagolo con Ud y otros hermanos de
            > Colombia. He aquí mí correo personal: PuritanPresbyterian@y...
            >
            > No offense brethren, I am bilingual and always speak both
            > languages. I do not believe in American assimilation nor in keeping
            > my language and culture in my house alone and private. I reject
            > that part of the Right Wing rubbish (to put it mildly) that comes
            > across the talk radio and by other American Nationalists (and I was
            > a U.S. Marine for 8 yrs), I know who were the first immigrants here,
            > pilgrims.
            > Assimilation, HAH!!!
            >
            >
            > Yours in Christ Jesus,
            > in whom this Darwinian
            > separation of peoples
            > is null and void,
            >
            > Edgar Ibarra
            > Communicant Member
            > Reformed Presbytery of North America
            > Albany, New York
            >
            >
            > --- In
            > covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, "theophilus_murray"
            > <theophilus_murray@y...> wrote:
            > >
            > > Hello, I am new here. I am from Colombia and I belong to a
            > > Presbyterian Church in my country.
            > >
            > > I would like to know what is the different between the Steelites
            > and
            > > the other covenanters?
            > >
            > > Thanks.
            > >
            >
          • Whit
            Charles II as King of Ireland? Jumping Jehosaphat! Charles II is nothing more than a Ursurper both regarding the Covenanted Reformation (after he broke the
            Message 5 of 11 , Nov 10 2:53 PM
              Charles II as King of Ireland? Jumping Jehosaphat! Charles II is
              nothing more than a Ursurper both regarding the Covenanted
              Reformation (after he broke the Covenants) and Ireland. I long for
              the day of a re-united Ireland (i.e, re-united under the Covenants)
              and a re-united Three Kingdoms.

