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

Re: [Covenanted Reformation] Re: True Confessions on H2O

Expand Messages
  • S.P.Padbury
    Dear all, Since it s confession time, I have to admit that I was also a sola- credo-immersionist. Many of my friends are still Reformed Baptists . My old
    Message 1 of 11 , Oct 1, 2002
      Dear all,

      Since it's confession time, I have to admit that I was also a sola-
      credo-immersionist.

      Many of my friends are still "Reformed Baptists". My old Arminian
      and Charismatic Baptist friends, however, dropped me a long time
      ago. They think I'm weird, backslidden. Some can't cope with the
      transition in me at all; they say that I can't have been a true Baptist
      at all, or else I wouldn't have given it up.

      Actually, for the record, we who believe in covenant theology do
      also believe in "believers' baptism" -- when the new believer, that is,
      has come from a non-Christian home background, and so was not
      counted as part of the church visible from his/her infancy.

      For Christ's crown and.....hmm, maybe, nearly there.

      Simon.
    • Gary Gearon
      Wow, I didn know that... Gary ... From: Jerry To: Sent: Tuesday, October 01,
      Message 2 of 11 , Oct 1, 2002
        Wow, I didn' know that...

        Gary
        ----- Original Message -----
        From: "Jerry" <ragingcalvinist@...>
        To: <covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com>
        Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2002 10:04 AM
        Subject: [Covenanted Reformation] Re: True Confessions on H2O


        > The first Anabaptists in Switzerland were also "sprinkling baptists."
        >
        > gmw.
        >
        > --- In covenantedreformationclub@y..., "Gary Gearon" <GGearon@p...>
        > wrote:
        > > I confess, I was a "sprinkling" Baptist...
        > >
        > > Gary
        > > ----- Original Message -----
        > > From: "Jerry" <ragingcalvinist@c...>
        > > To: <covenantedreformationclub@y...>
        > > Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2002 9:16 AM
        > > Subject: [Covenanted Reformation] Re: An apology
        > >
        > >
        > > > This is true! I was a "flaming Baptist" (whatever that means!).
        > > > Actually, in my personal reformation, the anabaptist position on
        > the
        > > > sacraments was the one of the very last things to go.
        > > >
        > > > gmw.
        > > >
        > > > --- In covenantedreformationclub@y..., "Soles" <dsranch@y...>
        > wrote:
        > > > > I've heard from one of Jer's friends that Jer was a flaming
        > Baptist
        > > > once
        > > > > upon a time....whatever that is. Jer is that true? <smirk>
        > > > >
        > > > > glad you are sticking around "ashamed4thegospel" maybe you could
        > > > give us
        > > > > little intro on how you came by your id...mine is
        > > > > clean_cis_heart because my favorite scripture is Ps.51:10
        > > > > "Create in me a clean heart, O God; and renew a right spirit
        > within
        > > > me"
        > > > >
        > > > > ~cis~
        > > > >
        > > > >
        > > > > ----- Original Message -----
        > > > > From: "Jerry" <ragingcalvinist@c...>
        > > > > To: <covenantedreformationclub@y...>
        > > > > Sent: Monday, September 30, 2002 5:59 PM
        > > > > Subject: [Covenanted Reformation] Re: An apology
        > > > >
        > > > >
        > > > > > 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.
        > > >
        > > >
        > > >
        > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
        > > > covenantedreformationclub-unsubscribe@y...
        > > >
        > > >
        > > >
        > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
        > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
        > > >
        > > >
        > > > ------------------------------------------------------
        > > > [This E-mail scanned for viruses by Pike Online, Inc.]
        > > >
        > > >
        > >
        > > ------------------------------------------------------
        > > [This E-mail scanned for viruses by Pike Online, Inc.]
        >
        >
        >
        > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
        > covenantedreformationclub-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
        >
        >
        >
        > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
        >
        >
        > ------------------------------------------------------
        > [This E-mail scanned for viruses by Pike Online, Inc.]
        >
        >

        ------------------------------------------------------
        [This E-mail scanned for viruses by Pike Online, Inc.]
      • Gary Gearon
        I used to love that guy...still do, but not so much his teaching as much. Gary ... From: Susan To:
        Message 3 of 11 , Oct 1, 2002
          I used to love that guy...still do, but not so much his teaching as much.

