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

WCF and the inerrency but fallibility of subordinate standards

Expand Messages
  • Martin
    I would say that the WCF to my knowledge is inerrent (ie: I don t know of any errors in it), but it is also fallible, being a document authored by men and not
    Message 1 of 18 , Mar 31 5:46 PM
    • 0 Attachment
      I would say that the WCF to my knowledge is inerrent (ie: I don't know of
      any errors in it), but it is also fallible, being a document authored by men
      and not by God. Hence, it is properly regarded as a "subordinate" standard.
      Disputes concerning the truth of its content may be decided by appealing the
      higher authority, that being Scripture.

      Martin


      ----- Original Message -----
      From: "Dan Fraas" <fraasrd@...>
      To: <covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com>
      Sent: Monday, March 31, 2003 4:29 PM
      Subject: [Covenanted Reformation] Re: Hello


      > Jesus Christ is the judge and has the right to determine which, if
      > any, parts of the WCF are in error. Until we meet Him face to face
      > we will never know for sure. We must admit it might contain errors
      > since we interpret the Holy Scriptures as mere fallible men. I think
      > this all sister Susan meant. As far as who has the authority to
      > revise or alter a confession of faith, that legal authority would
      > rest with a lawful General Assembly or General Synod. We may have
      > disgreements over what constitutes a lawful General Assembly.
      >
      > For Christ's Crown and Covenant!
      >
      > Riley
      > --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, "Susan"
      > <susan_wilkinson@q...> wrote:
      > > Well, wouldn't that depend on whether or not you believe that
      > > Presbyterial Church Government is of Divine Right or not?
      > >
      > > Everyone has a confession, whether it's written or not. How does
      > > anyone go about ascertaining the existence of error in
      > > another's confession? Who gets to judge and on what basis? It's too
      > > easy to say "on the basis of the Word of God" because the
      > > interpretation of that is exactly what's in question, is it not?
      > >
      > > Susan
      > >
      > > --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, Thomas Roche
      > > <tertullianus_2000@y...> wrote:
      > > > How do you go about ascertaining the existence of
      > > > error in the WCF? If someone suggests X point therein
      > > > is erroneous, who gets to judge, and on what basis?
      > > >
      > > > --- Susan <susan_wilkinson@q...> wrote:
      > > > > Hi again, MwM.
      > > > >
      > > > > I don't know a soul who believes the WCF is equal to
      > > > > the Bible! That
      > > > > would be bad. I also don't know of any Presbyterian
      > > > > Churches that use
      > > > > the WCF as their "rule of worship." That would be
      > > > > bad too. No, the WCF
      > > > > is not, "inspired and equal to Holy writ." And
      > > > > finally, yes the WCF
      > > > > could be in error.
      > > > >
      > > > > Now, all that said, that doesn't mean that we
      > > > > believe that the WCF IS
      > > > > in error or that it ISN'T a faithful summary of what
      > > > > the Scriptures
      > > > > teach. The Divines believed that the WCF did indeed
      > > > > correctly
      > > > > summarize the main doctrines of Scripture. Some of
      > > > > us just happen to
      > > > > agree with them. Just because we believe it agrees
      > > > > with Scripture
      > > > > doesn't mean we worship the document or put it
      > > > > over/above Scripture.
      > > > >
      > > > > Hope that makes sense.
      > > > > Susan
      > > > >
      > > > > --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com,
      > > > > milkyway_man1961
      > > > > <no_reply@y...> wrote:
      > > > > > One other thing I had forgotten to ask, do those
      > > > > here in this group
      > > > > > believe the Westminster Confession of faith to be
      > > > > equal to the Bible
      > > > > > or is it just a man ordained document that the
      > > > > Presbyterian Church
      > > > > > uses as it's rule of worship?
      > > > > >
      > > > > > In other words is the WMCOF inspired and equal to
      > > > > Holy writ? Would
      > > > > > like to know how others feel. Can the WMCOF be in
      > > > > error or is it
      > > > > > perfect with out fault?
      > > > > > Learning new things every day.
      > > > > >
      > > > > >
      > > > > >
      > > > > >
      > > > > > Thanks.
      > > > > >
      > > > > >
      > > > > >
      > > > > >
      > > > > >
      > > > > > MwM
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > > =====
      > > > Dr. Thomas P. Roche
      > > > Librarian
      > > > The Marvelwood School
      > > > 476 Skiff Mtn. Rd.-- PO Box 3001
      > > > Kent, CT 06757
      > > > tertullianus_2000@y...
      > > > (my opinions do not reflect those of my employer)
      > > >
      > > > __________________________________________________
      > > > Do you Yahoo!?
      > > > Yahoo! Platinum - Watch CBS' NCAA March Madness, live on your
      > > desktop!
      > > > http://platinum.yahoo.com
      >
      >
      >
      > 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/
      >
      >
      >
    • Colin
      ... The problem with describing the original WCF as inerrant is three fold. 1) The term is usually reserved for scripture in the original languages (WCF I:8)
      Message 2 of 18 , Mar 31 8:19 PM
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, "Martin"
        <paleopuritan@h...> wrote:
        > I would say that the WCF to my knowledge is inerrent (ie: I don't
        > know of any errors in it), but it is also fallible, being a
        > document authored by men and not by God. Hence, it is properly
        > regarded as a "subordinate" standard.
        > Disputes concerning the truth of its content may be decided by
        > appealing the higher authority, that being Scripture.
        >

        The problem with describing the original WCF as "inerrant" is three
        fold.

