Re: [Covenanted Reformation] John Knox: From Exile to the Covenant of Dun
- Yes, Jasper. As George Gillespie says in his book against "English
Popish Ceremonies" (a book, the Lord willing, that will come up at
some point in the series on Covenanter History), there is no less,
and sometimes more, honoring of the Lord's Supper from those who do
not kneel at the receiving of it; and since the kneeling itself adds
nothing as far as honoring the Supper, kneeling ought to be done away
with for the negative aspects it carries.
What's a good day for you?
--- In covenantedreformationclub@y..., Jasper Wall <jasperh98@y...>
>your initial comments you were using unspoken qualifiers, which you
> Jerry, thanks for the clarifications. It is now obvious that in
now brought forth. "For the sake of honoring the host of the
Mass" ..... "kneeling before the wafers because you think they are
God" .... "requiring people to receive the sacrament on their knees"
are all practices that I reject.
> Now about that Friendly's ice cream that I've been trying to moochfrom you......
> raging_calvinist wrote:Jasper,
> Generally speaking, when something indifferent for whatever reason
> becomes corrupted with superstition, it is sometimes needful to
> that indifferent thing due to the superstition.can
> Christ and the disciples celebrated the Lord's Supper, as best we
> tell, in a position no different than the position they were inMass,
> during the meal they ate. To add something that Christ and the
> disciples never did, for the sake of honoring "the host" of the
> is superstitious idolatry. Kneeling before God is a most properto
> position for sinful man to take, but kneeling before the wafers
> because you think they ARE GOD, is idolatry. And requiring people
> receive the sacrament on their knees, is even worse, as it isreligious
> assuming the perogative of Christ in requiring something in
> worship of Him which He Himself never commanded.in
> --- In covenantedreformationclub@y..., Jasper Wall <jasperh98@y...>
> > So then the scriptural teaching is that communion is to be taken
> a position customary to a dinner table setting? And that, whilerecollection
> kneeling "is not in and of itself a sinful act", kneeling if done
> during communion is "a superstitious act" ?
> > Now guys, I am half playing with you about this. To my
> I have never kneeled during communion. But I did find itinteresting
> that kneeling was altogether thrown out as a superstitious act. Howflesh,
> is it that one cannot kneel before God in one's heart, and in
> without being guilty of "superstitious" worship?the
> > Jasper
> > Repentant_deejay wrote:
> > <<<Do we have indication that Jesus and the Disciples rose from
> normal positions they customarily took at a dinner table, andassumed
> a kneeling posture to eat the Lord's Supper?the
> > I think that's a very good point, Jerry, and in and of itself
> answers the question of kneeling at Communion.
> > ~Deejay
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: raging_calvinist [mailto:ragingcalvinist@c...]
> > Sent: 27 June 2002 15:50
> > To: covenantedreformationclub@y...
> > Subject: Re: [Covenanted Reformation] John Knox: From Exile to
> Covenant of Dunassumed
> > LOL at DJ's comment!
> > Kneeling, of course, is not in and of itself a sinful act. But
> what is the significance of kneeling at communion?
> > Do we have indication that Jesus and the Disciples rose from the
> normal positions they customarily took at a dinner table, and
> > a kneeling posture to eat the Lord's Supper?from
> > I believe that kneeling to receive communion not only has no
> Scriptural warrant, but that it is a superstitious act leftover
> the Papist idea that Christ was present in the elements -- in whichService.
> case kneeling before it was an act of worshiping the elements.
> > Our superstitious ideas have no part in the worship of God.
> > gmw.
> > "For just as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, even
> so the Son also gives life to whom He wishes"
> > -John 5:21
> > ---------------------------------
> > Do You Yahoo!?
> > New! SBC Yahoo! Dial - 1st Month Free & unlimited access
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
>so the Son also gives life to whom He wishes"
> "For just as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, even
> -John 5:21
> Do You Yahoo!?
