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

Re: Question

Expand Messages
  • raging_calvinist
    Welcome to the club! Short answer: The Covenanters were those that subscribed to the National Covenant, and the Solemn League and Covenant, and who refused to
    Message 1 of 12 , Jul 1, 2002
      Welcome to the club!

      Short answer: The Covenanters were those that subscribed to the
      National Covenant, and the Solemn League and Covenant, and who
      refused to approve of or comply with any compromise or breach of
      those Covenants.

      You can read the National Covenant here:
      http://www.covenanter.org/Westminster/nationalcovenant.htm

      The Solemn League and Covenant can by read here:
      http://www.covenanter.org/Westminster/solemnleague.htm

      And you also may wish to check out the links in the folder marked
      Covenanter History in the Bookmarks section.

      Also, I've been working on a series of posts designed to be a short
      history of the Covenanters.

      gmw.

      --- In covenantedreformationclub@y..., "xerxesbanquet"
      <xerxesbanquet@y...> wrote:
      > Hello. I understand most of the club description, but who were the
      > Covenanters?
    • Colin
      Yesterday, Gerry cited some comments by the Historicist, H. G. Guinness. In my reply, I pointed out that HGG was a premillennialist (so too was that other
      Message 2 of 12 , Jul 26, 2004
        Yesterday, Gerry cited some comments by the Historicist, H. G.
        Guinness.

        In my reply, I pointed out that HGG was a premillennialist (so too
        was that other favorite of Historicists, E.B. Elliot and C.H.
        Spurgeon). And so too, is Ronald Cooke and Ian Paisley (modern
        historicists).

        It can be easily shown that Premillennialism contradicts not only the
        Protestant Reformers, but also, the all the reformed Confessions too.
        (I probably don't even have to demonstrate that here as I'm sure most
        will not even dispute this point).

        My question is why isn't the explicit anti-confessionalism of
        Premillennial writers such as Historicist Guiness, Elliot and
        Spurgeon ever denounced?

        (BTW E.B. Elliot did briefly concede the preterist view in his
        comments on Matt 24:15)

        "...the abomination of desolation standing in the Holy Place at
        Jerusalem (a prophecy which doubtless had reference to the time of
        the consummated iniquity of the Christ-rejecting Jerusalem, and of
        the Roman besieging army with its idolatrous stands gathering into
        the sacred precincts of the Jewish city..." (vol. 4, p. 617 Horae
        Apocalypticae)

        Preterism is accused (falsely) of being "anti-confessional"
        and "contrary to the historic Reformed view". Yet nothing is ever
        said about the anti-confessionalism and anti-reformed view of
        premillennialism (which is held by *many* Historicists).

        So is there a double standard here? The premillennialism of Guiness,
        Elliot and Spurgeon is tolerated because they were all Historicists?
        And yet the preterists who are also confessional postmillennialists
        (in agreement with the postmillennial Reformers and Puritans and
        confessions) are not tolerated?

        And I highly doubt that Guiness, Elliot and Spurgeon would ever be
        allowed to have communion with any steelite covenanter, or be allowed
        to join their church, even though the former were all staunch
        Historicists.

        So if Gerry can cite Premillennial Historicist, H.G. Guiness without
        any objection from the group, then why could he not also cite
        Postmillennial preterist, Kenneth Gentry also? (Both Gentry and Gerry
        are postmillennial).

        Colin
      • Joe
        I have learned that my marriage of 14 years is invalid in the Roman Church. Im Baptist, Wife is Catholic, because I wouldnt take the oath of teaching my
        Message 3 of 12 , Nov 17, 2004
          I have learned that my marriage of 14 years is invalid in the Roman
          Church. Im Baptist, Wife is Catholic, because I wouldnt take the oath
          of teaching my children the lies of RC. Is my marriage recognized by
          my own faith even though it was in a civil forum?
        • Kevin
          ... I m an ex-priest. Maybe I can help. Have you - or your wife - been previously married and divorced? That s the only way your marriage could be considered
          Message 4 of 12 , Nov 18, 2004
            Joe wrote:

            >
            >
            > I have learned that my marriage of 14 years is invalid in the Roman
            > Church. Im Baptist, Wife is Catholic, because I wouldnt take the oath
            > of teaching my children the lies of RC. Is my marriage recognized by
            > my own faith even though it was in a civil forum?