          Gary
          ----- Original Message -----
          From: "Susan " <susanandcrew@...>
          To: <covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com>
          Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2002 11:38 AM
          Subject: [Covenanted Reformation] Re: True Confessions on H2O


          > I confess I was immersed in Chuck Swindoll's church.
          >
          > It took nevertheless.
          >
          > Susan
          >
          > --- In covenantedreformationclub@y..., "Gary Gearon" <GGearon@p...>
          > wrote:
          > > I confess, I was a "sprinkling" Baptist...
          > >
          > > Gary
          > > ----- Original Message -----
          > > From: "Jerry" <ragingcalvinist@c...>
          > > To: <covenantedreformationclub@y...>
          > > Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2002 9:16 AM
          > > Subject: [Covenanted Reformation] Re: An apology
          > >
          > >
          > > > This is true! I was a "flaming Baptist" (whatever that means!).
          > > > Actually, in my personal reformation, the anabaptist position on
          > the
          > > > sacraments was the one of the very last things to go.
          > > >
          > > > gmw.
          > > >
          > > > --- In covenantedreformationclub@y..., "Soles" <dsranch@y...>
          > wrote:
          > > > > I've heard from one of Jer's friends that Jer was a flaming
          > Baptist
          > > > once
          > > > > upon a time....whatever that is. Jer is that true? <smirk>
          > > > >
          > > > > glad you are sticking around "ashamed4thegospel" maybe you could
          > > > give us
          > > > > little intro on how you came by your id...mine is
          > > > > clean_cis_heart because my favorite scripture is Ps.51:10
          > > > > "Create in me a clean heart, O God; and renew a right spirit
          > within
          > > > me"
          > > > >
          > > > > ~cis~
          > > > >
          > > > >
          > > > > ----- Original Message -----
          > > > > From: "Jerry" <ragingcalvinist@c...>
          > > > > To: <covenantedreformationclub@y...>
          > > > > Sent: Monday, September 30, 2002 5:59 PM
          > > > > Subject: [Covenanted Reformation] Re: An apology
          > > > >
          > > > >
          > > > > > 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.
          > > >
          > > >
          > > >
          > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
          > > > covenantedreformationclub-unsubscribe@y...
          > > >
          > > >
          > > >
          > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
          > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
          > > >
          > > >
          > > > ------------------------------------------------------
          > > > [This E-mail scanned for viruses by Pike Online, Inc.]
          > > >
          > > >
          > >
          > > ------------------------------------------------------
          > > [This E-mail scanned for viruses by Pike Online, Inc.]
          >
          >
          >
          > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
          > covenantedreformationclub-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
          >
          >
          >
          > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
          >
          >
          > ------------------------------------------------------
          > [This E-mail scanned for viruses by Pike Online, Inc.]
          >
          >

          ------------------------------------------------------
          [This E-mail scanned for viruses by Pike Online, Inc.]
        • Jerry
          For Christ s crown and.....hmm, maybe, nearly there. Just say it! SAY IT!!! ... gmw.
          Message 4 of 11 , Oct 1, 2002
            "For Christ's crown and.....hmm, maybe, nearly there."

            Just say it! SAY IT!!!

            :)

            gmw.
          • S.P.Padbury
            Dear Jerry, ... Okey-dokey. .....Covenant. But just saying it is not good enough, you may be thinking. So, what s stopping me going all the way with you
            Message 5 of 11 , Oct 2, 2002
              Dear Jerry,

              >"For Christ's crown and.....hmm, maybe, nearly there."
              >Just say it! SAY IT!!!
              >:)
              >gmw.

              Okey-dokey. ".....Covenant." But just saying it is not good enough,
              you may be thinking.

              So, what's stopping me going all the way with you Covies?

              Some time ago I told you that I agreed with the doctrinal contents
              and sentiments of the National Covenant and the Solumn League,
              and I still do. This is because these are Reformed, and therefore
              Biblical. They oppose Rome; they promote the True Religion,
              according to the Westminster Standards. That's fine by me.