> New! SBC Yahoo! Dial - 1st Month Free & unlimited access
If the King broke the covenant as we see in the
anerican Colony Then are the people free to make a new
covenant with God, without the King? "Declaration of
Oh this is does in Opera. *smile
--- "Jerry <raging.calvinist@...>"
> Next in the series on Covenanter History we'll look__________________________________________________
> at the Third
> Article of the Solemn League and Covenant:
> Article 3
> "We shall, with the same sincerity, reality, and
> constancy, in
> several vocations, endeavour, with our estates and
> lives, mutually to
> preserve the rights and privileges of the
> Parliaments, and the
> liberties of the kingdoms; and to preserve and
> defend the king's
> majesty's person and authority, in the preservation
> and defence of
> the true religion and liberties of the kingdoms;
> that the world may
> bear witness with our consciences of our loyalty,
> and that we have no
> other thoughts or intentions to diminish his
> majesty's just power and
> In this article we see that the Covenanters, far
> from making
> themselves enemies of the Government, swore
> themselves to preserve
> the rights and privileges of the Parliaments, to
> preserve and defend
> the king's person and authority. It is important to
> note the
> phrase "in the preservation and defence of the true
> religion and
> liberties of the kingdoms." The Covenanters were
> not swearing
> themselves to unconditional loyalty to usurpers,
> tyrants, or public
> enemies of the true religion. This is an important
> distinction that
> we will touch on, Lord willing, a bit later in this
> series. This
> article reiterates what was sworn to in the National
> Covenant of
> Scotland: "We protest and promise... to defend the
> king's royal
> person and authority in defence of Christ's gospel,
> the liberty of
> the subject, the administration of justice, and the
> punishment of
> Thomas Case notes that in this article the
> Covenanter binds himself
> to 1)Use the best means to inform himself of the
> particular rights
> and privileges of Parliament, the particular
> liberties of the
> kingdoms, etc., so that he may 2)Conform himself
> to what he is
> informed to be his duty. In other words, we are to
> gain an
> understanding of what rights and privileges of
> government we are
> swearing to preserve, so that we may best carry out
> our duty to
> preserve them.
> Now, we all occupy various stations in life. And
> therefore we are
> not all bound to the same level of understanding of
> the rights and
> privileges involved, nor are we all bound to the
> same manner of
> preserving them. The Covenanters bound themselves
> according to
> their "several vocations." The king, a lawyer, a
> minister, a
> a soldier, may all have varying levels of
> understanding and varying
> levels of responsibility in the preservation of the
> rights and
> privileges of the civil government and of the King's
> person and
> J.W. Shaw explains concerning the Third Article,
> "In their day, these covenants were charged with
> being seditious,
> subversive of all government; in modern times, they
> have been opposed
> as leaning too strongly to kingly government.
> Neither charge can be
> sustained. They admit the validity of royal power;
> their framers
> understood too well their own rights, and the claims
> of Christ, to
> sanction the principle of absolute or irresponsible
> power. In the
> National Covenant, the ends and obligations of civil
> authority are
> clearly stated and the engagement is to maintain
> that authority
> defence' of these ends. In the Solemn League the
> rights of
> are put first, and then what relates to the King's
> majesty: and this
> they will `preserve and defend' only `in defence of
> religion and
> the liberties of the kingdoms.' They evidently
> regarded the
> not as a law-maker, but as the executive, and were
> determined to
> restrain the royal authority within its proper
> limits. Their deeds
> evidently so declare."
> By "their deeds" Shaw refers to the fact that the
> Covenanters, at the
> time of the first swearing of this Covenant, were
> standing in
> opposition to the King's attacks against religion
> and liberty.
> Later, when the King proved to be an incorrigible
> and treacherous
> public enemy of the Church of Jesus Christ and an
> enemy of liberty,
> the Covenanters produced the Sanquhar Declaration of
> War, and
> excommunicated the King from the Church. Again, we
> will, Lord
> willing, look at these things a bit later. For now,
> here are some
> Scriptures related to the Christian's duty to the
> for further study:
> Matt. 22:21; Rom. 13:1-7; Tim. 2:1-3; Titus 3:1; 1
> Peter 2:17.
> Next up in the series on Covenanter History: Article
> Four of the
> Solemn League and Covenant.
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.