              Whit

              --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, "Edgar A. Ibarra
              Jr." <puritanpresbyterian@y...> wrote:
              >
              > ¡Bienvienido Hermano!
              >
              > The term "Steelites" was given to the Covenanters that continue
              > to adhere to the entire Second Reformation of 1638-1649 (inclusive)
              > and to the faithful Covenanters during the "Killing Times" of 1660-
              > 1688, of today. The few Covenanters that were left at the
              > Revolution of King William of Orange, refused to join the re-
              > established Church of Scotland, since it was re-established on the
              > King's terms and not on the terms of the Church. In 1650, when
              King
              > Charles II assumed the throne to Scotland, England, & Ireland, he
              > swore that he would uphold the Solemn League and Covenant and that
              > he would punish any who sought to overturn it. His taking the
              > throne to be King was dependant upon his faithfulness to the Solemn
              > League and Covenant. He swore that he would maintain it and to
              > break it meant he no longer could sit as King. Well, he broke it
              > and unleashed a brutal persecution against any that stood in his
              > way. King James II, his Papist brother, continued it. Richard
              > Cameron and other faithful Covenanters resisted the King and
              > continued to worship God as He had commanded and refused to go
              along
              > with the King's usurpation. The civil magistrates became ruthless
              > tyrants and used all means necessary (torturing the laypeople,
              taxes
              > (also known as the cess), confiscation of property, imprisonment,
              > rape of women, and murder) to hunt down and kill the ministers of
              > Christ that still held the Covenants. King Charles passed the Acts
              > Recissory stating that the Covenants were "seditious, treasonable,
              > and against his crown, the very covenant he had sworn to uphold,
              the
              > very covenant that defined him as a lawful civil magistrate and
              > allowed him to be lawfully on the throne. At the Revolution
              > Settlement, King William did not rescind the Acts Recessiory and he
              > set up the Church of Scotland on his terms. Only the Westminster
              > Confession of Faith was allowed to be the standard of the church
              > without allowance of the others. When he and parliament (most of
              > who were part of the persecution) had laid out how the Church of
              > Scotland was to be restored, he called a GA the following year and
              > told them how they were to be structured.
              >
              > The few remaining Covenanters protested and would not join the
              > vast majority of already sold out/indulged ministers (these were
              > those that made compromises to King Charles & King James to spare
              > their lives, in exchange they had to submit to the Bishops and
              state
              > that the Covenants were treasonable and they held no allegiance to
              > them, among other things). When 3 ministers from the Covenanters
              > tried to persuade the other ministers to press the King to rescind
              > the Acts Recissory and renew the Solemn League and Covenant and
              make
              > the Standards the charter of the Church as it was during 1638-1649,
              > the 3 were rebuked and scolded. The 3 submitted and joined the
              > Revolution Church and the most prolonged division in Presbyterian
              > history began. That being the Covenanters, that remained faithful
              > to the Church of Scotland and the Westminster Standards of 1638-
              1649
              > vs. the Revolution Church, which was a brand new Presbyterian
              church
              > with her own new constitution and charter.
              >
              > All but two Presbyterian churches in the United States descend
              > from this Revolution Settlement Church (In Europe it is a similar
              > situation). The two that do not are the Reformed Presbyterian
              > Church of North America (RPCNA) and the Reformed Presbytery of
              North
              > America (RPNA).
              >
              > Here is where we get to the heart of your question. The RPCNA
              > held to the Covenanters' testimony until they changed their
              > constitution in the mid-1800's and no longer held that the Solemn
              > League & Covenant was binding upon the United States of America,
              > although I am not sure if they still believe it is on the United
              > Kingdom. They also adopted other items that were contrary to the
              > Standards of Westminster and further broke their Covenanted oath.
              > They continue to believe in the ordinance of Covenanting, so
              > therefore they call themselves Covenanters because of that, but
              they
              > do not hold to what the original Covenanters held to. During this
              > defection of the RPCNA, one of their ministers along with some
              other
              > Church Officers protested this defection. When there was no desire
              > on the part of the Synod to repent of their Covenant breaking, they
              > left the RPCNA to continue the faithful Covenanted Church and
              formed
              > the Reformed Presbytery of North America (RPNA). The leading
              person
              > was David Steele. These officers sought to maintain the Covenanted
              > Testimony and to continue to uphold the Covenanted Reformation
              > against all defection and back-sliding.
              >
              > So, when the Puritan Reformed Church in Edmonton rediscovered
              > these Covenanted truths and decided to adopt them and thereby
              return
              > to the faithful paths of true Biblical Presbyterianism they
              repented
              > of their participation as a Church of being part of the schism of
              > the Revolution Church/Settlement and of having backslidden from the
              > Covenanted Second Reformation (1638-1649) and having adopted
              > doctrines contrary to the Covenanted Second Reformation Church.
              > Many decried them and wrote extensive papers against these Elders
              > and were named "Steelites" by their opponents for being followers
              of
              > David Steele. Many attributing the doctrinal distinctives as novel
              > and made up by David Steele. Only a very few of our opponents
              > recognize that we are Camerionian Covenanters, i.e. those who hold
              > still that the Solemn League and Covenant is binding upon the UK,
              > USA, Canada, and Australia (all of these being offspring of UK and
              > since the Solemn League & Covenant bound all of her posterity, so
              > then these nations are so bound). I have all of this (the
              Standards
              > of Westminster) translated into Spanish: www.espanol.albanycrpc.org
              >
              > I am a member of the RPNA and live in Albany NY. Our doctrine is
              > NOT new as even a brief glance of history pre-1700's will most
              > readily demonstrate. The main problem in Presbyterianism today is
              > the rampant mindset of American pluralism and toleration of other
              > religions. This is most visible in the revision of the Westminster
              > Standards in 1782, of ch. 23. In there it is not Presbyterianism
              > that is of divine right and to be the only recognized Church form
              of
              > government in the Country nor the Westminster doctrines either, per
              > se. Instead the new revision states that the government will
