Re: [Covenanted Reformation] Re: Two or More Are Gathered
- The biblical principle, and historical evidence, is
just coming to light over the past 5-10 years and I
would absolutely welcome your contrary evidence that
the Independents had nothing to do with building the
foundation by which the Erastians used to promote
their doctrine of pretended "toleration". I'm all
"Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a
man soweth, that shall he also reap. For he that
soweth to his flesh shall of the flesh reap
corruption; but he that soweth to the Spirit shall of
the Spirit reap life everlasting." (Eph.6:7-8)
--- forisraelssake <c_tylor@...> wrote:
> > Clearly you will disagree that the Independents____________________________________________________________________________________
> > anything to do with influencing the war, or even
> > to the initial slaughter of Presbyterians and
> > Covenanters from the war on into the period of the
> > Killing Times.
> > However, if the Lord allows me one day, I will do
> > movie documenting these events and make guys like
> > really frustrated that the Independents planted
> > seeds that repeated a wicked harvest over time.
> Absolutely I disagree with you about the
> Independents, the Dissenting
> Brethren, John Owen, or Oliver Cromwell having
> anything to do with the
> slaughter and rapine of godly Presbyterian
> civilians. I couldn't
> disagree more with your rewriting of history, and
> libeling the godly
> and sincere Christians of the Independent persuasion
> and making them
> into Covenanter-murderers. You're already
> back-pedaling from saying
> they were directly responsible for the murders, or
> directly allied
> with the Royalists or collaborated in their
> murderous schemes, and now
> you are saying they "planted the seeds" of the later
> (obviously a weaker and more ambiguous claim, and
> one that is also
> another falsehood in my opinion), and yet you still
> haven't retracted
> your previous post's stronger claim. Let the reader
> see the
> manipulations we are being subjected to, while the
> Humble Learner tugs
> at our heart-strings with obvious misrepresentations
> of at least one
> group in a very complicated and messy period of
> early modern history.
TV dinner still cooling?
Check out "Tonight's Picks" on Yahoo! TV.
- --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, alcunius
> It does not seem that clear to me by what Winzer wrote.
> This same Matthew Winzer that your speaking of seems to have some
> confusion on Deduction and Induction at the same Board different
> inductive>Tim-Granted Mr. Winzer errs in his understanding of logic and perhaps
> And at the same web board he seems to be defending the Perpetual
> Virginity of Mary
in his understanding of whether or not Mary remained virgin after the
birth of Jesus, but these errors are irrelevant if one is questioning
his readings of the Divines he cites.
Why do you think Winzer does not make his case?
> --- In email@example.com, "Chris Coldwell"Winzer
> <naphtali@> wrote:
> > This has been a problem for some time. For instance, Matthew
> > clearly demonstrates a problem in Barrow's CRD in comprehending
> > Rutherford (and others) correctly, specifically on the "being" vs.
> > "well-being" of the church.
> > http://www.puritanboard.com/showthread.php?t=14397
> > Sincerely,
> > Chris Coldwell
> > Naphtali Press http://www.naphtali.com
> > The Confessional Presbyterian journal http://www.cpjournal.com
> > Member Lakewood Presbyterian Church (PCA)
> > --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, Larry Bump
> > lbump@ wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > > Makes one wonder how they read these books...
> > >
> > > Indeed. And if this is an honest example of the reading
> > > and exegesis they apply to books in order to come up with a
> > self-serving
> > > argument, one must wonder if that "style" may have been applied
> > > elsewhere, as well.
> > >
> > > Larry
> > >