        1) The term is usually reserved for scripture in the original
        languages (WCF I:8) either in the unavailable autographa alone or
        also including the available apographic manuscripts.

        2) An "inerrant" 355 year old confession implies that later
        theological scholarship cannot be allowed to improve it in places
        where it can be shown that it is indeed in error. All theological
        advances then stop in the mid-17th century and can proceed no
        further.

        3) It contradicts the purpose of the Westminster Assembly in that
        they had worked to give the church a corrected *revision* of
        previously errant confessions. There is nothing in the WCF which
        implies that such revision must stop with the WA. Indeed chapter
        XXXI:4 tells us, "All synods or councils, since the apostles' times,
        whether general or particular, may err; and many have erred.
        Therefore they are not to be made the rule of faith, or practice; but
        to be used as a help in both" and it goes on to cite 1 Cor 2:5
        telling us that our "faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but
        in the power of God."

        The 1788 revisors of WCF clearly said that the original had erred in
        chapter 23:3 and I would *partly* agree with them when they deleted
        the portion from the original which gave undue power to the civil
        magistrate to punish heresy (though I agree that the civil magistrate
        should punish public blasphemy). Furthermore, the original WCF also
        gave the civil magistrate power to reform or prevent "all corruptions
        and abuses in worship and discipline" and also, that "all the
        ordinances of God duly settled, administrated, and observed". In
        addition, the magistrate is given power to "call synods" and "provide
        that whatsoever is transacted in them be according to the mind of God"

        G.I. Williamson had pointed out in his Study Guide to the WCF, that
        chapter XXIII:3 contradicted the statements in Chapter XXXI:3. While
        the church is rightly forbidden to "intermeddle" with civil affairs
        unless asked by the magistrate (XXXI:4), the civil magistrate OTOH
        appears to be duty bound to intermeddle with the affairs of the
        church (XXIII:3) despite the restrictions placed on implied in
        chapter XXXI:3.

        Also, chapter XXI:8 on the Sabbath cites Exodus 31:15 which teaches
        the death penalty for Sabbath breaking. This OT law was superseded by
        the NT Christian Sabbath and the enlargement of liberty of conscious
        in its observance: Rom 14:6 and Col 2:16.

        Chapter XXV:2 erroneously restricts the kingdom of God to the visible
        institutional church, when in fact, the kingdom of God includes both
        church and state.

        While Chapter XII on Adoption is not an in error, it does appear to
        be very brief. Its the shortest chapter in the WCF compared to the
        others.

        Chapter 19:4 on the judicial laws requires greater clarification and
        a re-examination of the validity of the *traditional* tripartite
        division of moral, judicial and ceremonial laws. ie. how is a
        judicial law not also a moral law? e.g. Is the death penalty for
        murder, a judicial law or a moral law or both? Is state punishment of
        public blasphemers judicial or moral? Is it the moral and judicial
        duty of the State to punish heretics, as much as it is the moral and
        judicial duty of the church to punish them? IOW The debate over the
        meaning of the morally required general equity needs further
        clarification in our present age of autonomous natural law rule
        regardless of our whether of beloved Divines were right or wrong in
        their chosen use of words in that chapter. In their day which was
        ruled by Christian presuppositions, they thought it was entirely
        sufficient to be worded as it was. But we now live in times that are
        ruled by an entirely different set of moral and religious
        presuppositions. That which was implied in the 17th century, now
        needs to be explicated in the 21st cnetury.

        Colin Tayler
      • reformedpresby
        ... languages (WCF I:8) either in the unavailable autographa alone or also including the available apographic manuscripts.
        Message 3 of 18 , Mar 31 8:36 PM
        • 0 Attachment
          Colin wrote:
          >>> 1) The term is usually reserved for scripture in the original
          languages (WCF I:8) either in the unavailable autographa alone or
          also including the available apographic manuscripts. <<<

          No. Not in my world at least. I consider any statement which is
          without error to be inerrent, whether it concern religion or not.

          Colin wrote:
          >>> 2) An "inerrant" 355 year old confession implies that later
          theological scholarship cannot be allowed to improve it in places
          where it can be shown that it is indeed in error. All theological
          advances then stop in the mid-17th century and can proceed no
          further. <<<

          Wrong. I can write 1+1=2 in a document. That doesn't mean I can't
          later add 2+2=4. (Discarding mathematical theories which deny the
          inerrency of these equations).

          Colin wrote:
          >>> 3) It contradicts the purpose of the Westminster Assembly in that
          they had worked to give the church a corrected *revision* of
          previously errant confessions. There is nothing in the WCF which
          implies that such revision must stop with the WA. <<<

          Inerrent documents are not exhaustive documents (ie: they don't
          necessarily need to cover every truth in existence).

          Thanks for the strawmen and fallacies of composition and false
          dilemma, please drive to the next window.