              > acknowledge ALL Christian denominations and protect them all. Now
              > the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, the Presbyterian Church in
              > America, and another (I cannot recall which) are the larger of the
              > Presbyterian Churches that hold to this. Most of the smaller
              > Presbyterian churches do not, including the RPNA, RPCNA, the PRC,
              > and other smaller ones. Although they are all offspring of the
              > Revolution Church (Except the RPCNA & RPNA).
              >
              > The RPNA seeks to promote unity in the body of Christ WITHOUT
              > compromising the Covenanted Reformation Attainments of 1638-1649.
              > The Church of then achieved a Covenanted Uniformity of religion
              > wherein all in the 3 kingdoms were of One Doctrine, One Worship,
              One
              > Government, and One Discipline and based on the Solemn League and
              > Covenant, which Covenant was in keeping with the Holy Scriptures.
              > Sure not ALL in the UK did join in this unity, but it was the brief
              > reality and fulfillment of John 17. This Covenant was promoted and
              > upheld by all the Westminster Divines, including the Scottish
              > Comissioners: Alexander Henderson, George Gillespie, Samuel
              > Rutherford & etc. One of the English Covenanters that is well
              > known, Christopher Love died in prison under Oliver Cromwell,
              > because he refused to renounce the Covenant. The King was about to
              > martyr Samuel Rutherford for the same, but God took him a few days
              > before the King could kill him.
              >
              > It is a hard stand for us to be separated from our brethren at
              > this time, but we believe, as did the Covenanters of old that
              > loyalty to God and His Truth is to be valued and upheld above calls
              > to compromise for the sake of a shaky and covenant breaking unity
              > NOT based on that maintaince of Truth, even if it means a low-
              > intensity persecution or ridiculing on the part of fellow
              brethren.
              > The Covenanters during the "Killing Times" suffered more from
              fellow
              > Indulged Presbyterians than by the ravenous King and his murderous
              > soldiers.
              >
              > Below are links to historical works written by ministers. The
              > first two are written by ministers of the Reformed Presbyterian
              > Church of Scotland, the sister church to the RPCNA, back in the
              > 1800's. The first is brief summary of the history and rise of the
              > Reformed Presbyterians (another term used to describe Covenanters)
              > and the second outlines the reality of the Revolution Settlement
              and
              > what it brought about. The third is a work written by Covenanters
              > in 1806 and what they stood for and why they remained separate (you
              > will find that what the RPNA holds to today is exactly what they
              did
              > in 1806 and this PRE-DATES David Steele). The last one is the
              > official history from the beginning of the First Reformation up to
              > and including the founding of the RPNA under David Steele. It is
              > one of the Covenanter's Standards today (I plan to translate this
              > late next year or early 2007, if the Lord wills and gives me the
              > ability).
              >
              > http://www.covenanter.org/RPScotland/Principles/lecture1.htm
              >
              > http://www.covenanter.org/RPScotland/Principles/lecture4.htm
              >
              > www.covenanter.org/RefPres/shortaccount.htm
              >
              > www.gutenberg.org/dirs/1/3/2/0/13200/13200.txt
              >
              > Now there is another Covenanter group, which the Moderador of this
              e-
              > group belongs too, but they do not have any Church Officers,
              > although we in the RPNA love these brethren very dearly and we are
              > friends. Gerry (the Moderator), I count as a friend and fellow
              > upholder of the Covenanter Testimony. Why were are not together, I
              > rather not touch that here, now. Suffice it to say we are a lot
              > closer than many think, IMO. I thought I would just mention that
              > however, to be fair that the RPNA are not the only Camerionian
              > Covenanters still around.
              >
              > I know that my post will generate many upset posts and make re-
              > stir debates long debated on this e-group once again. That seems
              to
              > be the legacy of the schism of the Revolution Church that plagues
              > the Covenanted Church of Scotland BIBLICALLY established and
              > promoted by faithful General Assemblies between 1638-1649, to this
              > day. Not until the decendents of the Revolution Church recognize
              > their continuing schism and covenant-breaking from the lawfully and
              > faithfully established Church, established upon Biblical examples
              of
              > true Covenanted Reformation, and repent of it and rejoin the
              > Covenanted Church of Scotland, as we of the RPNA have, will the
              > debate end.
              >
              > I hope that aids to answer your question. I am sure many more
              > will arise, however.
              >
              > Hermano, lo siento sí se oye duro mi carta, pero la Verdad sigue
              > siendo atacado, y soy firme en mantenerlo. Por otro tema, ¿conoce
              > Ud a Ismael Nova? Se comunicó conmigo, pero su correo electrónico
              > no fue aceptado cuando le conteste. Sí lo conoce, porque es de
              > Colombia y mencionó que es de una iglesia Presbiteriana pequeña,
              > como Ud lo mencionó, ¿favor de decirle que me escriba de nuevo?
              > También me encantaría tener díagolo con Ud y otros hermanos de
              > Colombia. He aquí mí correo personal: PuritanPresbyterian@y...
              >
              > No offense brethren, I am bilingual and always speak both
              > languages. I do not believe in American assimilation nor in keeping
              > my language and culture in my house alone and private. I reject
              > that part of the Right Wing rubbish (to put it mildly) that comes
              > across the talk radio and by other American Nationalists (and I was
              > a U.S. Marine for 8 yrs), I know who were the first immigrants
              here,
              > pilgrims.
              > Assimilation, HAH!!!
              >
              >
              > Yours in Christ Jesus,
              > in whom this Darwinian
              > separation of peoples
              > is null and void,
              >
              > Edgar Ibarra
              > Communicant Member
              > Reformed Presbytery of North America
              > Albany, New York
              >
              >
              > --- In
              > covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, "theophilus_murray"
              > <theophilus_murray@y...> wrote:
              > >
              > > Hello, I am new here. I am from Colombia and I belong to a
              > > Presbyterian Church in my country.
              > >
              > > I would like to know what is the different between the Steelites
              > and
              > > the other covenanters?
              > >
              > > Thanks.
              > >
              >
            • Whit
              ... Presbyterians of his day to John Knox, also the author of the History of the Reformation in Spain. Where can I purchase that book? SWRB? I have always
              Message 6 of 11 , Nov 10 3:03 PM
                > First Thomas M'Crie, the church biographer that re-introduced the
                Presbyterians of his day to John Knox, also the author of the History
                of the Reformation in Spain.

