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

[Covenanted Reformation] Re: Why Stay at Home --- Reasons from others

Expand Messages
  • puritanone
    4 comments: 1. Rev Ferrell, it has seemed to me you wrongly assess where most of the NAPARC denominations are. Most of them, including the OPC, do not require
    Message 1 of 24 , Mar 24, 2008
    • 0 Attachment
      4 comments:

      1. Rev Ferrell, it has seemed to me you wrongly assess where most of
      the NAPARC denominations are. Most of them, including the OPC, do not
      require full subscription to **any** reformed confession. That helps
      explain why there are many officers in their ranks who embrace the
      Federal Vision and deride the RPW.

      2. Regarding this topic in general, I would submit the issue of
      joining a denomination as member should be differentiated from
      attending a service. They are 2 distinct things which should be
      separately considered.

      3. If we join a denomination which was erroneously formed because of a
      rejection of a Biblical truth outlined in the WCF, then we are
      undermining sound Biblical church discipline. After all, church
      officers that teach contrary to the Biblical truths outlined in the
      WCF, should not be allowed to teach in the church. That is part of
      sound church discipline, and we should not undermine it by our
      denominational membership affiliation.

      4. Dr James Bannerman accurately spells out what should be our
      criteria for selecting a denomination to join. See
      http://www.puritans.net/news/bannerman051107.htm .

      - Parnell McCarter
    • ghowmil
      Remember though Okidoki, Rutherford is arguing from an established church perspective against congregational and other separatists and not arguing from a
      Message 2 of 24 , Mar 24, 2008
      • 0 Attachment
        Remember though Okidoki, Rutherford is arguing from an established
        church perspective against congregational and other separatists and
        not arguing from a modern separatists perspective against those who
        adhere to an establishmentarian and covenanting vantage point.

        Gary

        OBJECTION THIRTEEN. They object, that it is not lawful to have
        communion with a church, where there is any superstition or idolatry,
        or false worship. For David would not take up the names of idols in
        his lips; nor is it lawful to touch the garment spotted of the flesh,
        in respect, one Achan taking the accursed spoil, brought judgment on
        all the rest, and therefore they must separate who would be free of
        the curse.
      • okidokismokijo
        Gary, Thanks for your comment. There is a difference, for sure, between an established church and what we have in the US. But what makes covenant breaking,
        Message 3 of 24 , Mar 24, 2008
        • 0 Attachment
          Gary,

          Thanks for your comment.

          There is a difference, for sure, between an established church and
          what we have in the US. But what makes covenant breaking, and
          non-establishment worse sins than incest, partial idolatry and the
          other sins of the Corinthian church? The principles contained in
          Rutherford's arguments are still valid to true churches in any case.
          Check out Durham on the Thyatiran (sp??) church in his commentary on
          Revelation, as well as his comments on the 18th chapter. Durham and
          Rutherford are pulling their principles of unity from the scripture,
          which are not made void by establishment or attainments. Like the WCF
          ch 25 says, the church is more or less pure in doctrine and worship,
          even the purest churches have sin, and then goes on in ch 26 to say
          that Christians have duties to fellowship with one another, to worship
          with one another in the church and we're to take the ordinances which
          are means of grace to us regardless of the sins of others. The
          Corinthians were commanded to take the Lord's supper correctly in Cor
          11, even though all of the problems were still current! They were
          told to repent, get it right, but not to separate. If swearing is
          made to break our duties to church union, then it's an unlawful oath,
          we can't swear to sin. The SLC was a document to bring nations and
          churches to unity, not to prevent them from having unity.

          -Tammy

          -- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, "ghowmil"
          <garnetmilne@...> wrote:
          >
          > Remember though Okidoki, Rutherford is arguing from an established
          > church perspective against congregational and other separatists and
          > not arguing from a modern separatists perspective against those who
          > adhere to an establishmentarian and covenanting vantage point.
          >
          > Gary
          >
          > OBJECTION THIRTEEN. They object, that it is not lawful to have
          > communion with a church, where there is any superstition or idolatry,
          > or false worship. For David would not take up the names of idols in
          > his lips; nor is it lawful to touch the garment spotted of the flesh,
          > in respect, one Achan taking the accursed spoil, brought judgment on
          > all the rest, and therefore they must separate who would be free of
          > the curse.
          >
        • ghowmil
          Hi Tammy, It would have come as a surprise to the persecuted covenanters through the killing times and the society people and the Reformed Presbyterians when
          Message 4 of 24 , Mar 25, 2008
          • 0 Attachment
            Hi Tammy,

            It would have come as a surprise to the persecuted covenanters
            through the killing times and the society people and the Reformed
            Presbyterians when they were organised as a church that Rutherford
            was actually not on their side at all. When you can prove that they
            wrongly separated from the main body in Scotland then you claim
            Rutherford as their opponents.

