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

An apology

Expand Messages
  • ashamed4thegospel
    Sir- It would appear that I was a bit hasty in my judgment of you and your group. I had never saw it in that light before, but I can see now where I was wrong.
    Message 1 of 10 , Sep 30, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      Sir-
      It would appear that I was a bit hasty in my judgment of you and your
      group. I had never saw it in that light before, but I can see now
      where I was wrong. Just wanted to come back and set things right.
      Not looking to start a war of words or to offend other believers in
      the faith.
      It seems that someone here has taken offense with me claiming to be
      Baptist. Are Baptist unwelcome here or something? I did not know
      that my church back ground would be called into question. I am a
      Calvinist-Independent, Baptist thank you.

      Just trying to make things right. May the Lord of peace keep you in
      His care.
    • Jerry
      You are welcome to stay here and join in the discussions. I m glad you came back to give us another try. gmw. ... your
      Message 2 of 10 , Sep 30, 2002
      • 0 Attachment
        You are welcome to stay here and join in the discussions. I'm glad
        you came back to give us another try.

        gmw.

        --- In covenantedreformationclub@y..., "ashamed4thegospel"
        <ashamed4thegospel@y...> wrote:
        > Sir-
        > It would appear that I was a bit hasty in my judgment of you and
        your
        > group. I had never saw it in that light before, but I can see now
        > where I was wrong. Just wanted to come back and set things right.
        > Not looking to start a war of words or to offend other believers in
        > the faith.
        > It seems that someone here has taken offense with me claiming to be
        > Baptist. Are Baptist unwelcome here or something? I did not know
        > that my church back ground would be called into question. I am a
        > Calvinist-Independent, Baptist thank you.
        >
        > Just trying to make things right. May the Lord of peace keep you in
        > His care.
      • S.P.Padbury
        Message 3 of 10 , Oct 1, 2002
        • 0 Attachment
        • S.P.Padbury
          Dear Covenanted Reformation Club folk, I have just uploaded an entire replacement for the James Begg Society website. Take a look! Tell me what doesn t work,
          Message 4 of 10 , Oct 1, 2002
          • 0 Attachment
            Dear Covenanted Reformation Club folk,

            I have just uploaded an entire replacement for the James Begg
            Society website. Take a look! Tell me what doesn't work, and
            where the mistakes are...! Of particular interest to you may be the
            Westminster Standards documents (British; not the American
            edited ones), which I have given drop-down menus for easy
            navigation; and the WCF and WLC I have also made into frames
            versions (but whole-document versions are still also available).

            God willing, there'll be more to come. I hope to put on the JBS site
            again the Sum of Saving Knowledge, and some other stuff. But I'm
            very busy a the moment.

            I've only told a few of you folk, but I've got a new job and so my wife
            and I, therefore, hope to be moving soon. The job is about a
            hundred miles away, and I have to go there at the end of the
            month, meanwhile my wife will still be in Sheffield sorting out the
            house move from that end. We have no car, so that's just how it
            will have to be for 2-3 months, however long it takes to move
            house. I'll help with the packing up as much as I can...!

            This move means that I will be leaving the vicinity of Sheffield
            University, where I have free email access. This means that in a
            couple of weeks time, for a while at least, I will have to come off
            this CovenantedReformation discussion list, until I get email set up
            in our new home.

            I have a question for you Covenanters out there. Can you explain to
            me what happened that led to the Reformed Presbyterians splitting
            off from the other Scottish presbyterians? -- about the Revolution
            Settlement, its contents, and the views that each side of the split
            took?

            Yours sincerely, Simon Padbury.
          • Jerry
            Dear Simon, Is there a new link? The one I used got me the old site. gmw. P.S. -- I d be glad to get into the controversies that split the Church of Scotland.
            Message 5 of 10 , Oct 1, 2002
            • 0 Attachment
              Dear Simon,

              Is there a new link? The one I used got me the old site.

              gmw.

              P.S. -- I'd be glad to get into the controversies that split the
              Church of Scotland. I'll mention some briefly here, and then in more
              detail as I continue the series on Covie History. Of course, if
              anyone else wants to get this conversation going now, be my guest.

              The first controversy was the one between the Protestors and the
              Resolutioners. The Resolutioners agreed with the Resolutions which
              were passed that allowed "malignants" (open enemies of the
              Reformation, covenant-refusers, and covenant-breakers) to hold office
              in Church and State.

