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

Re: The James Begg Society

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 10 , Oct 1, 2002
      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 2 of 10 , Oct 1, 2002
        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 3 of 10 , Oct 1, 2002
          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 4 of 10 , Oct 1, 2002
            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 5 of 10 , Oct 1, 2002
              --- 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.