            A better model, if you are looking in church history, would be John
            Knox, Whittingham and others separating from Frankfurt over the
            liturgy and going to Geneva, or the English nonconformists in the
            1560s under Elizabeth who were drummed out of the ministry and
            separated from the church setting up their own services in their
            homes etc. Surely having to have your minister wear, or as a minister
            wearing, a surplice is not as bad as idolatry and incest is it?

            When you talk about Corinth in this way, you neglect to say that both
            matters were dealt with and resolved.

            Kind Regards,
            Gary



            --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, okidokismokijo
            <no_reply@...> wrote:
            >
            > Gary,
            >
            > Thanks for your comment.
            >
            > There is a difference, for sure, between an established church and
            > what we have in the US. But what makes covenant breaking, and
            > non-establishment worse sins than incest, partial idolatry and the
            > other sins of the Corinthian church? The principles contained in
            > Rutherford's arguments are still valid to true churches in any
            case.
            > Check out Durham on the Thyatiran (sp??) church in his commentary
            on
            > Revelation, as well as his comments on the 18th chapter. Durham and
            > Rutherford are pulling their principles of unity from the scripture,
            > which are not made void by establishment or attainments. Like the
            WCF
            > ch 25 says, the church is more or less pure in doctrine and worship,
            > even the purest churches have sin, and then goes on in ch 26 to say
            > that Christians have duties to fellowship with one another, to
            worship
            > with one another in the church and we're to take the ordinances
            which
            > are means of grace to us regardless of the sins of others. The
            > Corinthians were commanded to take the Lord's supper correctly in
            Cor
            > 11, even though all of the problems were still current! They were
            > told to repent, get it right, but not to separate. If swearing is
            > made to break our duties to church union, then it's an unlawful
            oath,
            > we can't swear to sin. The SLC was a document to bring nations and
            > churches to unity, not to prevent them from having unity.
            >
            > -Tammy
            >
            > -- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, "ghowmil"
            > <garnetmilne@> wrote:
            > >
            > > Remember though Okidoki, Rutherford is arguing from an
            established
            > > church perspective against congregational and other separatists
            and
            > > not arguing from a modern separatists perspective against those
            who
            > > adhere to an establishmentarian and covenanting vantage point.
            > >
            > > Gary
            > >
            > > OBJECTION THIRTEEN. They object, that it is not lawful to have
            > > communion with a church, where there is any superstition or
            idolatry,
            > > or false worship. For David would not take up the names of idols
            in
            > > his lips; nor is it lawful to touch the garment spotted of the
            flesh,
            > > in respect, one Achan taking the accursed spoil, brought judgment
            on
            > > all the rest, and therefore they must separate who would be free
            of
            > > the curse.
            > >
            >
          • Ic Neltococayotl
            Hi Gary and Tammy, I would like to chime in, if I may. Is not there a difference between our current situation, Rutherford s situation, and during the times of
            Message 5 of 24 , Mar 25, 2008
            • 0 Attachment
              Hi Gary and Tammy,

              I would like to chime in, if I may.

              Is not there a difference between our current situation, Rutherford's
              situation, and during the times of persecution that needs to be
              considered?

              If the brethren were being persecuted by the Church leadership and State
              the way they were in the Killing Times or under the bishops in the mid
              to late 1500's, then the faithful Christians who were enduring such
              hardships would have had no other choice than gather together apart from
              the persecutors. In this instance it appears to me that Rutherford's
              words against separation would not apply in that, as Renwick calls it,
              they were being separated by force and against their wills. Nor does
              the situtaion at Corinth apply due to the fact that the presbyters were
              not persecuting those not participating in the wickedness of others.

              However, does not Rutherford's, Durham's (see On Scandal), and Shield's
              (see his response to Andrew Clarkson) words against separation apply to
              us today?

              How about when there are current denominations today that, regardless of
              their historical origin of unfaithfulness, are living up to 2nd
              Reformation ideals even though they do not adhere to the 6 Terms or
              other strict RP standards, do we separate from them for such things? I
              am here alluding to the Free Church of Scotland-Continuing or the Free
              Presbyterian Church of Scotland. It would seem that for a congregation
              of believers to be faithful followers of Biblical Reformation, they have
              to adopt those circumstantial aspects of the 6 Terms, namely 4 & 5 in
              regards to those particulars to the RP only. Yet, I would argue that
              the Church in Scotland, England, and Ireland are bound to press the
              Church and State to explicitly uphold and prosecute the SL&C and in
              Scotland only the National Covenant.

              I do not believe that I would be in sin for join such denominations that
              are more faithful to the Truth than their ancestors were. Is that not
              an indication of reformation, returning to the Old paths, and etc? Do
              we reject them just because they do not adopt one or two certain
              particulars that not even a Synod or a General Assembly ruled on??