              The Protestors took the contrary view, which was that the Covenants
              sworn by both Church and State did NOT allow such a resolution. Men
              like Patrick Gillespie, Samuel Rutherford, and James Guthrie were
              some notable Protestors.

              The controversy you noted, the Revolution Settlement, was a great
              divider. The Church of Scotland agreed to this settlement which
              established Presbyterianism (not as Jus Divinum, but as a way to shut
              up the Presbyterians), and which ratified the Westminster Standards.
              Problems: What about the Covenants? Are we to forget they ever
              happened? Will the Church of Scotland acknowledge her sin in
              breaking Covenant? Should the Covenanters acknowledge a Church which
              is settled on Erastian principles? The Covenanters declined
              participation in the Revolution Church. So do I.

              --- In covenantedreformationclub@y..., "S.P.Padbury" <S.Padbury@s...>
              wrote:
              > Dear Covenanted Reformation Club folk,
              >
              > I have just uploaded an entire replacement for the James Begg
              > Society website. Take a look! Tell me what doesn't work, and
              > where the mistakes are...! Of particular interest to you may be the
              > Westminster Standards documents (British; not the American
              > edited ones), which I have given drop-down menus for easy
              > navigation; and the WCF and WLC I have also made into frames
              > versions (but whole-document versions are still also available).
              >
              > God willing, there'll be more to come. I hope to put on the JBS
              site
              > again the Sum of Saving Knowledge, and some other stuff. But I'm
              > very busy a the moment.
              >
              > I've only told a few of you folk, but I've got a new job and so my
              wife
              > and I, therefore, hope to be moving soon. The job is about a
              > hundred miles away, and I have to go there at the end of the
              > month, meanwhile my wife will still be in Sheffield sorting out the
              > house move from that end. We have no car, so that's just how it
              > will have to be for 2-3 months, however long it takes to move
              > house. I'll help with the packing up as much as I can...!
              >
              > This move means that I will be leaving the vicinity of Sheffield
              > University, where I have free email access. This means that in a
              > couple of weeks time, for a while at least, I will have to come off
              > this CovenantedReformation discussion list, until I get email set
              up
              > in our new home.
              >
              > I have a question for you Covenanters out there. Can you explain to
              > me what happened that led to the Reformed Presbyterians splitting
              > off from the other Scottish presbyterians? -- about the Revolution
              > Settlement, its contents, and the views that each side of the split
              > took?
              >
              > Yours sincerely, Simon Padbury.
            • Jerry
              Never mind! I just got through to the new site. LOOKS GREAT! Thank you, Simon for doing this. This is from the intro to the Westminster Standards page: We
              Message 6 of 10 , Oct 1, 2002
              • 0 Attachment
                Never mind! I just got through to the new site. LOOKS GREAT! Thank
                you, Simon for doing this.

                This is from the intro to the Westminster Standards page:

                "We observe that the majority of "Protestant" church-goers in our day
                scoff at and reject much of the faith of their precesessors. Many
                express a heart-felt regret for the work of God in the Reformation,
                and seek to undo it. Besides their ignorance, for the most part, of
                the great doctinal truths that were promoted in the Reformation, many
                modern church-goers are committed to removing all trace of the
                simple, rich, reverent and Biblical worship of God that was also
                restored at that time, replacing it with shallow, man-made and man-
                centered hymns, choruses, rituals, drama, dance, and many other
                things that have no warrant from Holy Scripture.

                "Meanwhile, we thank God that we are also seeing a renewal of
                interest in the historic documents of the Westminster Standards, by
                Christians who have come to appreciate how far the teachings and
                practices of many modern-day churches have degenerated since those
                times."

                I agree whole-heartedly. Amen.

                Check out the new site, folks:
                http://easyweb.easynet.co.uk/~jbeggsoc/jbshome.html

                gmw.