                Where can I purchase that book? SWRB? I have always wanted to read
                about Spain's relation to the reforming Church. (I was there last year
                and could not find any good Covenanter church or society. Hence, I
                elected for private worship and didn't attend church that Sunday.)

                Whit
              • Edgar A. Ibarra Jr.
                Whit, SWRB and other stores as well. Try a Google search to get the best price. No Covenanters in Spain, the Protestant Reformation was totally squashed and
                Message 7 of 11 , Nov 10 3:24 PM
                  Whit,

                  SWRB and other stores as well. Try a Google search to get the best
                  price.

                  No Covenanters in Spain, the Protestant Reformation was totally
                  squashed and short-lived. Protestantism is slowly coming into Spain,
                  but mostly the Charismatics & Baptists. There is a small Prebyterian
                  church there.

                  Thanks,

                  Edgar

                  --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, "Whit"
                  <covie_pres.1646@v...> wrote:
                  >
                  > > First Thomas M'Crie, the church biographer that re-introduced the
                  > Presbyterians of his day to John Knox, also the author of the
                  History
                  > of the Reformation in Spain.
                  >
                  > Where can I purchase that book? SWRB? I have always wanted to read
                  > about Spain's relation to the reforming Church. (I was there last
                  year
                  > and could not find any good Covenanter church or society. Hence, I
                  > elected for private worship and didn't attend church that Sunday.)
                  >
                  > Whit
                  >
                • Fred blahous
                  G day Edgar! Yes, Spain was the home of the Vatican Inquisition and invented the Iron Maiden. Unfortunately for reformers there, Ferdinand and Isabella
                  Message 8 of 11 , Nov 12 8:21 AM
                    G'day Edgar!

                    Yes, Spain was the home of the Vatican Inquisition and invented the
                    Iron Maiden. Unfortunately for reformers there, Ferdinand and
                    Isabella happened to be on the throne, and they were mad on
                    uniformity in worship of the beast. Also in torturing Indians and
                    extracting gold under the fictitious "Donation". Americans fought
                    various wars against Spain, under the crown of London and later
                    under the presidents, because of the brutal history towards the
                    natives.

                    Chris Columbus was the pirate "buccaneer" who made it all possible
                    for the Castillians to claim the New World and even threaten the
                    throne of Elizabeth, and yet Americans actually have a "holiday" to
                    celebrate the man they fought against. Weird! At least the former
                    Spanish and Portugese lands know better.

                    What a pity their never was a reformation in Spain, Austria, or
                    Italy. It would have been great to see Charles V side with Luther
                    and claim all of Central Europe, the Balkans, Germania, Borgia lands
                    and Castillian lands from the Popes and Ottomans. Rome would have
                    been totally surrounded, and cut off from France and Poland. Oh
                    well. Maybe next time!

                    Towards a Covenanted Presbyterian Re-unified Western Church.
                    Fred.