          Martin
        • Colin
          ... Well then you live in a fantasy world. Consider for example this realistic statement from the RPCUS: We emphasize our sincere commitment to the
          Message 4 of 18 , Mar 31 9:29 PM
          • 0 Attachment
            --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, "reformedpresby"
            <paleopuritan@h...> wrote:
            > Colin wrote:
            > >>> 1) The term is usually reserved for scripture in the original
            > languages (WCF I:8) either in the unavailable autographa alone or
            > also including the available apographic manuscripts. <<<
            >
            > No. Not in my world at least. I consider any statement which is
            > without error to be inerrent, whether it concern religion or not.

            Well then you live in a fantasy world. Consider for example this
            realistic statement from the RPCUS:

            "We emphasize our sincere commitment to the Westminster Standards,
            not because we place them on par with the Bible, or because we
            slavishly follow the doctrines of men, but because those Standards
            are truly our confession of faith. We believe them to constitute a
            true and accurate statement of the teachings of the Bible. Only the
            Bible is infallible and unamendable. The Westminster Standards are
            amendable, and are NOT INERRANT or closed-ended. However, we believe
            that, because these Standards assert the very system of revealed
            truth of the Bible, we require of all our ministers, elders and
            deacons strict subscription to the Westminster Standards."

            The issue is where the original WCF is *fully* inerrant, not whether
            individual statements are inerrant. To find many individual
            statements in the WCF to be inerrant (due to their agreement with
            Scripture) is not the same thing as finding the entire confession to
            be inerrant.

            >
            > Colin wrote:
            > >>> 2) An "inerrant" 355 year old confession implies that later
            > theological scholarship cannot be allowed to improve it in places
            > where it can be shown that it is indeed in error. All theological
            > advances then stop in the mid-17th century and can proceed no
            > further. <<<
            >
            > Wrong. I can write 1+1=2 in a document. That doesn't mean I can't
            > later add 2+2=4. (Discarding mathematical theories which deny the
            > inerrency of these equations).

            Of course you can later add "2+2=4", but that does not mean that
            *everything* in the WCF is equal to "1+1=2" even though many
            statements within that document are. You falsely assume that
            everything in the WCF is equal to "1+1=2" or that as a whole, it can
            be defined as such. The WCF is far more complex than that simple
            equation as is more akin to a larger complex mathematical formula.

            >
            > Colin wrote:
            > >>> 3) It contradicts the purpose of the Westminster Assembly in
            that
            > they had worked to give the church a corrected *revision* of
            > previously errant confessions. There is nothing in the WCF which
            > implies that such revision must stop with the WA. <<<
            >
            > Inerrent documents are not exhaustive documents (ie: they don't
            > necessarily need to cover every truth in existence).

            Neither are errant documents. But inerrancy as I said in the
            beginning refers to every detail of scripture, not to every detail in
            reformed confessions.

            > Thanks for the strawmen and fallacies of composition and false
            > dilemma, please drive to the next window.

            The only fallacy here is in your unwarranted elevation of the WCF.
            Rather ironic really, since you won't sing hymns out of fear of
            idolizing manmade hymns, but you will on the other hand elevate man-
            made confessions to the level of scripture which is *alone* inerrant
            and which elevation is contrary to the WCF (I:10) itself.

            Colin Tayler
          • Susan
            in·er·rant Pronunciation Key (n-rnt) adj. 1.Incapable of erring; infallible. 2.Containing no errors. ... believe ... can t ... in
            Message 5 of 18 , Mar 31 9:35 PM
            • 0 Attachment
              in·er·rant


              Pronunciation Key (n-rnt)
              adj.

              1.Incapable of erring; infallible.
              2.Containing no errors.




              --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, "Colin "
              <cbx292000@y...> wrote:
              > --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, "reformedpresby"
              > <paleopuritan@h...> wrote:
              > > Colin wrote:
              > > >>> 1) The term is usually reserved for scripture in the original
              > > languages (WCF I:8) either in the unavailable autographa alone or

              > > also including the available apographic manuscripts. <<<
              > >
              > > No. Not in my world at least. I consider any statement which is
              > > without error to be inerrent, whether it concern religion or not.
              >
              > Well then you live in a fantasy world. Consider for example this
              > realistic statement from the RPCUS:
              >
              > "We emphasize our sincere commitment to the Westminster Standards,
              > not because we place them on par with the Bible, or because we
              > slavishly follow the doctrines of men, but because those Standards
              > are truly our confession of faith. We believe them to constitute a
              > true and accurate statement of the teachings of the Bible. Only the
              > Bible is infallible and unamendable. The Westminster Standards are
              > amendable, and are NOT INERRANT or closed-ended. However, we
              believe
              > that, because these Standards assert the very system of revealed
              > truth of the Bible, we require of all our ministers, elders and
              > deacons strict subscription to the Westminster Standards."
              >
              > The issue is where the original WCF is *fully* inerrant, not whether
              > individual statements are inerrant. To find many individual
              > statements in the WCF to be inerrant (due to their agreement with
              > Scripture) is not the same thing as finding the entire confession to
              > be inerrant.
              >
              > >
              > > Colin wrote:
              > > >>> 2) An "inerrant" 355 year old confession implies that later
              > > theological scholarship cannot be allowed to improve it in places