                --- In covenantedreformationclub@y..., "Jerry" <ragingcalvinist@c...>
                wrote:
                > Dear Simon,
                >
                > Is there a new link? The one I used got me the old site.
                >
                > gmw.
                >
                > P.S. -- I'd be glad to get into the controversies that split the
                > Church of Scotland. I'll mention some briefly here, and then in
                more
                > detail as I continue the series on Covie History. Of course, if
                > anyone else wants to get this conversation going now, be my guest.
                >
                > The first controversy was the one between the Protestors and the
                > Resolutioners. The Resolutioners agreed with the Resolutions which
                > were passed that allowed "malignants" (open enemies of the
                > Reformation, covenant-refusers, and covenant-breakers) to hold
                office
                > in Church and State.
                >
                > The Protestors took the contrary view, which was that the Covenants
                > sworn by both Church and State did NOT allow such a resolution.
                Men
                > like Patrick Gillespie, Samuel Rutherford, and James Guthrie were
                > some notable Protestors.
                >
                > The controversy you noted, the Revolution Settlement, was a great
                > divider. The Church of Scotland agreed to this settlement which
                > established Presbyterianism (not as Jus Divinum, but as a way to
                shut
                > up the Presbyterians), and which ratified the Westminster
                Standards.
                > Problems: What about the Covenants? Are we to forget they ever
                > happened? Will the Church of Scotland acknowledge her sin in
                > breaking Covenant? Should the Covenanters acknowledge a Church
                which
                > is settled on Erastian principles? The Covenanters declined
                > participation in the Revolution Church. So do I.
                >
                > --- In covenantedreformationclub@y..., "S.P.Padbury"
                <S.Padbury@s...>
                > wrote:
                > > Dear Covenanted Reformation Club folk,
                > >
                > > I have just uploaded an entire replacement for the James Begg
                > > Society website. Take a look! Tell me what doesn't work, and
                > > where the mistakes are...! Of particular interest to you may be
                the
                > > Westminster Standards documents (British; not the American
                > > edited ones), which I have given drop-down menus for easy
                > > navigation; and the WCF and WLC I have also made into frames
                > > versions (but whole-document versions are still also available).
                > >
                > > God willing, there'll be more to come. I hope to put on the JBS
                > site
                > > again the Sum of Saving Knowledge, and some other stuff. But I'm
                > > very busy a the moment.
                > >
                > > I've only told a few of you folk, but I've got a new job and so
                my
                > wife
                > > and I, therefore, hope to be moving soon. The job is about a
                > > hundred miles away, and I have to go there at the end of the
                > > month, meanwhile my wife will still be in Sheffield sorting out
                the
                > > house move from that end. We have no car, so that's just how it
                > > will have to be for 2-3 months, however long it takes to move
                > > house. I'll help with the packing up as much as I can...!
                > >
                > > This move means that I will be leaving the vicinity of Sheffield
                > > University, where I have free email access. This means that in a
                > > couple of weeks time, for a while at least, I will have to come
                off
                > > this CovenantedReformation discussion list, until I get email set
                > up
                > > in our new home.
                > >
                > > I have a question for you Covenanters out there. Can you explain
                to
                > > me what happened that led to the Reformed Presbyterians splitting
                > > off from the other Scottish presbyterians? -- about the
                Revolution
                > > Settlement, its contents, and the views that each side of the
                split
                > > took?
                > >
                > > Yours sincerely, Simon Padbury.
              • S.P.Padbury
                Dear Jerry, Try this, http://easyweb.easynet.co.uk/~jbeggsoc/jbshome.html What were you trying? Simon. ... Dear Simon, Is there a new link? The one I used got
                Message 7 of 10 , Oct 1, 2002
                • 0 Attachment
                  Dear Jerry,

                  Try this,

                  http://easyweb.easynet.co.uk/~jbeggsoc/jbshome.html

                  What were you trying?

                  Simon.

                  ------------------------------
                  Dear Simon,

                  Is there a new link? The one I used got me the old site.

                  gmw.
                • S.P.Padbury
                  Jerry, www.jbeggsoc.org.uk/ sould also work. They both work for me -- I ve just tried them. Maybe you are getting a mirror that has yet to be updated -- I only
                  Message 8 of 10 , Oct 1, 2002
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Jerry,

                    www.jbeggsoc.org.uk/ sould also work. They both work for me --
                    I've just tried them. Maybe you are getting a mirror that has yet to
                    be updated -- I only uploaded the new site an hour ago.

                    Simon.
                  • S.P.Padbury
                    Dear Jerry,
                    Message 9 of 10 , Oct 1, 2002
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Dear Jerry,

                      <<<"We observe that the majority of "Protestant" church-goers in
                      our day scoff at and reject much of the faith of their precesessors.
                      Many express a heart-felt regret for the work of God in the
                      Reformation, and seek to undo it....">>>

                      --Did you not recognise my own inimitable style?