            I'm an ex-priest. Maybe I can help.
            Have you - or your wife - been previously married and divorced?
            That's the only way your marriage could be considered "invalid." The
            fact is the pope claims authority over *all* marriage, even protestant
            and civil ones so even when two protestants marry it's still considered
            to be under Roman authority and recognition (just a tiny bit of hubris,
            eh?<G>). So a barring previous divorce, there shouldn't be anything
            wrong with your marriage in Rome's eyes.
            As for the oath regarding the teaching of children, that's no longer
            in effect. They will try to *strongly influence* you to give
            permission; cajole, plead, maybe even threaten. But ever since the new
            Code of Canon Law came out (back in the '80s) that particular bit of
            nastiness has ben done away with. Now it's simply seen as an
            encouragement to raise the children Roman.
            If you're really - REALLY - concerned about this, contact the
            chancellory of the diocese you reside in and speak with their canon
            lawyer. Otherwise just proclaim the gospel to your wife, raise your
            kids in the true faith, and ignore the antichrist's threats and humbug.

            Kevin Guillory
          • Dan Fraas
            ... Roman ... oath ... recognized by ... divorced? ... The ... protestant ... considered ... hubris, ... anything ... longer ... the new ... of ... canon ...
            Message 5 of 12 , Nov 19, 2004
              --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, Kevin
              <globachio@c...> wrote:
              >
              > Joe wrote:
              >
              > >
              > >
              > > I have learned that my marriage of 14 years is invalid in the
              Roman
              > > Church. Im Baptist, Wife is Catholic, because I wouldnt take the
              oath
              > > of teaching my children the lies of RC. Is my marriage
              recognized by
              > > my own faith even though it was in a civil forum?
              >
              > I'm an ex-priest. Maybe I can help.
              > Have you - or your wife - been previously married and
              divorced?
              > That's the only way your marriage could be considered "invalid."
              The
              > fact is the pope claims authority over *all* marriage, even
              protestant
              > and civil ones so even when two protestants marry it's still
              considered
              > to be under Roman authority and recognition (just a tiny bit of
              hubris,
              > eh?<G>). So a barring previous divorce, there shouldn't be
              anything
              > wrong with your marriage in Rome's eyes.
              > As for the oath regarding the teaching of children, that's no
              longer
              > in effect. They will try to *strongly influence* you to give
              > permission; cajole, plead, maybe even threaten. But ever since
              the new
              > Code of Canon Law came out (back in the '80s) that particular bit
              of
              > nastiness has ben done away with. Now it's simply seen as an
              > encouragement to raise the children Roman.
              > If you're really - REALLY - concerned about this, contact the
              > chancellory of the diocese you reside in and speak with their
              canon
              > lawyer. Otherwise just proclaim the gospel to your wife, raise
              your
              > kids in the true faith, and ignore the antichrist's threats and
              humbug.

              Yes, but the Catholic member is still required to promise to raise
              the children in Rome, right?

              Riley
            • Kevin
              ... No. Like their partner they are strongly encouraged to do so, but Canon Law does not require such of them. As members of the papist congregation they have
              Message 6 of 12 , Nov 19, 2004
                Dan Fraas wrote:
                Yes, but the Catholic member is still required to promise to raise
                the children in Rome, right?

                    No. Like their partner they are strongly encouraged to do so, but Canon Law does not require such of them.  As members of the papist congregation they have many laws, rules, and anti-Christian ordinances to obey.  But in the end, if their partner refuses to condemn their child to a life of ignorance and an eternity in hell, they need not contradict them.
                    Don't let the priest deceive you.  If he/she/it/whatever insists that both, or even one, of the partners (even the Roman one) must raise the children papist, then ask to see it in the Code of Canon Law.  He/she/it/whatever WILL back down.  I guarantee it.