              > > where it can be shown that it is indeed in error. All theological

              > > advances then stop in the mid-17th century and can proceed no
              > > further. <<<
              > >
              > > Wrong. I can write 1+1=2 in a document. That doesn't mean I
              can't
              > > later add 2+2=4. (Discarding mathematical theories which deny the
              > > inerrency of these equations).
              >
              > Of course you can later add "2+2=4", but that does not mean that
              > *everything* in the WCF is equal to "1+1=2" even though many
              > statements within that document are. You falsely assume that
              > everything in the WCF is equal to "1+1=2" or that as a whole, it can
              > be defined as such. The WCF is far more complex than that simple
              > equation as is more akin to a larger complex mathematical formula.
              >
              > >
              > > Colin wrote:
              > > >>> 3) It contradicts the purpose of the Westminster Assembly in
              > that
              > > they had worked to give the church a corrected *revision* of
              > > previously errant confessions. There is nothing in the WCF which
              > > implies that such revision must stop with the WA. <<<
              > >
              > > Inerrent documents are not exhaustive documents (ie: they don't
              > > necessarily need to cover every truth in existence).
              >
              > Neither are errant documents. But inerrancy as I said in the
              > beginning refers to every detail of scripture, not to every detail
              in
              > reformed confessions.
              >
              > > Thanks for the strawmen and fallacies of composition and false
              > > dilemma, please drive to the next window.
              >
              > The only fallacy here is in your unwarranted elevation of the WCF.
              > Rather ironic really, since you won't sing hymns out of fear of
              > idolizing manmade hymns, but you will on the other hand elevate man-
              > made confessions to the level of scripture which is *alone* inerrant
              > and which elevation is contrary to the WCF (I:10) itself.
              >
              > Colin Tayler
            • b_kirkman
              Colin and Martin, I know that quivveling over words is shameful so let s attempt to speak clearly, in brotherly love. Inerrant can mean both 1) unable to err
              Message 6 of 18 , Apr 1, 2003
              • 0 Attachment

                Colin and Martin,

                I know that quivveling over words is shameful so let’s attempt to speak clearly, in brotherly love.

                 

                Inerrant can mean both 1) unable to err and 2) free from error.

                 

                The first definition is synonymous with infallible, however the second definition is slightly different.

                 

                By definition #1, both Martin, Colin, and myself (along with everyone who is truly RP) considers the WCF to NOT be inerrant.

                By definition #2 Martin and I (along with everyone who is truly RP) considers the WCF to be inerrant (free from error), and Colin personally judges that it contain some error in some parts.

                 

                None of us should get heated up by the fact alone that someone does not consider the WCF to be free from error.  Not long ago, I did not consider it to be free from error.  Then through studying the issues (especially the ones that Colin has brought up) I had to change my position to one of uncertainty.  Then through God’s grace, I began to realize that they are in accordance with God’s word although always subject to improvement and revision.  Colin, you can disagree, and I know you do.  But charitable dialogue and above all other means, reliance on the God’s revelation through his word and Spirit will bring us closer together.  If nothing else we can understand each other better than what’s been going on here quite a bit so far.

                 

                 

                The history of the disagreement:

                The issues of magistracy that have caused revisions in the WCF are issues that have been dealt with quite thoroughly by the Act, Declaration, and Testimony as well as by such authors as William Cunningham, William Symington, and George Gillespie for starters.  The revised versions are from the Resolutioner churches and their daughters (such as PCUSA, PCA, OPC, ect.) who have always had these exact issues as the primary reasons for separation from those who faithfully held to the covenants.  The revisions that they made in the 18th century are not surprising, given that they had completely trodden the substance of the covenants many years prior at the Resolution Settlement of 1689.  Which, by the way, was such a despicable compromise to the still Erastian civil head by the presbytery that later errors were guaranteed to plague the Church of Scotland except had they repented of this sinful engagement.  The original testimony against them still stands unanswered.  Sure there have been attempts to answer the Covenanters, but they’ve all fallen short of sound biblical reasoning.

                 

                Colin, we (CovenantedReformationClub) are Covenanters and hold to the faithful attainments of our forefathers as separate and distinct from the Resolutioners.  We should focus our discussion around the differing principles of these two groups if we’re going to obtain any traction.

                 

                Truth and peace,

                Brian Kirkman

              • Dan Fraas
                Dear Brian, I agree with your assessment of all parts of the WCF, which you addressed. However, I have doubts concerning one line in the chapter on marriage,
                Message 7 of 18 , Apr 1, 2003
                • 0 Attachment
                  Dear Brian,

                  I agree with your assessment of all parts of the WCF, which you
                  addressed. However, I have doubts concerning one line in the chapter
                  on marriage, which forbids marriage to ones in-laws. This does not
                  seem scriptural in light of Moses command that one marry the wife of
                  a deceased brother and raise up seed for him:

                  Deuteronomy 5:5 If brethren dwell together, and one of them die,
                  and have no child, the wife of the dead shall not marry without unto
                  a stranger: her husband's brother shall go in unto her, and take her
                  to him to wife, and perform the duty of an husband's brother unto her.
                  6 And it shall be, that the firstborn which she beareth shall
                  succeed in the name of his brother which is dead, that his name be
                  not put out of Israel.
                  7 And if the man like not to take his brother's wife, then let his
                  brother's wife go up to the gate unto the elders, and say, My
                  husband's brother refuseth to raise up unto his brother a name in
                  Israel, he will not perform the duty of my husband's brother.
                  8 Then the elders of his city shall call him, and speak unto him:
                  and if he stand to it, and say, I like not to take her;
                  9 Then shall his brother's wife come unto him in the presence of
                  the elders, and loose his shoe from off his foot, and spit in his
                  face, and shall answer and say, So shall it be done unto that man
                  that will not build up his brother's house.
                  10 And his name shall be called in Israel, The house of him that
                  hath his shoe loosed.

