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

Re: [Covenanted Reformation] Re: Interesting article by the RPC of I

Expand Messages
  • Glenn Ferrell
    Does the article speak to the legitimacy or illegitimacy of the Government of Great Britain? It questions the morality and advisability of the surrender
    Message 1 of 7 , Mar 10, 2006
      Does the article speak to the "legitimacy" or "illegitimacy" of the Government of Great Britain?  It questions the morality and advisability of the surrender of part of Ireland and the more recent Stormont agreement.  This article is more concerned with the continuing obligation of the SL&C and its applicability to England, Scotland and Ireland.  One can accept the government of the UK as legitimate in the sense of providentially established by God, while still pointing out their sin in abandoning the terms of the SL&C and the Erastian interference in the affairs of the church after 1688.  The RPCI and David Silversides in particular have maintained relationships with groups who subsequently seceding from the CoS, while encouraging them to consider the continuing obligation of the Covenants.  I have heard David Silversides preach to a Free Church of Scotland Continuing congregation and in a less formal discussion urge on them the importance of the Covenants.  Since most American Presbyterians know little of the Covenants or the argument for their continuing obligation, Silversides article is a helpful introduction for them.
       
      Glenn Ferrell
      SRPC, Boise, ID
      ----- Original Message -----
      Sent: Friday, March 10, 2006 7:11 AM
      Subject: Re: [Covenanted Reformation] Re: Interesting article by the RPC of I

      I am sorry, but I must take exception to the article's version of history in a
      variety of respects:

      1. It is incoherent.  One primary issue is this: is the govt of Great Britain
      legitimate or is it not?  The author of this article talks out of both sides of
      his mouth.  **If** it was illegitimate, then I would certainly grant that it
      was wrong to have been part of the Rev Settlement CofS, for the Rev Settlement
      CofS recognized Britain's govt as legitimate.  But if was illegitimate under
      William & Mary, it is certainly as illegitimate under the current British
      monarch.  Yet the current Refd Pres Church of Ireland of the author does not
      today take the stand that it is illegitimate.  One cannot have one's cake and
      eat it too.

      2. It is sadly ironic that the article should laud this letter ("sent by the
      Synod
      of the RPCI to the American Reformed Presbyterian Church in 1922. It reads as
      follows: 'The great betrayal of Ulster by the British government is one of the
      basest and most sordid acts ever committed by any government. But it is the
      natural outcome of a Christless constitution... )  The reality is that it was
      the USA that revolted from an explicitly Protestant nation (Britain) and wrote
      a Christless constitution (the **US** Constitution).  It was the USA that
      created a situation where Britain was under tremendous pressure to give
      Romanists voting rights, like they were given in
      the USA **after** the American Revolution.  It was Britain's King George III
      (who Americans so despise) that all his life refused to allow Romanist
      franchise.  It was the USA that entered into an alliance with Romanist France
      to achieve its "liberty", and so put in jeopardy Britain's other territories
      like Ireland. 

      3. It fails to even try to prove its point.  I quite agree that British govt
      under William & Mary  ( as well as the current Queen Eliz II) was flawed.  And,
      yes, it was heinous how it ignored the SLC.  But proving that a govt is not
      religiously faithful is not the same as proving it is illegitimate.  And this
      article never connects those dots. 


      - Parnell McCarter



      Quoting Whit <covie_pres.1646@...>:

      > Many thanks.  It sheds more light on my ancestral land.
      >
      > Whit
      >
      > --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, "Edgar A. Ibarra
      > Jr." <puritanpresbyterian@...> wrote:
      > >
      > >
      > > Ran across this article by the Reformed Presbyterian Church of
      > Ireland.
      > > They also state that the Revolution Presbyterian Church was
      > unfaithful
      > > and rejected the Solemn League and Covenant and also allowed
      > unfaithful
      > > ministers and apostates into their church and for the various other
      > > reasons I also posted last summer in my debate with Matthew
      > Winzer.  I
      > > did not know about this article until now.  Note their similiar
      > argument
      > > for the maintenance of the SL&C for today and why the Revolution
      > > Presbyterian Church is a denial of the Second Reformation (1638-
      > 1649).
      > >
      > > http://www.loughbrickland.org/articles/slc.shtml
      > > <http://www.loughbrickland.org/articles/slc.shtml>
      > >
      > > Excerpt form the above site:
      > >
      > > "...Having said that, Ireland was the place where the Solemn
      > League and
      > > Covenant was taken without coercion, which wasn't entirely true in
      > > England or Scotland. We are constrained to conclude therefore that
      > > unless it can be shown to be sinful in any of its requirements the
      > > Solemn League and Covenant is binding on this generation also. "
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > > The Present Position
      > >
      > > What happened to the Solemn League and Covenant?
      > > In Scotland by the time of the revolution under King William, the
      > Solemn
      > > League and Covenant was virtually forgotten. The continuing
      > Covenanter
      > > remnant in Scotland, later known as the Reformed Presbyterian
      > Church,
      > > dissented from the Revolution Settlement because it ignored the
      > National
      > > Covenant of Scotland and the Solemn League and Covenant. There were
      > > other reasons. The Revolution Settlement allowed unrepentant
      > > episcopalians, compromisers and even persecutors to hold office in
      > the
      > > Church of Scotland. The Revolution Settlement gave the state a
      > right of
      > > interference in the church, even in the Church of Scotland, never
      > mind
      > > the Church of England where the monarch is head of the church. In
      > the
      > > Church of Scotland from the Revolution Settlement onwards there
      > was a
      > > right given to the civil authorities to interfere in the church.
      > That
      > > right increased and led to several later secessions from the
      > Church of
      > > Scotland.
      > > Prelacy or episcopacy (government in the church by a hierarchy),
      > was
      > > allowed in England. Presbyterianism was allowed in Scotland
      > because of
      > > its popularity, not because it was of divine right. In other
      > words, the
      > > revolution of 1688, though it brought much good and delivered the
      > > Covenanters from much of their sufferings, yet the settlement that
      > was
      > > brought in fell woefully short of the biblical high ground of the
      > Solemn
      > > League and Covenant. That covenant was ignored from then on.
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > > For Christ's Crown & Covenant,
      > >
      > > Edgar Ibarra
      > >
      > > RPNA-Albany, NY
      > >
      > > www.ReformedPresbytery.org <http://www.ReformedPresbytery.org>
      > >
      > > www.AlbanyCRPC.org <http://www.AlbanyCRPC.org>
      > >
      > > www.PresbiterianoReformadoorg
      > <http://www.PresbiterianoReformado.org>
      > >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >

      > Yahoo! Groups Links
      >
      >
      >

      >
      >
      >


      ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
      Join modern day disciples reach the disfigured and poor with hope and healing
      http://us.click.yahoo.com/B6T8nB/Vp3LAA/EcBKAA/GuTslB/TM
      --------------------------------------------------------------------~->

       
      Yahoo! Groups Links

      <*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
          http://groups.yahoo.com/group/covenantedreformationclub/

      <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
          covenantedreformationclub-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

      <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
          http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
       


    • jparnellm@usxchange.net
      Glenn, I can respect Rev Silversides for much that he has done and stands for (which, btw, I do), while taking exception with this article in some notable
      Message 2 of 7 , Mar 10, 2006
        Glenn, I can respect Rev Silversides for much that he has done and stands for
        (which, btw, I do), while taking exception with this article in some notable
        respects. Its theme is not merely the SLC, but rather the SLC as it justifies
        the separation of the Refd Pres Church (of Ireland) from the Rev Settlement
        CofS
        and its successors.