                    --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, "Edgar A. Ibarra
                    Jr." <puritanpresbyterian@y...> wrote:
                    >
                    > Whit,
                    >
                    > SWRB and other stores as well. Try a Google search to get the
                    best
                    > price.
                    >
                    > No Covenanters in Spain, the Protestant Reformation was totally
                    > squashed and short-lived. Protestantism is slowly coming into
                    Spain,
                    > but mostly the Charismatics & Baptists. There is a small
                    Prebyterian
                    > church there.
                    >
                    > Thanks,
                    >
                    > Edgar
                    >
                    > --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, "Whit"
                    > <covie_pres.1646@v...> wrote:
                    > >
                    > > > First Thomas M'Crie, the church biographer that re-introduced
                    the
                    > > Presbyterians of his day to John Knox, also the author of the
                    > History
                    > > of the Reformation in Spain.
                    > >
                    > > Where can I purchase that book? SWRB? I have always wanted to
                    read
                    > > about Spain's relation to the reforming Church. (I was there
                    last
                    > year
                    > > and could not find any good Covenanter church or society.
                    Hence, I
                    > > elected for private worship and didn't attend church that
                    Sunday.)
                    > >
                    > > Whit
                    > >
                    >
                  • Fred blahous
                    Not likely to happen unless there is a major revival in the Southern lands. I just don t see Mad Dog Adair and Gerry Adams allowing anyone to live in peace
                    Message 9 of 11 , Nov 12 8:31 AM
                      Not likely to happen unless there is a major revival in the Southern
                      lands. I just don't see "Mad Dog" Adair and Gerry Adams allowing
                      anyone to live in peace if they can help it. I wish they would both
                      follow the example of Bobby Sands and go on hungar strike. I don't
                      think either would be missed.