              Notice, however, that I am seeking to be Biblical first and foremost;
              placing everything else subordinate to this our only true Standard.
              What is given by inspiration of God, must always be our Rule. Sola
              Scriptura.

              So, I believe the Westminster Standards, and anything else
              (including the Covenants), insofar as they are Biblical. The
              authority of such documents, as I see it therefore, is no authority of
              their own, but is a derived authority insofar as they are Biblical.
              It is therefore the Bible, and the God of the Bible, that I seek to be
              committed to, not any man-made Covenant.

              But, I do not forget that the Covenants, so I believe, are true
              Reformed and therefore Biblical doctrine. I too, for instance, am
              committed just as the Covenanters were, to opposing, more: to
              extirpating the heresies of Popery and all false religion. This is
              none other than the flipside of the Great Commision, and I am
              committed to the Great Commission. We as Biblical Christians
              should teach the observance of all things that our Lord Jesus Christ
              has commanded -- in His word, thereby making Christian disciples
              of all the nations.

              So then, what (you may ask) do I believe concerning the perpetual
              obligation of the Covenants among God's people who have vowed
              and committed themselves themselves to these Covenants, seeing
              them as Reformed and therefore Biblical?

              Well, insofar as the doctrine contained in the Covenants as
              Reformed and therefore Biblical, herein lies the basis of their
              perpetual obligation: The Bible teaches us the Truth and the Truth
              is always true, and we are perpetually obliged to believe the Truth.
              Ergo, insofar as the Covenants are Biblical, we are perpetually
              obliged to be committed to the Biblical truths that they contain.

              So then, what is stopping me embracing the Covenants, seeing
              that I believe thay contain Biblical truth, and that I am committed to
              these truths to such a degree that I wish to see the extirpation of
              all that is false and unBiblical both in myself and in all who fall
              within the scope of the Great Commission, namely, in all the
              nations of the world?

              In a word, if this is all there was to consider, nothing.

              However, I'm not quite there with some Covenanters, on their side
              of this "line in the sand". It seems to me that to accept the whole
              Covenanter package-deal, I may be asked to abandon going to a
              church or abandon being a member of a church that is not a
              Covenanter church. Well, I am not in a position where I can
              emmigrate to Scotland or Northern Ireland or the USA or Canada.
              So, you would be asking too much of me there.

              I must seek to move my family toward the most Reformed church
              that I can, and in this case, I am already doing so, in that I have
              spent my time since February joining membership with a Reformed
              church, a Westminster Sandards believing church, a hundred miles
              away from where I now live, and about a week ago I recieved an
              offer for a job in that area, which I accepted. And on Monday,
              someone put in an offer to buy our house, which we accepted. This
              weekend I am hope to look around some houses in the vicinity of
              that Reformed (a conservative presbyterian) church.

              You may say I am in grave error here, inasmuch as this church can
              trace its roots back to the Scottish presbyterian churches that
              accepted the Revolution Settlement, and that therefore my new
              church is historically based on Erastianism. And you may also say
              that therefore I am joining membership with a church full of
              Covenant-breakers, because their spiritual ancestors accepted the
              Revolution Settlement and thereby broke with the Solumn League
              and National Covenant, which things, howbeit, most people in the
              church have never heard of.

              But I am making the choice to seek out and join the best Reformed
              church that I can find near where I live in England, where both my
              family and my wife's family reside. Inasmuch as I believe that God
              is merciful, and inasmuch as I believe that the Christians in this
              Reformed church are real Christians, and have therefore not had
              their branch of God's family tree (the olive tree of Romans 11) sawn
              off by their spiritual, covenant-breaking ancestors, therefore I do not
              percieve that I am in grave error in joining myself with these
              Christians.

              On a similar note, likewise do I not see myself as being in error if I
              sit under the preaching of someone who is not part of the
              Cpvenanted Reformed Presbyterian church, such as I will be doing
              once we have moved, God willing. Surely you would not argue that
              this is sin. If you do, you would have to argue that it is likewise
              wrong to even read books by non-Covenanters. And you can name
              better than I can which of the Puritans and Scots Presbyterians
              and Dutch and French and German Reformers, etc., were not
              Covenaners. And I read and benefit from and agree with these
              worthies, inasmuch as I believe that they are Biblical.