        Rev Silversides leaves unsaid the fact that his own denomination does *not*
        hold
        to the positions that it held to when it separated from Rev Settlement CofS.
        The RPNA is right to point out this fact to the RPI and RPCNA of today. The
        historic RP position is that the govt of Great Britain is not legitimate
        because unfaithful to the SLC. And the issue that divided the Rev Settlement
        CofS and its successors was not whether the civil govt of Great Britain was as
        religiously faithful as it ought to have been, but whether as a result it was
        legitimate or not.

        Even this statement of his is inaccurate: "The Revolution Settlement allowed
        unrepentant episcopalians, compromisers and even persecutors to hold office in
        the Church of Scotland." He fails to mention the fact that no one was allowed
        to hold office in the Rev Settlement CofS who did not:

        - fully subscribe to the WCF (which is pres, not episcopalian)

        - serve in a pres church (because the Rev Settlement CofS had pres not epis
        govt)

        In other words, they could only serve if they either lied or became
        presbyterian. And IMO there is no human system this side of the Day of
        Judgment which can keep out hypocrites so long as they keep up their mask.


        - Parnell McCarter


        Quoting Glenn Ferrell <jglennferrell@...>:

        > Does the article speak to the "legitimacy" or "illegitimacy" of the
        > Government of Great Britain? It questions the morality and advisability of
        > the surrender of part of Ireland and the more recent Stormont agreement.
        > This article is more concerned with the continuing obligation of the SL&C and
        > its applicability to England, Scotland and Ireland. One can accept the
        > government of the UK as legitimate in the sense of providentially established
        > by God, while still pointing out their sin in abandoning the terms of the
        > SL&C and the Erastian interference in the affairs of the church after 1688.
        > The RPCI and David Silversides in particular have maintained relationships
        > with groups who subsequently seceding from the CoS, while encouraging them to
        > consider the continuing obligation of the Covenants. I have heard David
        > Silversides preach to a Free Church of Scotland Continuing congregation and
        > in a less formal discussion urge on them the importance of the Covenants.
        > Since most American Presbyterians know little of the Covenants or the
        > argument for their continuing obligation, Silversides article is a helpful
        > introduction for them.
        >
        > Glenn Ferrell
        > SRPC, Boise, ID
        > ----- Original Message -----
        > From: jparnellm@...<mailto:jparnellm@...>
        > To:
        >
        covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com<mailto:covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com>
        >
        > Sent: Friday, March 10, 2006 7:11 AM
        > Subject: Re: [Covenanted Reformation] Re: Interesting article by the RPC of
        > I
        >
        >
        > I am sorry, but I must take exception to the article's version of history
        > in a
        > variety of respects:
        >
        > 1. It is incoherent. One primary issue is this: is the govt of Great
        > Britain
        > legitimate or is it not? The author of this article talks out of both
        > sides of
        > his mouth. **If** it was illegitimate, then I would certainly grant that
        > it
        > was wrong to have been part of the Rev Settlement CofS, for the Rev
        > Settlement
        > CofS recognized Britain's govt as legitimate. But if was illegitimate
        > under
        > William & Mary, it is certainly as illegitimate under the current British
        > monarch. Yet the current Refd Pres Church of Ireland of the author does
        > not
        > today take the stand that it is illegitimate. One cannot have one's cake
        > and
        > eat it too.
        >
        > 2. It is sadly ironic that the article should laud this letter ("sent by
        > the
        > Synod
        > of the RPCI to the American Reformed Presbyterian Church in 1922. It reads
        > as
        > follows: 'The great betrayal of Ulster by the British government is one of
        > the
        > basest and most sordid acts ever committed by any government. But it is
        > the
        > natural outcome of a Christless constitution... ) The reality is that it
        > was
        > the USA that revolted from an explicitly Protestant nation (Britain) and
        > wrote
        > a Christless constitution (the **US** Constitution). It was the USA that
        > created a situation where Britain was under tremendous pressure to give
        > Romanists voting rights, like they were given in
        > the USA **after** the American Revolution. It was Britain's King George
        > III
        > (who Americans so despise) that all his life refused to allow Romanist
        > franchise. It was the USA that entered into an alliance with Romanist
        > France
        > to achieve its "liberty", and so put in jeopardy Britain's other
        > territories
        > like Ireland.
        >
        > 3. It fails to even try to prove its point. I quite agree that British
        > govt
        > under William & Mary ( as well as the current Queen Eliz II) was flawed.
