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

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

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 7 , Mar 10, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      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
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
    • 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 2 of 7 , Mar 10, 2006
      • 0 Attachment
        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.