                  Riley

                  --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, "b_kirkman"
                  <b_kirkman@m...> wrote:
                  > Colin and Martin,
                  >
                  > I know that quivveling over words is shameful so let's attempt to
                  speak
                  > clearly, in brotherly love.
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > Inerrant can mean both 1) unable to err and 2) free from error.
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > The first definition is synonymous with infallible, however the
                  second
                  > definition is slightly different.
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > By definition #1, both Martin, Colin, and myself (along with
                  everyone who is
                  > truly RP) considers the WCF to NOT be inerrant.
                  >
                  > By definition #2 Martin and I (along with everyone who is truly RP)
                  > considers the WCF to be inerrant (free from error), and Colin
                  personally
                  > judges that it contain some error in some parts.
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > None of us should get heated up by the fact alone that someone does
                  not
                  > consider the WCF to be free from error. Not long ago, I did not
                  consider it
                  > to be free from error. Then through studying the issues
                  (especially the
                  > ones that Colin has brought up) I had to change my position to one
                  of
                  > uncertainty. Then through God's grace, I began to realize that
                  they are in
                  > accordance with God's word although always subject to improvement
                  and
                  > revision. Colin, you can disagree, and I know you do. But
                  charitable
                  > dialogue and above all other means, reliance on the God's
                  revelation through
                  > his word and Spirit will bring us closer together. If nothing else
                  we can
                  > understand each other better than what's been going on here quite a
                  bit so
                  > far.
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > The history of the disagreement:
                  >
                  > The issues of magistracy that have caused revisions in the WCF are
                  issues
                  > that have been dealt with quite thoroughly by the Act, Declaration,
                  and
                  > Testimony as well as by such authors as William Cunningham, William
                  > Symington, and George Gillespie for starters. The revised versions
                  are from
                  > the Resolutioner churches and their daughters (such as PCUSA, PCA,
                  OPC,
                  > ect.) who have always had these exact issues as the primary reasons
                  for
                  > separation from those who faithfully held to the covenants. The
                  revisions
                  > that they made in the 18th century are not surprising, given that
                  they had
                  > completely trodden the substance of the covenants many years prior
                  at the
                  > Resolution Settlement of 1689. Which, by the way, was such a
                  despicable
                  > compromise to the still Erastian civil head by the presbytery that
                  later
                  > errors were guaranteed to plague the Church of Scotland except had
                  they
                  > repented of this sinful engagement. The original testimony against
                  them
                  > still stands unanswered. Sure there have been attempts to answer
                  the
                  > Covenanters, but they've all fallen short of sound biblical
                  reasoning.
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > Colin, we (CovenantedReformationClub) are Covenanters and hold to
                  the
                  > faithful attainments of our forefathers as separate and distinct
                  from the
                  > Resolutioners. We should focus our discussion around the differing
                  > principles of these two groups if we're going to obtain any
                  traction.
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > Truth and peace,
                  >
                  > Brian Kirkman
                • b_kirkman
                  Doubt no longer my dear brother! Lev 18:16-18; 20:21 God was not contradicting himself when he inspired Moses. We must interpret these passages in the light
                  Message 8 of 18 , Apr 1, 2003
                  • 0 Attachment

                    Doubt no longer my dear brother!

                     

                    Lev 18:16-18; 20:21

                     

                    God was not contradicting himself when he inspired Moses.  We must interpret these passages in the light of themselves and the whole of scripture.  In the Deut. 5 passage it is seen as a commandment of which would disgrace anyone who did not marry his deceased brother’s widow (if she had never had children with him).  The answer to the big question of why is in verse 6 where stated is the reason – “that his name be not put out of Israel .”  So was this for all peoples and societies (i.e. moral) or was it specific to Israel ?  Now for incest, are the OT commands binding on all peoples and societies (i.e. moral)?

                     

                    Truth and peace,

                    Brian Kirkman

                     

                     

                     

                    From:  "Dan Fraas" <fraasrd@y...>
                    Date:  Tue Apr 1, 2003  6:28 pm
                    Subject:  Re: WCF and the inerrency but fallibility of subordinate standards


                    Dear Brian,

                    I agree with your assessment of all parts of the WCF, which you
                    addressed. However, I have doubts concerning one line in the chapter
                    on marriage, which forbids marriage to ones in-laws. This does not
                    seem scriptural in light of Moses command that one marry the wife of
                    a deceased brother and raise up seed for him:

                    Deuteronomy 5:5 If brethren dwell together, and one of them die,
                    and have no child, the wife of the dead shall not marry without unto
                    a stranger: her husband's brother shall go in unto her, and take her
                    to him to wife, and perform the duty of an husband's brother unto her.
                    6 And it shall be, that the firstborn which she beareth shall
                    succeed in the name of his brother which is dead, that his name be
                    not put out of Israel .
                    7 And if the man like not to take his brother's wife, then let his
                    brother's wife go up to the gate unto the elders, and say, My
                    husband's brother refuseth to raise up unto his brother a name in
                    Israel, he will not perform the duty of my husband's brother.
                    8 Then the elders of his city shall call him, and speak unto him:
                    and if he stand to it, and say, I like not to take her;
                    9 Then shall his brother's wife come unto him in the presence of
                    the elders, and loose his shoe from off his foot, and spit in his
                    face, and shall answer and say, So shall it be done unto that man
                    that will not build up his brother's house.
                    10 And his name shall be called in Israel , The house of him that
                    hath his shoe loosed.