        > And,
        > yes, it was heinous how it ignored the SLC. But proving that a govt is
        > not
        > religiously faithful is not the same as proving it is illegitimate. And
        > this
        > article never connects those dots.
        >
        >
        > - Parnell McCarter
        >
        >
        >
        > Quoting Whit
        > <covie_pres.1646@...<mailto:covie_pres.1646@...>>:
        >
        > > Many thanks. It sheds more light on my ancestral land.
        > >
        > > Whit
        > >
        > > --- In
        >
        covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com<mailto:covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com>,
        > "Edgar A. Ibarra
        > > Jr." <puritanpresbyterian@...> wrote:
        > > >
        > > >
        > > > Ran across this article by the Reformed Presbyterian Church of
        > > Ireland.
        > > > They also state that the Revolution Presbyterian Church was
        > > unfaithful
        > > > and rejected the Solemn League and Covenant and also allowed
        > > unfaithful
        > > > ministers and apostates into their church and for the various other
        > > > reasons I also posted last summer in my debate with Matthew
        > > Winzer. I
        > > > did not know about this article until now. Note their similiar
        > > argument
        > > > for the maintenance of the SL&C for today and why the Revolution
        > > > Presbyterian Church is a denial of the Second Reformation (1638-
        > > 1649).
        > > >
        > > >
        >
        http://www.loughbrickland.org/articles/slc.shtml<http://www.loughbrickland.org/articles/slc.shtml>
        > > >
        >
        <http://www.loughbrickland.org/articles/slc.shtml<http://www.loughbrickland.org/articles/slc.shtml>>
        > > >
        > > > Excerpt form the above site:
        > > >
        > > > "...Having said that, Ireland was the place where the Solemn
        > > League and
        > > > Covenant was taken without coercion, which wasn't entirely true in
        > > > England or Scotland. We are constrained to conclude therefore that
        > > > unless it can be shown to be sinful in any of its requirements the
        > > > Solemn League and Covenant is binding on this generation also. "
        > > >
        > > >
        > > >
        > > > The Present Position
        > > >
        > > > What happened to the Solemn League and Covenant?
        > > > In Scotland by the time of the revolution under King William, the
        > > Solemn
        > > > League and Covenant was virtually forgotten. The continuing
        > > Covenanter
        > > > remnant in Scotland, later known as the Reformed Presbyterian
        > > Church,
        > > > dissented from the Revolution Settlement because it ignored the
        > > National
        > > > Covenant of Scotland and the Solemn League and Covenant. There were
        > > > other reasons. The Revolution Settlement allowed unrepentant
        > > > episcopalians, compromisers and even persecutors to hold office in
        > > the
        > > > Church of Scotland. The Revolution Settlement gave the state a
        > > right of
        > > > interference in the church, even in the Church of Scotland, never
        > > mind
        > > > the Church of England where the monarch is head of the church. In
        > > the
        > > > Church of Scotland from the Revolution Settlement onwards there
        > > was a
        > > > right given to the civil authorities to interfere in the church.
        > > That
        > > > right increased and led to several later secessions from the
        > > Church of
        > > > Scotland.
        > > > Prelacy or episcopacy (government in the church by a hierarchy),
        > > was
        > > > allowed in England. Presbyterianism was allowed in Scotland
        > > because of
        > > > its popularity, not because it was of divine right. In other
        > > words, the
        > > > revolution of 1688, though it brought much good and delivered the
        > > > Covenanters from much of their sufferings, yet the settlement that
        > > was
        > > > brought in fell woefully short of the biblical high ground of the
        > > Solemn
        > > > League and Covenant. That covenant was ignored from then on.
        > > >
        > > >
        > > >
        > > > For Christ's Crown & Covenant,
        > > >
        > > > Edgar Ibarra
        > > >
        > > > RPNA-Albany, NY
        > > >
        > > > www.ReformedPresbytery.org<http://www.reformedpresbytery.org/>
        > <http://www.ReformedPresbytery.org<http://www.reformedpresbytery.org/>>
        > > >
        > > > www.AlbanyCRPC.org<http://www.albanycrpc.org/>
        > <http://www.AlbanyCRPC.org<http://www.albanycrpc.org/>>
        > > >
        > > > www.PresbiterianoReformado.org<http://www.presbiterianoreformado.org/>
        >
        > >
        >
        <http://www.PresbiterianoReformado.org<http://www.presbiterianoreformado.org/>>
        > > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > > Yahoo! Groups Links
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        > Yahoo! Groups Links
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
      • Whit
        Could you clarify your responses? Thanks. Whit ... history in a ... Great Britain ... both sides of ... grant that it ... Rev Settlement ... illegitimate
        Message 3 of 7 , Mar 10, 2006
          Could you clarify your responses? Thanks.