                      BTW, I surfed around abit on the www.jbeggsoc.org.uk version of
                      the JBS site, and foind that the "break out of frames" javascripts
                      don't work for some reason. The only way out of the frameset it to
                      keep hitting the "back" button on the internet browser.

                      These same scripts work on the "easyweb" version of the site.
                      Something crazy is going on!

                      Best regards, Simon.
                    • thebishopsdoom
                      ... office ... Men ... Just to further clarify the issues involved in the Protester / Resolutioner struggle... The public resolutions declared that for the
                      Message 10 of 10 , Oct 1, 2002
                      • 0 Attachment
                        --- In covenantedreformationclub@y..., "Jerry" <ragingcalvinist@c...>
                        wrote:
                        >The Resolutioners agreed with the Resolutions which
                        > were passed that allowed "malignants" (open enemies of the
                        > Reformation, covenant-refusers, and covenant-breakers) to hold
                        office
                        > in Church and State.
                        >
                        > The Protestors took the contrary view, which was that the Covenants
                        > sworn by both Church and State did NOT allow such a resolution.
                        Men
                        > like Patrick Gillespie, Samuel Rutherford, and James Guthrie were
                        > some notable Protestors.

                        Just to further clarify the issues involved in the Protester /
                        Resolutioner struggle...

                        The public resolutions declared that for the raising of the army, men
                        could be put into public trust and in the army provided they are not
                        forfeited (forget what that meant offhand), notoriously profane,
                        excommunicated, nor at the present time declared enemies to the
                        covenants and the cause of God. I think that taking of the covenant
                        was still a requirement as well.
                        However, despite these qualifications, the resolutions represented a
                        change from the previous acts of Scottish General Assembly, and the
                        evidence of actual repentance was also apparently frequently not
                        there before such were put into public trust or in the army, and yet
                        those who questioned what was going on faced the threat of censure.
                        Hugh Binning:

                        "SECTION II.
                        THAT THE PRESENT PUBLIC RESOLUTIONS, EXPRESSED IN THE COMMISSION'S
                        ANSWER TO THE PARLIAMENT'S QUERY,18 AND THE ACT OF THE LEVY,19 DO NOT
                        EXCLUDE THAT PARTY.
                        IN the next place, upon supposal and proof, that there is a malignant
                        party and faction still in the land, it is needful to examine,
                        whether the exceptions contained in the answer of the Commission to
                        the Parliament's Query, and inserted into the Act of Levy, be so
                        comprehensive as to include all that party. The exceptions be four.
                        1. Such as are excommunicated.
                        2. Such as are forfaulted.
                        3. Such as are notoriously profane or flagitious. And,
                        4. Such as have been from the beginning, and continue still, or at
                        this time are, obstinate enemies and opposers of the covenant and
                        cause of God.
                        That these are not comprehensive of the whole malignant party in the
                        land, appears. First, The rules of the General Assembly framed for
                        the exclusion of all such as ought not to be employed in our armies,
                        are far more comprehensive. The rule is for employing of such only as
                        are of a Christian and blameless conversation, which is turned over
                        by their commissioners into a negative, all that are not notoriously
                        profane or flagitious.
                        Another is, for intrusting only these who have been of known
                        integrity and constant friends to the cause of God from the
                        beginning, which is also turned over into a negative, all that have
                        not been constant enemies. All such, by the Answer, are capable of
                        some trust and employment. The rules agreed upon by the assembly, and
                        ratified by act of parliament, anno 1649, and renewed upon occasion
                        of this invasion, were that no officer nor soldier that followed
                        James Graham should be permitted in the army, nor any officer that
                        was in the Engagement, except such as, upon real evidence of
                        repentance, were particularly recommended by the church, nor any
                        common soldier, but upon sufficient testimony of his repentance.
                        Now, since it is proved that the most part of all such continue still
                        malignants, and retain their old principles, and that the bulk and
                        body of the people are called forth by the public resolution, without
                        such exceptions as were conceived before necessary, for the exclusion
                        of that party, it follows clearly, that the malignant party is not
                        excepted in the present resolutions."