                    Riley

                     

                     

                     

                  • b_kirkman
                    Oh, also I think you ve assumed that the Divines meant there is perpetuity of in-law-ship (if you will) beyond the death of the spouse that would forbid one
                    Message 9 of 18 , Apr 1, 2003
                    • 0 Attachment

                      Oh, also I think you’ve assumed that the Divines meant there is perpetuity of in-law-ship (if you will) beyond the death of the spouse that would forbid one from marrying the sister or brother of his/her deceased spouse.  This is not true and the Divines did not believe this (someone please correct me if I’m wrong).

                       

                      “…beside the other IN HER LIFE TIME.” Lev. 18:18

                       


                      From: b_kirkman [mailto: b_kirkman@... ]
                      Sent: Tuesday, April 01, 2003 12:56 PM
                      To: 'covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com'

                       

                      Doubt no longer my dear brother!

                       

                      Lev 18:16-18; 20:21

                       

                      God was not contradicting himself when he inspired Moses.  We must interpret these passages in the light of themselves and the whole of scripture.  In the Deut. 5 passage it is seen as a commandment of which would disgrace anyone who did not marry his deceased brother’s widow (if she had never had children with him).  The answer to the big question of why is in verse 6 where stated is the reason – “that his name be not put out of Israel .”  So was this for all peoples and societies (i.e. moral) or was it specific to Israel ?  Now for incest, are the OT commands binding on all peoples and societies (i.e. moral)?

                       

                      Truth and peace,

                      Brian Kirkman

                       

                       

                       

                      From:  "Dan Fraas" <fraasrd@y...>
                      Date:  Tue Apr 1, 2003  6:28 pm
                      Subject:  Re: WCF and the inerrency but fallibility of subordinate standards


                      Dear Brian,

                      I agree with your assessment of all parts of the WCF, which you
                      addressed. However, I have doubts concerning one line in the chapter
                      on marriage, which forbids marriage to ones in-laws. This does not
                      seem scriptural in light of Moses command that one marry the wife of
                      a deceased brother and raise up seed for him:

                      Deuteronomy 5:5 If brethren dwell together, and one of them die,
                      and have no child, the wife of the dead shall not marry without unto
                      a stranger: her husband's brother shall go in unto her, and take her
                      to him to wife, and perform the duty of an husband's brother unto her.
                      6 And it shall be, that the firstborn which she beareth shall
                      succeed in the name of his brother which is dead, that his name be
                      not put out of Israel .
                      7 And if the man like not to take his brother's wife, then let his
                      brother's wife go up to the gate unto the elders, and say, My
                      husband's brother refuseth to raise up unto his brother a name in
                      Israel, he will not perform the duty of my husband's brother.
                      8 Then the elders of his city shall call him, and speak unto him:
                      and if he stand to it, and say, I like not to take her;
                      9 Then shall his brother's wife come unto him in the presence of
                      the elders, and loose his shoe from off his foot, and spit in his
                      face, and shall answer and say, So shall it be done unto that man
                      that will not build up his brother's house.
                      10 And his name shall be called in Israel , The house of him that
                      hath his shoe loosed.

                      Riley

                       

                       

                       

                    • Dan Fraas
                      Brother Brian, I understand what you re saying, and of course God doesn t contradict Himself. I understand that the Deuteronomy passages are judicial law and
                      Message 10 of 18 , Apr 1, 2003
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Brother Brian,

                        I understand what you're saying, and of course God doesn't contradict
                        Himself. I understand that the Deuteronomy passages are judicial law
                        and the Leviticus passages are interpreted as moral law. However it
                        isn't feasible that the judicial law God handed to the Jews would
                        contradict His moral law in some point. Taken into context with
                        Deuteronomy 5, we must take the Leviticus passages to be speaking of
                        fornication and adultery with the spouse of a living brother. Is it
                        possible that these Leviticus passages could apply to the wives of
                        deceased family members? I don't see any indication in the text that
                        they were deceased. Also, Moses' command in Deuteronomy 5 must be
                        understood to be in accordance with Leviticus. Therefore Leviticus
                        is only speaking of living family members. If I'm not mistaken the
                        WCF forbids a Widower from marrying his sister-in-law. (This has
                        become a personal issue for some Presbyterians such as Lt Gen
                        Thomas "Stonewall" Jackson.) Can you explain your interpretation a
                        little more? Thanks.

                        For Christ's Crown and Covenant!