              Thanks,

              Edgar


              --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, "ghowmil"
              <garnetmilne@...> wrote:
              >
              > Hi Tammy,
              >
              > It would have come as a surprise to the persecuted covenanters
              > through the killing times and the society people and the Reformed
              > Presbyterians when they were organised as a church that Rutherford
              > was actually not on their side at all. When you can prove that they
              > wrongly separated from the main body in Scotland then you claim
              > Rutherford as their opponents.
              >
              > A better model, if you are looking in church history, would be John
              > Knox, Whittingham and others separating from Frankfurt over the
              > liturgy and going to Geneva, or the English nonconformists in the
              > 1560s under Elizabeth who were drummed out of the ministry and
              > separated from the church setting up their own services in their
              > homes etc. Surely having to have your minister wear, or as a minister
              > wearing, a surplice is not as bad as idolatry and incest is it?
              >
              > When you talk about Corinth in this way, you neglect to say that both
              > matters were dealt with and resolved.
              >
              > Kind Regards,
              > Gary
              >
              >
              >
              > --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, okidokismokijo
              > no_reply@ wrote:
              > >
              > > Gary,
              > >
              > > Thanks for your comment.
              > >
              > > There is a difference, for sure, between an established church and
              > > what we have in the US. But what makes covenant breaking, and
              > > non-establishment worse sins than incest, partial idolatry and the
              > > other sins of the Corinthian church? The principles contained in
              > > Rutherford's arguments are still valid to true churches in any
              > case.
              > > Check out Durham on the Thyatiran (sp??) church in his commentary
              > on
              > > Revelation, as well as his comments on the 18th chapter. Durham and
              > > Rutherford are pulling their principles of unity from the scripture,
              > > which are not made void by establishment or attainments. Like the
              > WCF
              > > ch 25 says, the church is more or less pure in doctrine and worship,
              > > even the purest churches have sin, and then goes on in ch 26 to say
              > > that Christians have duties to fellowship with one another, to
              > worship
              > > with one another in the church and we're to take the ordinances
              > which
              > > are means of grace to us regardless of the sins of others. The
              > > Corinthians were commanded to take the Lord's supper correctly in
              > Cor
              > > 11, even though all of the problems were still current! They were
              > > told to repent, get it right, but not to separate. If swearing is
              > > made to break our duties to church union, then it's an unlawful
              > oath,
              > > we can't swear to sin. The SLC was a document to bring nations and
              > > churches to unity, not to prevent them from having unity.
              > >
              > > -Tammy
              > >
              > > -- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, "ghowmil"
              > > <garnetmilne@> wrote:
              > > >
              > > > Remember though Okidoki, Rutherford is arguing from an
              > established
              > > > church perspective against congregational and other separatists
              > and
              > > > not arguing from a modern separatists perspective against those
              > who
              > > > adhere to an establishmentarian and covenanting vantage point.
              > > >
              > > > Gary
              > > >
              > > > OBJECTION THIRTEEN. They object, that it is not lawful to have
              > > > communion with a church, where there is any superstition or
              > idolatry,
              > > > or false worship. For David would not take up the names of idols
              > in
              > > > his lips; nor is it lawful to touch the garment spotted of the
              > flesh,
              > > > in respect, one Achan taking the accursed spoil, brought judgment
              > on
              > > > all the rest, and therefore they must separate who would be free
              > of
              > > > the curse.
              > > >
              > >
              >
            • benhartmail
              Tammy, Thanks for the quotes from SR as well as for your argumentation to back up his point. I think it is important to remember that ultimately we re arguing
              Message 6 of 24 , Mar 25, 2008
              • 0 Attachment
                Tammy,

                Thanks for the quotes from SR as well as for your argumentation to
                back up his point. I think it is important to remember that
                ultimately we're arguing about issues, not about what so-and-so said
                or did. It is a huge temptation on all of our parts to have our
                heroes come out on the right side (i.e. *our side* :D ) of things.
                Thanks for sticking to the issues, not the people.

                That said, I'm sympathetic with your argument, and while I don't have
                much to add to it, I'd only like to emphasize one point. It's not
                clear where we get the idea in Scripture that it's historical
                attainments that are what give us sufficient grounds for separation
                from other Christians. In the passage below, Gary seems to beg the
                question at issue when he says:


                >
                > When you talk about Corinth in this way, you neglect to say that
                both
                > matters were dealt with and resolved.
                >


                I take it that the inference is that, if the issues weren't dealt
                with, someone should have separated. However, unless we're already
                assuming the "attaiments as grounds for separation" view, then we'd
                have no reason to think they would have separated. Of course, I may
                be getting Gary's point wrong (and if so, please correct me Gary),
                but if not I think the point stands.

                Again, I think sticking to the issues is essential to advancing the
                conversation re: separation, so thanks for doing just that.

                Warm Regards,
                Ben
              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.