                In Christ,
                Kevin Guillory
                   
                Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
                ADVERTISEMENT
                click here

              • toratora1649
                I don t know what your faith teaches. But as far as God is concerned, you are married. And His opinion is the only one that matters. What God hath joined
                Message 7 of 12 , Nov 19, 2004
                  I don't know what your faith teaches. But as far as God is concerned,
                  you are married. And His opinion is the only one that matters. "What
                  God hath joined together, let man not tear asunder."

                  The Church of Rome can jump in the lake.



                  --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, "Joe"
                  <joe_bostnma@y...> wrote:
                  >
                  >
                  > I have learned that my marriage of 14 years is invalid in the Roman
                  > Church. Im Baptist, Wife is Catholic, because I wouldnt take the
                  oath
                  > of teaching my children the lies of RC. Is my marriage recognized
                  by
                  > my own faith even though it was in a civil forum?
                • Edgar A. Ibarra Jr.
                  What ... AMEN!!!! ... concerned, ... matters. What ... Roman ... recognized
                  Message 8 of 12 , Nov 19, 2004
                    "What
                    > God hath joined together, let man not tear asunder."

                    >The Church of Rome can jump in the lake.


                    AMEN!!!!

                    --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, "toratora1649"
                    <toratora1649@y...> wrote:
                    >
                    >
                    > I don't know what your faith teaches. But as far as God is
                    concerned,
                    > you are married. And His opinion is the only one that
                    matters. "What
                    > God hath joined together, let man not tear asunder."
                    >
                    > The Church of Rome can jump in the lake.
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    > --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, "Joe"
                    > <joe_bostnma@y...> wrote:
                    > >
                    > >
                    > > I have learned that my marriage of 14 years is invalid in the
                    Roman
                    > > Church. Im Baptist, Wife is Catholic, because I wouldnt take the
                    > oath
                    > > of teaching my children the lies of RC. Is my marriage
                    recognized
                    > by
                    > > my own faith even though it was in a civil forum?
                  • Kevin
                    ... That pretty much says it all. Thanks for posting it! Kevin
                    Message 9 of 12 , Nov 20, 2004
                      toratora1649 wrote:

                      > I don't know what your faith teaches. But as far as God is concerned,
                      > you are married. And His opinion is the only one that matters. "What
                      > God hath joined together, let man not tear asunder."
                      >
                      > The Church of Rome can jump in the lake.

                      That pretty much says it all. Thanks for posting it!

                      Kevin
                    • jamescovie
                      I would like to know if it is right to allow Mormons or Jehovahs witnesses into your house to talk to them about religon? I was told last night by someone that
                      Message 10 of 12 , Apr 7, 2005
                        I would like to know if it is right to allow Mormons or Jehovahs
                        witnesses into your house to talk to them about religon? I was told
                        last night by someone that it would be wrong to invite them into your
                        home. So anyhow anything on this could be found helpful.
                        James
                      • Edgar A. Ibarra Jr.
                        James, I personnally have witnessed to several JW s & Mormons, even meeting on a weekly basis with a JW leader in Iwakuni, Japan and as long as you proclaim
                        Message 11 of 12 , Apr 7, 2005
                          James,

                          I personnally have witnessed to several JW's & Mormons, even
                          meeting on a weekly basis with a JW leader in Iwakuni, Japan and as
                          long as you proclaim the TRUTH to them with gentleness and respect
                          with firmness in the TRUTH, you will be committing no sin in inviting
                          them into your home. The person that said that you would is taking 2
                          (or 3) John out of context. There the Apostle states that if you
                          allow a heretic into your home and give him a base of operation and
                          sending out with your blessing, knowing he is a heretic, then that is
                          sin and you are participating in his sin.
                          But, if this is NOT what you are doing,no harm no foul. Proclaim
                          the true Gospel (Calvinism) and you are good to go.

                          Hope that helps!

                          Yours in Christ,

                          Edgar

                          --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, "jamescovie"
                          <jamescovie@y...> wrote:
                          >
                          > I would like to know if it is right to allow Mormons or Jehovahs
                          > witnesses into your house to talk to them about religon? I was told
                          > last night by someone that it would be wrong to invite them into
                          your
                          > home. So anyhow anything on this could be found helpful.
                          > James
                        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.