                        Riley
                        --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, "b_kirkman"
                        <b_kirkman@m...> wrote:
                        > Doubt no longer my dear brother!
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        > Lev 18:16-18; 20:21
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        > God was not contradicting himself when he inspired Moses. We must
                        interpret
                        > these passages in the light of themselves and the whole of
                        scripture. In
                        > the Deut. 5 passage it is seen as a commandment of which would
                        disgrace
                        > anyone who did not marry his deceased brother's widow (if she had
                        never had
                        > children with him). The answer to the big question of why is in
                        verse 6
                        > where stated is the reason - "that his name be not put out of
                        Israel." So
                        > was this for all peoples and societies (i.e. moral) or was it
                        specific to
                        > Israel? Now for incest, are the OT commands binding on all peoples
                        and
                        > societies (i.e. moral)?
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        > Truth and peace,
                        >
                        > Brian Kirkman
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        > From:
                        <http://edit.yahoo.com/config/send_webmesg?.intl=us&.target=fraasrd>
                        > "Dan Fraas" <fraasrd@y...
                        > <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/covenantedreformationclub/post?
                        protectID=2302
                        > 12113237099209227218164140244063078048234051197> >
                        > Date: Tue Apr 1, 2003 6:28 pm
                        > Subject: Re: WCF and the inerrency but fallibility of subordinate
                        standards
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        > Dear Brian,
                        >
                        > I agree with your assessment of all parts of the WCF, which you
                        > addressed. However, I have doubts concerning one line in the
                        chapter
                        > on marriage, which forbids marriage to ones in-laws. This does not
                        > seem scriptural in light of Moses command that one marry the wife
                        of
                        > a deceased brother and raise up seed for him:
                        >
                        > Deuteronomy 5:5 If brethren dwell together, and one of them die,
                        > and have no child, the wife of the dead shall not marry without
                        unto
                        > a stranger: her husband's brother shall go in unto her, and take
                        her
                        > to him to wife, and perform the duty of an husband's brother unto
                        her.
                        > 6 And it shall be, that the firstborn which she beareth shall
                        > succeed in the name of his brother which is dead, that his name be
                        > not put out of Israel.
                        > 7 And if the man like not to take his brother's wife, then let his
                        > brother's wife go up to the gate unto the elders, and say, My
                        > husband's brother refuseth to raise up unto his brother a name in
                        > Israel, he will not perform the duty of my husband's brother.
                        > 8 Then the elders of his city shall call him, and speak unto him:
                        > and if he stand to it, and say, I like not to take her;
                        > 9 Then shall his brother's wife come unto him in the presence of
                        > the elders, and loose his shoe from off his foot, and spit in his
                        > face, and shall answer and say, So shall it be done unto that man
                        > that will not build up his brother's house.
                        > 10 And his name shall be called in Israel, The house of him that
                        > hath his shoe loosed.
                        >
                        > Riley
                      • Dan Fraas
                        Well in that case it s a different story. Can someone help out here? Did the Westminster divines mean to prevent a Widower from marrying the sister of a
                        Message 11 of 18 , Apr 1, 2003
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Well in that case it's a different story. Can someone help out
                          here? Did the Westminster divines mean to prevent a Widower from
                          marrying the sister of a deceased wife? Otherwise, what's the
                          point? Is this about the sister of an ex-wife? Of course Christians
                          may not take two wives at one time... I've read secular historians
                          who mentioned that LtGen Jackson may have considered marrying the
                          sister of his deceased wife if it hadn't been for his adherence to
                          the WCF.