                        Also:

                        "Objection 2. The most part of these who were formerly malignant,
                        have now repented of that sin, and make profession of their
                        resolution to adhere to the covenant and cause of God, and to bestow
                        their lives and estates in defence thereof. Therefore they are not
                        now to be esteemed malignants.
                        Answer. We would wish from our hearts that we had no answer to this
                        argument; then should we yield the point in hand, and yield it
                        cheerfully, that there is no malignant party now in Scotland. But,
                        alas! that we have so much evidence convincing our consciences and
                        persuading them to deny what is objected. We acknowledge some have
                        indeed repented, and such we desire to embrace and receive with all
                        tenderness and love, as godly Christians, worthy to be intrusted. But
                        yet the most part of them do still bring forth the same malignant
                        fruits. Their ungodly and wicked practices testify to their face that
                        they have nothing to do to take his covenant in their mouth, seeing
                        they hate to be reformed. The late rising in arms, contrary to their
                        solemn and particular engagements, their bearing down and reproaching
                        the godly, and such as are of known integrity, their studying to fill
                        places of trust with men formerly enemies or underminers, their
                        continuing in their profane and loose walking, - all these are more
                        convincing evidences of their retaining their old principles than any
                        extorted confessions or professions; for sinister respects and ends
                        can be no probable signs of their repentance and change."

                        David Lachman (preface to Durham on Scandal in the Naphtali edition)
                        mentions about further controversy that had erupted in the
                        Protester / Resolutioner controversy:

                        "The Commission of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland
                        (which met and acted for the General Assembly between meetings, in
                        much the same way as did the Committee of Estates for Parliament)
                        acknowledged the Remonstrance contained some sadd trueths, but, in
                        view of the great and evident necessity occasioned by the presence of
                        enemy troops in the kingdom, could not oppose the raising of all but
                        the excommunicated, the notoriously profane and those who
                        continuously have opposed and still oppose the Covenant and cause of
                        God. In the ensuing months the Commission urged the church not to
                        give comfort to the enemy by speaking disrespectfullie of the public,
                        just, and necessarie Resolutions and justified their support of
                        allowing all but a few to join in the defense of the kingdom by
                        various arguments from Scripture and sanctified prudence.
                        In December Parliament asked the General Assembly's Commission what
                        persons were to be admitted to join in the defense of the kingdom and
                        in March sent the Commission a letter inquiring if the Act of
                        Classes, which obstructed unanimity in defense of the kingdom, might
                        not be rescinded. The Commission answered that they could not be
                        against raising all fencible persons and agreed the Act of Classes
                        might be repealed. Their approval of these `Public Resolutions' of
                        the Estates of Parliament led them to advise the presbyteries to
                        censure any who persuade or preach contrary to them and to summon any
                        such to appear before the next General Assembly.
                        "Acknowledging the need for caution against the malignants, they
                        believed the Sectaries the main threat. That some who joined in the
                        cause were malignants did not, they urged, make them sinful in doing
                        their duty.
                        "The General Assembly met in July at St. Andrews, adjourned hastily
                        after two days, met again briefly in the relative safety of Dundee
                        (north of the Tay) and then dispersed lest all be captured by the
                        advancing English army (as some, including the moderator and the
                        clerk, in fact were). It was a badly attended meeting from the start;
                        the English occupied considerable portions of the country and travel
                        to the General Assembly was difficult for many and impossible for
                        some. From the start of the Assembly there were disagreements,
                        particularly about contested elections, about the approval of the
                        Commission's actions and even about the legality of the Assembly
                        itself, granted the instructions of the Commission to presbyteries
                        that any who opposed the Public Resolutions should not be elected,
                        but rather censured.
                        "These differences issued in a Protestation handed in shortly before
                        the Assembly left St. Andrews. Signed at first by twenty-two
                        ministers, including James Guthrie and Samuel Rutherford, it
                        complained against the validity and constitution of this Assembly, as
                        not being free and lawful, of the allowing and carrying on of a
                        conjunction with the Malignant Party contrary to the Word of God and
                        the Covenant, and protested that any actions taken by such an
                        Assembly were void and null.
                        "When the Assembly reconstituted itself at Dundee more than half did
                        not appear, including all of those who had signed the Protestation.
                        Although the Protestation was at first committed, lest unripe
                        thoughts should be vented concerning it, the decision was to cite
                        five of the signers to appear and to commend highly the actions of
                        the preceding Commission. The Assembly further called on presbyteries
                        and synods to censure them [the signers] according to the degree of
                        their offense and obstinacie to the Acts of this Assembly and to
                        remove all privileges from such candidates for the ministry as
                        opposed the Public Resolutions and declined the authority of the
                        Assembly."

                        -thebishopsdoom
                      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.