                      --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, "Whit"
                      <covie_pres.1646@v...> wrote:
                      >
                      > Charles II as King of Ireland? Jumping Jehosaphat! Charles II is
                      > nothing more than a Ursurper both regarding the Covenanted
                      > Reformation (after he broke the Covenants) and Ireland. I long
                      for
                      > the day of a re-united Ireland (i.e, re-united under the
                      Covenants)
                      > and a re-united Three Kingdoms.
                      >
                      > Whit
                      >
                      > --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, "Edgar A. Ibarra
                      > Jr." <puritanpresbyterian@y...> wrote:
                      > >
                      > > ¡Bienvienido Hermano!
                      > >
                      > > The term "Steelites" was given to the Covenanters that
                      continue
                      > > to adhere to the entire Second Reformation of 1638-1649
                      (inclusive)
                      > > and to the faithful Covenanters during the "Killing Times" of
                      1660-
                      > > 1688, of today. The few Covenanters that were left at the
                      > > Revolution of King William of Orange, refused to join the re-
                      > > established Church of Scotland, since it was re-established on
                      the
                      > > King's terms and not on the terms of the Church. In 1650, when
                      > King
                      > > Charles II assumed the throne to Scotland, England, & Ireland,
                      he
                      > > swore that he would uphold the Solemn League and Covenant and
                      that
                      > > he would punish any who sought to overturn it. His taking the
                      > > throne to be King was dependant upon his faithfulness to the
                      Solemn
                      > > League and Covenant. He swore that he would maintain it and to
                      > > break it meant he no longer could sit as King. Well, he broke
                      it
                      > > and unleashed a brutal persecution against any that stood in his
                      > > way. King James II, his Papist brother, continued it. Richard
                      > > Cameron and other faithful Covenanters resisted the King and
                      > > continued to worship God as He had commanded and refused to go
                      > along
                      > > with the King's usurpation. The civil magistrates became
                      ruthless
                      > > tyrants and used all means necessary (torturing the laypeople,
                      > taxes
                      > > (also known as the cess), confiscation of property,
                      imprisonment,
                      > > rape of women, and murder) to hunt down and kill the ministers
                      of
                      > > Christ that still held the Covenants. King Charles passed the
                      Acts
                      > > Recissory stating that the Covenants were "seditious,
                      treasonable,
                      > > and against his crown, the very covenant he had sworn to uphold,
                      > the
                      > > very covenant that defined him as a lawful civil magistrate and
                      > > allowed him to be lawfully on the throne. At the Revolution
                      > > Settlement, King William did not rescind the Acts Recessiory and
                      he
                      > > set up the Church of Scotland on his terms. Only the
                      Westminster
                      > > Confession of Faith was allowed to be the standard of the church
                      > > without allowance of the others. When he and parliament (most
                      of
                      > > who were part of the persecution) had laid out how the Church of
                      > > Scotland was to be restored, he called a GA the following year
                      and
                      > > told them how they were to be structured.
                      > >
                      > > The few remaining Covenanters protested and would not join
                      the
                      > > vast majority of already sold out/indulged ministers (these were
                      > > those that made compromises to King Charles & King James to
                      spare
                      > > their lives, in exchange they had to submit to the Bishops and
                      > state
                      > > that the Covenants were treasonable and they held no allegiance
                      to
                      > > them, among other things). When 3 ministers from the
                      Covenanters
                      > > tried to persuade the other ministers to press the King to
                      rescind
                      > > the Acts Recissory and renew the Solemn League and Covenant and
                      > make
                      > > the Standards the charter of the Church as it was during 1638-
                      1649,
                      > > the 3 were rebuked and scolded. The 3 submitted and joined the
                      > > Revolution Church and the most prolonged division in
                      Presbyterian
                      > > history began. That being the Covenanters, that remained
                      faithful
                      > > to the Church of Scotland and the Westminster Standards of 1638-
                      > 1649
                      > > vs. the Revolution Church, which was a brand new Presbyterian
                      > church
                      > > with her own new constitution and charter.
                      > >
                      > > All but two Presbyterian churches in the United States
                      descend
                      > > from this Revolution Settlement Church (In Europe it is a
                      similar
                      > > situation). The two that do not are the Reformed Presbyterian
                      > > Church of North America (RPCNA) and the Reformed Presbytery of
                      > North
                      > > America (RPNA).
                      > >
                      > > Here is where we get to the heart of your question. The
                      RPCNA
                      > > held to the Covenanters' testimony until they changed their
                      > > constitution in the mid-1800's and no longer held that the
                      Solemn
                      > > League & Covenant was binding upon the United States of America,
                      > > although I am not sure if they still believe it is on the United
                      > > Kingdom. They also adopted other items that were contrary to
                      the
                      > > Standards of Westminster and further broke their Covenanted
                      oath.
                      > > They continue to believe in the ordinance of Covenanting, so
                      > > therefore they call themselves Covenanters because of that, but
                      > they
                      > > do not hold to what the original Covenanters held to. During
                      this
                      > > defection of the RPCNA, one of their ministers along with some
                      > other