              Yours sincerely,

              Simon Padbury.
            • Jerry
              Dear Simon, What you write concerning Sola Scriptura is true. If our doctrinal standards are not founded on the Word of God, then let them be rejected
              Message 6 of 11 , Oct 2, 2002
                Dear Simon,

                What you write concerning Sola Scriptura is true. If our doctrinal
                standards are not founded on the Word of God, then let them be
                rejected outright. We ask no one to believe anything merely based on
                the words of men. "To the law and to the testimony: if they speak
                not according to this word, it is because there is no light in
                them"(Isaiah 8:20).

                Now, concerning covenants, the Word of God does say,

                "Though it be but a man's covenant, yet if it be confirmed, no man
                disannulleth, or addeth thereto" (Galatians 3:15). This, of course,
                speaks of human covenants, between mere men, concerning whatever the
                matter. Now, how much more binding is a covenant which binds the
                Christian to the adherence and defense of the True Religion of God?
                No Reformed Christian ought to have any problem with the content of
                the Covenants. The question is, are they binding on us today? If
                not, how do you explain this in light of the Biblical teaching on
                covenants? If so, what does this mean for us today? Could it mean
                that we would need to do some things that are not at all convenient?
                Yes: "He that sweareth to his own hurt, and changeth not.... He that
                doeth these things shall never be moved" (Psalm 15:4,5).

                Concerning your decision to attend or join the Revolution Church, I
                do not condemn you for this. Simon, you are aware as well as I of
                the decline we see all around in Churches that once faithfully upheld
                the principles and practices of the Reformed Faith. The Revolution
                Settlement was near the beginning of the downward slide. Sitting at
                the bottom of the slide, looking up to where we once were, I must
                confess I would find it refreshing if the Revolution Settlement was
                the only problem in the churches today. For many churches, for many
                people, heading to the Revolution Church would, in a sense, be a step
                in the right direction. When surrounded by darkness, the children of
                light sometimes grasp for any glimmer they can find. I believe the
                Revolution Church is in error in light of the Covenants which bind
                them, and in light of the Standards they hold, but I do not count
                them to be my enemies, nor do I dare assert that they are no
                Christians at all. That would be foolish and unchristian. Honestly,
                if, when I became convinced I had to leave my unfaithful church for
                one that adheres to the Westminster Standards, I very well may have
                jumped at joining a church like the Revolution Church. I am no
                longer in a position where I can in good conscience do such a thing.
                But I certainly understand you doing so under the circumstances.
                Others may not like me saying this, but it's my opinion nonetheless.

                I will give you no more advise at this time then this: Follow your
                conscience as guided by Scripture. And when in doubt as to which
                path to take, follow the path of the faithful flock that has gone
                before you.

                Gracious Simon, I've told you this before, but I truly do enjoy
                having you in this club. I am glad that we have so many beliefs in
                common, and I am looking forward to continuing our dialogue and our
                long-distance friendship.

                Sincerely and humbly,

                gmw.
              • S.P.Padbury
                Dear Jerry, I believe that what the Covenanters did in committing themselves the the Covenants was binding upon them, since they deliberately vowed a vow to
                Message 7 of 11 , Oct 3, 2002
                  Dear Jerry,

                  I believe that what the Covenanters did in committing themselves
                  the the Covenants was binding upon them, since they deliberately
                  vowed a vow to God himself.

                  I am not sure that I fully accept the thesis of the perpetual
                  obligation of the Covenants, as though there was a perpetual
                  obligation that is binding upon me that arises for the nature of the
                  Covenants being covenants. For, in what way were those who
                  committed themselves to the Covenants federal representatives of
                  me, that they could covenant with God on our behalf?

                  On the other hand..............

                  I do believe that the National Covenant and the Solumn League
                  were the means whereby those who committed themselves to
                  these covenants were vowing a vow before God that *they* would
                  uphold and defend and propagate the Reformed religion, according
                  to their abilities and opportunities.

                  Likewise...............

                  I do believe in the very same Reformed religion.

                  So...............

                  Certainly I should want to uphold and defend and propagate the
                  Reformed religion too.

                  Furthermore................

                  Certainly I should want to commit myself to this end, even by
                  vowing a vow to God.