          Whit

          --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, jparnellm@...
          wrote:
          >
          > I am sorry, but I must take exception to the article's version of
          history in a
          > variety of respects:
          >
          > 1. It is incoherent. One primary issue is this: is the govt of
          Great Britain
          > legitimate or is it not? The author of this article talks out of
          both sides of
          > his mouth. **If** it was illegitimate, then I would certainly
          grant that it
          > was wrong to have been part of the Rev Settlement CofS, for the
          Rev Settlement
          > CofS recognized Britain's govt as legitimate. But if was
          illegitimate under
          > William & Mary, it is certainly as illegitimate under the current
          British
          > monarch. Yet the current Refd Pres Church of Ireland of the
          author does not
          > today take the stand that it is illegitimate. One cannot have
          one's cake and
          > eat it too.
          >
          > 2. It is sadly ironic that the article should laud this letter
          ("sent by the
          > Synod
          > of the RPCI to the American Reformed Presbyterian Church in 1922.
          It reads as
          > follows: 'The great betrayal of Ulster by the British government
          is one of the
          > basest and most sordid acts ever committed by any government. But
          it is the
          > natural outcome of a Christless constitution... ) The reality is
          that it was
          > the USA that revolted from an explicitly Protestant nation
          (Britain) and wrote
          > a Christless constitution (the **US** Constitution). It was the
          USA that
          > created a situation where Britain was under tremendous pressure to
          give
          > Romanists voting rights, like they were given in
          > the USA **after** the American Revolution. It was Britain's King
          George III
          > (who Americans so despise) that all his life refused to allow
          Romanist
          > franchise. It was the USA that entered into an alliance with
          Romanist France
          > to achieve its "liberty", and so put in jeopardy Britain's other
          territories
          > like Ireland.
          >
          > 3. It fails to even try to prove its point. I quite agree that
          British govt
          > under William & Mary ( as well as the current Queen Eliz II) was
          flawed. And,
          > yes, it was heinous how it ignored the SLC. But proving that a
          govt is not
          > religiously faithful is not the same as proving it is
          illegitimate. And this
          > article never connects those dots.
          >
          >
          > - Parnell McCarter
          >
          >
          >
          > Quoting Whit <covie_pres.1646@...>:
          >
          > > Many thanks. It sheds more light on my ancestral land.
          > >
          > > Whit
          > >
          > > --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, "Edgar A.
          Ibarra
          > > Jr." <puritanpresbyterian@> wrote:
          > > >
          > > >
          > > > Ran across this article by the Reformed Presbyterian Church of
          > > Ireland.
          > > > They also state that the Revolution Presbyterian Church was
          > > unfaithful
          > > > and rejected the Solemn League and Covenant and also allowed
          > > unfaithful
          > > > ministers and apostates into their church and for the various
          other
          > > > reasons I also posted last summer in my debate with Matthew
          > > Winzer. I
          > > > did not know about this article until now. Note their
          similiar
          > > argument
          > > > for the maintenance of the SL&C for today and why the
          Revolution
          > > > Presbyterian Church is a denial of the Second Reformation
          (1638-
          > > 1649).
          > > >
          > > > http://www.loughbrickland.org/articles/slc.shtml
          > > > <http://www.loughbrickland.org/articles/slc.shtml>
          > > >
          > > > Excerpt form the above site:
          > > >