                      > > Church Officers protested this defection. When there was no
                      desire
                      > > on the part of the Synod to repent of their Covenant breaking,
                      they
                      > > left the RPCNA to continue the faithful Covenanted Church and
                      > formed
                      > > the Reformed Presbytery of North America (RPNA). The leading
                      > person
                      > > was David Steele. These officers sought to maintain the
                      Covenanted
                      > > Testimony and to continue to uphold the Covenanted Reformation
                      > > against all defection and back-sliding.
                      > >
                      > > So, when the Puritan Reformed Church in Edmonton rediscovered
                      > > these Covenanted truths and decided to adopt them and thereby
                      > return
                      > > to the faithful paths of true Biblical Presbyterianism they
                      > repented
                      > > of their participation as a Church of being part of the schism
                      of
                      > > the Revolution Church/Settlement and of having backslidden from
                      the
                      > > Covenanted Second Reformation (1638-1649) and having adopted
                      > > doctrines contrary to the Covenanted Second Reformation Church.
                      > > Many decried them and wrote extensive papers against these
                      Elders
                      > > and were named "Steelites" by their opponents for being
                      followers
                      > of
                      > > David Steele. Many attributing the doctrinal distinctives as
                      novel
                      > > and made up by David Steele. Only a very few of our opponents
                      > > recognize that we are Camerionian Covenanters, i.e. those who
                      hold
                      > > still that the Solemn League and Covenant is binding upon the
                      UK,
                      > > USA, Canada, and Australia (all of these being offspring of UK
                      and
                      > > since the Solemn League & Covenant bound all of her posterity,
                      so
                      > > then these nations are so bound). I have all of this (the
                      > Standards
                      > > of Westminster) translated into Spanish:
                      www.espanol.albanycrpc.org
                      > >
                      > > I am a member of the RPNA and live in Albany NY. Our doctrine
                      is
                      > > NOT new as even a brief glance of history pre-1700's will most
                      > > readily demonstrate. The main problem in Presbyterianism today
                      is
                      > > the rampant mindset of American pluralism and toleration of
                      other
                      > > religions. This is most visible in the revision of the
                      Westminster
                      > > Standards in 1782, of ch. 23. In there it is not
                      Presbyterianism
                      > > that is of divine right and to be the only recognized Church
                      form
                      > of
                      > > government in the Country nor the Westminster doctrines either,
                      per
                      > > se. Instead the new revision states that the government will
                      > > acknowledge ALL Christian denominations and protect them all.
                      Now
                      > > the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, the Presbyterian Church in
                      > > America, and another (I cannot recall which) are the larger of
                      the
                      > > Presbyterian Churches that hold to this. Most of the smaller
                      > > Presbyterian churches do not, including the RPNA, RPCNA, the
                      PRC,
                      > > and other smaller ones. Although they are all offspring of the
                      > > Revolution Church (Except the RPCNA & RPNA).
                      > >
                      > > The RPNA seeks to promote unity in the body of Christ WITHOUT
                      > > compromising the Covenanted Reformation Attainments of 1638-
                      1649.
                      > > The Church of then achieved a Covenanted Uniformity of religion
                      > > wherein all in the 3 kingdoms were of One Doctrine, One Worship,
                      > One
                      > > Government, and One Discipline and based on the Solemn League
                      and
                      > > Covenant, which Covenant was in keeping with the Holy
                      Scriptures.
                      > > Sure not ALL in the UK did join in this unity, but it was the
                      brief
                      > > reality and fulfillment of John 17. This Covenant was promoted
                      and
                      > > upheld by all the Westminster Divines, including the Scottish
                      > > Comissioners: Alexander Henderson, George Gillespie, Samuel
                      > > Rutherford & etc. One of the English Covenanters that is well
                      > > known, Christopher Love died in prison under Oliver Cromwell,
                      > > because he refused to renounce the Covenant. The King was about
                      to
                      > > martyr Samuel Rutherford for the same, but God took him a few
                      days
                      > > before the King could kill him.
                      > >
                      > > It is a hard stand for us to be separated from our brethren
                      at
                      > > this time, but we believe, as did the Covenanters of old that
                      > > loyalty to God and His Truth is to be valued and upheld above
                      calls
                      > > to compromise for the sake of a shaky and covenant breaking
                      unity
                      > > NOT based on that maintaince of Truth, even if it means a low-
                      > > intensity persecution or ridiculing on the part of fellow
                      > brethren.
                      > > The Covenanters during the "Killing Times" suffered more from
                      > fellow
                      > > Indulged Presbyterians than by the ravenous King and his
                      murderous
                      > > soldiers.
                      > >
                      > > Below are links to historical works written by ministers.
                      The
                      > > first two are written by ministers of the Reformed Presbyterian
                      > > Church of Scotland, the sister church to the RPCNA, back in the
                      > > 1800's. The first is brief summary of the history and rise of
                      the
                      > > Reformed Presbyterians (another term used to describe
                      Covenanters)
                      > > and the second outlines the reality of the Revolution Settlement
                      > and
                      > > what it brought about. The third is a work written by
                      Covenanters
                      > > in 1806 and what they stood for and why they remained separate
                      (you
