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

RE: Steelites

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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 8 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 9 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.