          > > > "...Having said that, Ireland was the place where the Solemn
          > > League and
          > > > Covenant was taken without coercion, which wasn't entirely
          true in
          > > > England or Scotland. We are constrained to conclude therefore
          that
          > > > unless it can be shown to be sinful in any of its requirements
          the
          > > > Solemn League and Covenant is binding on this generation
          also. "
          > > >
          > > >
          > > >
          > > > The Present Position
          > > >
          > > > What happened to the Solemn League and Covenant?
          > > > In Scotland by the time of the revolution under King William,
          the
          > > Solemn
          > > > League and Covenant was virtually forgotten. The continuing
          > > Covenanter
          > > > remnant in Scotland, later known as the Reformed Presbyterian
          > > Church,
          > > > dissented from the Revolution Settlement because it ignored
          the
          > > National
          > > > Covenant of Scotland and the Solemn League and Covenant. There
          were
          > > > other reasons. The Revolution Settlement allowed unrepentant
          > > > episcopalians, compromisers and even persecutors to hold
          office in
          > > the
          > > > Church of Scotland. The Revolution Settlement gave the state a
          > > right of
          > > > interference in the church, even in the Church of Scotland,
          never
          > > mind
          > > > the Church of England where the monarch is head of the church.
          In
          > > the
          > > > Church of Scotland from the Revolution Settlement onwards
          there
          > > was a
          > > > right given to the civil authorities to interfere in the
          church.
          > > That
          > > > right increased and led to several later secessions from the
          > > Church of
          > > > Scotland.
          > > > Prelacy or episcopacy (government in the church by a
          hierarchy),
          > > was
          > > > allowed in England. Presbyterianism was allowed in Scotland
          > > because of
          > > > its popularity, not because it was of divine right. In other
          > > words, the
          > > > revolution of 1688, though it brought much good and delivered
          the
          > > > Covenanters from much of their sufferings, yet the settlement
          that
          > > was
          > > > brought in fell woefully short of the biblical high ground of
          the
          > > Solemn
          > > > League and Covenant. That covenant was ignored from then on.
          > > >
          > > >
          > > >
          > > > For Christ's Crown & Covenant,
          > > >
          > > > Edgar Ibarra
          > > >
          > > > RPNA-Albany, NY
          > > >
          > > > www.ReformedPresbytery.org <http://www.ReformedPresbytery.org>
          > > >
          > > > www.AlbanyCRPC.org <http://www.AlbanyCRPC.org>
          > > >
          > > > www.PresbiterianoReformado.org
          > > <http://www.PresbiterianoReformado.org>
          > > >
          > >
          > >
          > >
          > >
          > >
          > >
          > >
          > >
          > >
          > > Yahoo! Groups Links
          > >
          > >
          > >
          > >
          > >
          > >
          > >
          >
        • jparnellm@usxchange.net
          ... Whit, to the extent the article defends the SLC, I think it is a good article. But to the extent its theme is not merely the SLC, but rather the SLC as it
          Message 4 of 7 , Mar 10, 2006
            Quoting Whit <covie_pres.1646@...>:

            > Could you clarify your responses? Thanks.
            >
            >
            > Whit
            >


            Whit, to the extent the article defends the SLC, I think it is a good article.
            But to the extent its theme is not merely the SLC, but rather the SLC as it
            justifies the separation of the Refd Pres Church of Ireland from the Rev
            Settlement CofS and its successors, I find it flawed. My previous post has
            laid out certain of my concerns with it.

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