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

RE: [Covenanted Reformation] Digest Number 1298

Expand Messages
  • Greg Cumbee
    Without pretending to speak for Rev. Silversides, the RPCI does hold to most “historic RP” principles, which is arguably more significant than holding to
    Message 1 of 1 , Mar 11, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      Without pretending to speak for Rev. Silversides, the RPCI does hold to most
      �historic RP� principles, which is arguably more significant than holding to
      bare historic application of the principles (i.e. positions) in and of
      themselves. There were long periods in RP history when people were fluent
      in the positions, but ignorant of the principles.

      Rutherfurd and MacMillian both held the similar high views of the
      catholicity of the visible Church. But yet the practical attitudes and
      *positions* expressed by these two men, was quite different.

      Was one a �true Covie�, whereas the other was not? � Wrong question.

      Have a blessed Sabbath.

      Cordially in Christ,

      Greg Cumbee
      RPCNA � Lynchburg, VA




      >From: covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com
      >Reply-To: covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com
      >To: covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com
      >Subject: [Covenanted Reformation] Digest Number 1298
      >Date: 11 Mar 2006 21:45:55 -0000
      >
      >
      >There are 3 messages in this issue.
      >
      >Topics in this digest:
      >
      > 1. Re: Interesting article by the RPC of I
      > From: "Whit" <covie_pres.1646@...>
      > 2. Re: Re: Interesting article by the RPC of I
      > From: jparnellm@...
      > 3. Re: Re: Interesting article by the RPC of I
      > From: jparnellm@...
      >
      >
      >________________________________________________________________________
      >________________________________________________________________________
      >
      >Message: 1
      > Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2006 23:35:10 -0000
      > From: "Whit" <covie_pres.1646@...>
      >Subject: Re: Interesting article by the RPC of I
      >
      >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
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >________________________________________________________________________
      >________________________________________________________________________
      >
      >Message: 2
      > Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2006 14:12:40 -0500
      > From: jparnellm@...
      >Subject: Re: Re: Interesting article by the RPC of I
      >
      >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
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      >
      >
      >________________________________________________________________________
      >________________________________________________________________________
      >
      >Message: 3
      > Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2006 18:51:28 -0500
      > From: jparnellm@...
      >Subject: Re: Re: Interesting article by the RPC of I
      >
      >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
      >
      >
      >________________________________________________________________________
      >________________________________________________________________________
      >
      >
      >
      >------------------------------------------------------------------------
      >Yahoo! Groups Links
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >------------------------------------------------------------------------
      >
      >
      >

      _________________________________________________________________
      Don�t just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search!
      http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.