                      > > will find that what the RPNA holds to today is exactly what they
                      > did
                      > > in 1806 and this PRE-DATES David Steele). The last one is the
                      > > official history from the beginning of the First Reformation up
                      to
                      > > and including the founding of the RPNA under David Steele. It
                      is
                      > > one of the Covenanter's Standards today (I plan to translate
                      this
                      > > late next year or early 2007, if the Lord wills and gives me the
                      > > ability).
                      > >
                      > > http://www.covenanter.org/RPScotland/Principles/lecture1.htm
                      > >
                      > > http://www.covenanter.org/RPScotland/Principles/lecture4.htm
                      > >
                      > > www.covenanter.org/RefPres/shortaccount.htm
                      > >
                      > > www.gutenberg.org/dirs/1/3/2/0/13200/13200.txt
                      > >
                      > > Now there is another Covenanter group, which the Moderador of
                      this
                      > e-
                      > > group belongs too, but they do not have any Church Officers,
                      > > although we in the RPNA love these brethren very dearly and we
                      are
                      > > friends. Gerry (the Moderator), I count as a friend and fellow
                      > > upholder of the Covenanter Testimony. Why were are not
                      together, I
                      > > rather not touch that here, now. Suffice it to say we are a lot
                      > > closer than many think, IMO. I thought I would just mention
                      that
                      > > however, to be fair that the RPNA are not the only Camerionian
                      > > Covenanters still around.
                      > >
                      > > I know that my post will generate many upset posts and make re-
                      > > stir debates long debated on this e-group once again. That
                      seems
                      > to
                      > > be the legacy of the schism of the Revolution Church that
                      plagues
                      > > the Covenanted Church of Scotland BIBLICALLY established and
                      > > promoted by faithful General Assemblies between 1638-1649, to
                      this
                      > > day. Not until the decendents of the Revolution Church
                      recognize
                      > > their continuing schism and covenant-breaking from the lawfully
                      and
                      > > faithfully established Church, established upon Biblical
                      examples
                      > of
                      > > true Covenanted Reformation, and repent of it and rejoin the
                      > > Covenanted Church of Scotland, as we of the RPNA have, will the
                      > > debate end.
                      > >
                      > > I hope that aids to answer your question. I am sure many
                      more
                      > > will arise, however.
                      > >
                      > > Hermano, lo siento sí se oye duro mi carta, pero la Verdad
                      sigue
                      > > siendo atacado, y soy firme en mantenerlo. Por otro tema,
                      ¿conoce
                      > > Ud a Ismael Nova? Se comunicó conmigo, pero su correo
                      electrónico
                      > > no fue aceptado cuando le conteste. Sí lo conoce, porque es de
                      > > Colombia y mencionó que es de una iglesia Presbiteriana pequeña,
                      > > como Ud lo mencionó, ¿favor de decirle que me escriba de nuevo?
                      > > También me encantaría tener díagolo con Ud y otros hermanos de
                      > > Colombia. He aquí mí correo personal: PuritanPresbyterian@y...
                      > >
                      > > No offense brethren, I am bilingual and always speak both
                      > > languages. I do not believe in American assimilation nor in
                      keeping
                      > > my language and culture in my house alone and private. I reject
                      > > that part of the Right Wing rubbish (to put it mildly) that
                      comes
                      > > across the talk radio and by other American Nationalists (and I
                      was
                      > > a U.S. Marine for 8 yrs), I know who were the first immigrants
                      > here,
                      > > pilgrims.
                      > > Assimilation, HAH!!!
                      > >
                      > >
                      > > Yours in Christ Jesus,
                      > > in whom this Darwinian
                      > > separation of peoples
                      > > is null and void,
                      > >
                      > > Edgar Ibarra
                      > > Communicant Member
                      > > Reformed Presbytery of North America
                      > > Albany, New York
                      > >
                      > >
                      > > --- In
                      > > covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, "theophilus_murray"
                      > > <theophilus_murray@y...> wrote:
                      > > >
                      > > > Hello, I am new here. I am from Colombia and I belong to a
                      > > > Presbyterian Church in my country.
                      > > >
                      > > > I would like to know what is the different between the
                      Steelites
                      > > and
                      > > > the other covenanters?
                      > > >
                      > > > Thanks.
                      > > >
                      > >
                      >
                    • berean1993
                      ... Maybe SWRB. See also: How to Find a Book http://members.aol.com/lettermen2/findbook.html and Reformed Publishers Online
                      Message 10 of 11 , Nov 27 2:55 PM
                        --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, "Whit"
                        <covie_pres.1646@v...> wrote:
                        >
                        > > First Thomas M'Crie, the church biographer that re-introduced the
                        > Presbyterians of his day to John Knox, also the author of the History
                        > of the Reformation in Spain.
                        >
                        > Where can I purchase that book? SWRB?

                        Maybe SWRB.
                        See also:
                        How to Find a Book
                        http://members.aol.com/lettermen2/findbook.html

                        and

                        Reformed Publishers Online
                        http://members.aol.com/lettermen2/refpub.html





                        I have always wanted to read
                        > about Spain's relation to the reforming Church. (I was there last
                        year
                        > and could not find any good Covenanter church or society. Hence, I
                        > elected for private worship and didn't attend church that Sunday.)
                        >
                        > Whit
                        >
                      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.