                  And...............

                  There's no good reason that I can see why such a vow should not
                  be the Solumn League. Does anybody who believes in the same
                  Reformed religion know of any....? No, of course not! Why bother
                  asking whether and Reformer can see a good reason not to believe
                  in, uphold, defend and propagate the very Reformed religion that he
                  himself believes in.

                  Now, please consider..............

                  Whether or not one believes in the perpetual obligation of the
                  Reformed Covenants, as though such perpetual obligation resides
                  in their very nature of being covenants tha somebody else vowed
                  who allegedly federally represented me, is, as I see it, a surplus
                  argument in the case of these Reformed Covenants. It is a surplus
                  argument because, whether or not perpetual obligaion is true:
                  inasmuch as the content (or, better, the substance) of these
                  covenants is a vow of personal commitment (at least) to upholding,
                  defending and propagating the Reformed religion, which very same
                  Reformed religion I also believe in, it stands inescapable that the
                  substance of any vow to uphold, defend and propagate the
                  Reformed religion is a substance that is agreeable to me as a
                  Reformed Christian. And this stands inescapable, I say again,
                  whether or not it can be legitimately claimed that the Covenants
                  have a nature that is perpetually binding upon me through
                  somebody else having vowed them, allegedly on my behalf.

                  One can therefore commit oneself to upholding, defending and
                  propagating the Reformed religion according to one's ability and
                  opportunity, that is, one can vow the vow of the Covenants and
                  Covenanters, whether or not one believes in perpetual obligation.
                  Whether the perpetual obligation of these Covenants is true or not,
                  the substance of the Reformed Covenants is agreeable to anyone
                  who seeks to be a Reformer, which Reformed religion, as I have
                  said, I should certainly want to covenant myself to upholding,
                  defending and propagating.

                  The Reformed Covenants are surely, at least, an outward,
                  formalized, communal expression of what everyone who seeks to
                  uphold, defend and propagate the Reformed religion should commit
                  themselves to. This fact remains inescapably true, whether or not
                  the Covenants have a nature that is perpetually binding upon a
                  person through someone else vowing them, who allegedly federally
                  represented them.

                  Yours sincerely, Simon Padbury.
                • Jerry
                  Simon, You re asking the right questions. Forgive me for doing this, but I m going to ask a couple questions right back at you. 1. According to Scripture
                  Message 8 of 11 , Oct 3, 2002
                    Simon,

                    You're asking the right questions. Forgive me for doing this, but
                    I'm going to ask a couple questions right back at you.

                    1. According to Scripture (even according to light of nature), can
                    civil magistrates make covenants which bind posterity?

                    2. According to Scripture, can ecclesiastical bodies bind themselves
                    and their posterity to a covenant?

                    gmw.
                  • Jerry
                    S.P. wrote, Why bother asking whether and Reformer can see a good reason not to believe in, uphold, defend and propagate the very Reformed religion that he
                    Message 9 of 11 , Oct 3, 2002
                      S.P. wrote, "Why bother asking whether and Reformer can see a good
                      reason not to believe in, uphold, defend and propagate the very
                      Reformed religion that he himself believes in."

                      I wanted to emphasize something Simon touches on a bit. The articles
                      of the SL&C, being agreeable to the Word of God, contain nothing in
                      essence that the Christian is not already bound to do by the Moral
                      Law. Defense of the True Religion, obedience to the lawful
                      magistrate, mutual defense of our brothers and sisters in Christ
                      against the enemies of Christ and His Church, etc, are things
                      Christians are bound to do anyway. As I gather, Simon's dispute is
                      NOT that the things contained in the Covenants are not binding on
                      Christians as Christians, rather, his questions (if I'm understanding
                      him correctly) are regarding whether or not the Covenants bind us
                      with an additional bond.

                      We, as Christians, are bound to tell the truth by the Moral Law. But
                      when standing as a witness in court we may be required to swear to
                      tell the truth. Having sworn, we are now not only liars if we do not
                      tell the truth, but we are guilty of perjury as well.

                      The question is not that Christians are obligated to the duties
                      outlined in the Covenants, the question is whether or not the
                      Covenants themselves bind as Covenants.

                      Important distinction to make.

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