                          Riley
                          --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, "b_kirkman"
                          <b_kirkman@m...> wrote:
                          > Oh, also I think you've assumed that the Divines meant there is
                          perpetuity
                          > of in-law-ship (if you will) beyond the death of the spouse that
                          would
                          > forbid one from marrying the sister or brother of his/her deceased
                          spouse.
                          > This is not true and the Divines did not believe this (someone
                          please
                          > correct me if I'm wrong).
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          > ".beside the other IN HER LIFE TIME." Lev. 18:18
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          > _____
                          >
                          > From: b_kirkman [mailto:b_kirkman@m...]
                          > Sent: Tuesday, April 01, 2003 12:56 PM
                          > To: 'covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com'
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          > Doubt no longer my dear brother!
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          > Lev 18:16-18; 20:21
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          > God was not contradicting himself when he inspired Moses. We must
                          interpret
                          > these passages in the light of themselves and the whole of
                          scripture. In
                          > the Deut. 5 passage it is seen as a commandment of which would
                          disgrace
                          > anyone who did not marry his deceased brother's widow (if she had
                          never had
                          > children with him). The answer to the big question of why is in
                          verse 6
                          > where stated is the reason - "that his name be not put out of
                          Israel." So
                          > was this for all peoples and societies (i.e. moral) or was it
                          specific to
                          > Israel? Now for incest, are the OT commands binding on all peoples
                          and
                          > societies (i.e. moral)?
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          > Truth and peace,
                          >
                          > Brian Kirkman
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          > From:
                          <http://edit.yahoo.com/config/send_webmesg?.intl=us&.target=fraasrd>
                          > "Dan Fraas" <fraasrd@y...
                          > <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/covenantedreformationclub/post?
                          protectID=2302
                          > 12113237099209227218164140244063078048234051197> >
                          > Date: Tue Apr 1, 2003 6:28 pm
                          > Subject: Re: WCF and the inerrency but fallibility of subordinate
                          standards
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          > Dear Brian,
                          >
                          > I agree with your assessment of all parts of the WCF, which you
                          > addressed. However, I have doubts concerning one line in the
                          chapter
                          > on marriage, which forbids marriage to ones in-laws. This does not
                          > seem scriptural in light of Moses command that one marry the wife
                          of
                          > a deceased brother and raise up seed for him:
                          >
                          > Deuteronomy 5:5 If brethren dwell together, and one of them die,
                          > and have no child, the wife of the dead shall not marry without
                          unto
                          > a stranger: her husband's brother shall go in unto her, and take
                          her
                          > to him to wife, and perform the duty of an husband's brother unto
                          her.
                          > 6 And it shall be, that the firstborn which she beareth shall
                          > succeed in the name of his brother which is dead, that his name be
                          > not put out of Israel.
                          > 7 And if the man like not to take his brother's wife, then let his
                          > brother's wife go up to the gate unto the elders, and say, My
                          > husband's brother refuseth to raise up unto his brother a name in
                          > Israel, he will not perform the duty of my husband's brother.
                          > 8 Then the elders of his city shall call him, and speak unto him:
                          > and if he stand to it, and say, I like not to take her;
                          > 9 Then shall his brother's wife come unto him in the presence of
                          > the elders, and loose his shoe from off his foot, and spit in his
                          > face, and shall answer and say, So shall it be done unto that man
                          > that will not build up his brother's house.
                          > 10 And his name shall be called in Israel, The house of him that
                          > hath his shoe loosed.
                          >
                          > Riley
                        • Colin
                          ... Hi Brian, Thanks for your input. Can you cite any reformed theologian who describes the original WCF as inerrant according to your second definition as
                          Message 12 of 18 , Apr 1, 2003
                          • 0 Attachment
                            --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, "b_kirkman"
                            <b_kirkman@m...> wrote:
                            > Colin and Martin,
                            >
                            > I know that quivveling over words is shameful so let's attempt to
                            > speak clearly, in brotherly love.
                            >
                            > Inerrant can mean both 1) unable to err and 2) free from error.
                            >
                            > The first definition is synonymous with infallible, however the
                            > second definition is slightly different.
                            >
                            > By definition #1, both Martin, Colin, and myself (along with
                            > everyone who is truly RP) considers the WCF to NOT be inerrant.
                            >
                            > By definition #2 Martin and I (along with everyone who is truly RP)
                            > considers the WCF to be inerrant (free from error), and Colin
                            > personally judges that it contain some error in some parts.

                            Hi Brian,

                            Thanks for your input. Can you cite any reformed theologian who
                            describes the original WCF as "inerrant" according to your second
                            definition as being "free from error"? I think David Steele may have,
                            but he is not considered to be a reformed theologian nor does he hold
                            much credibility outside his tiny circle of followers.

                            My study of inerrancy has shown me that "inerrant" and "free from
                            error" are expressions limited exclusively to scripture alone.

                            And if "the purest Churches under heaven are subject both to mixture
                            and error" (WCF XXV:5), so can their confessions be.

                            >
                            > None of us should get heated up by the fact alone that someone does
                            > not consider the WCF to be free from error. Not long ago, I did
                            > not consider it to be free from error. Then through studying the
                            > issues (especially the ones that Colin has brought up) I had to
                            > change my position to one of uncertainty. Then through God's
                            > grace, I began to realize that they are in accordance with God's
                            > word although always subject to improvement and revision. Colin,
                            > you can disagree, and I know you do.

                            If the WCF is subject to "revision", then is this revision an
                            amendment that improves the clarity of the WCF or is it a true
                            revision from an erroneous statement as in the 1788 revised WCF?

                            >
                            >
                            > The history of the disagreement:
                            >
                            > The issues of magistracy that have caused revisions in the WCF are
                            > issues that have been dealt with quite thoroughly by the Act,
                            > Declaration, and Testimony as well as by such authors as William
                            > Cunningham, William Symington, and George Gillespie for starters.
                            > The revised versions are from the Resolutioner churches and their
                            > daughters (such as PCUSA, PCA, OPC, ect.) who have always had these
                            > exact issues as the primary reasons for separation from those who
                            > faithfully held to the covenants. The revisions that they made in
                            > the 18th century are not surprising, given that they had
                            > completely trodden the substance of the covenants many years prior
                            > at the Resolution Settlement of 1689.

                            The presbyterians in Philadelphia in 1788 were not the same ones who
                            had objected to the "covenants" back in 1689, for obvious reasons.
                            But their desire had clearly been to improve upon an "errant"
                            confession, just as the Westminster Assembly of 1643 choose to
                            improve upon Archbishop Ussher's non-inerrant Irish Articles of 1615.
                            Whether you agree with the 1788 revisions or not, the fact is that
                            they saw errors in the WCF and did not a priori believe that the WCF
                            was inerrant according to your second definition.

                            > Which, by the way, was such a despicable compromise to the still
                            > Erastian civil head by the presbytery that later errors were
                            > guaranteed to plague the Church of Scotland except had they
                            > repented of this sinful engagement.

                            You can whine all you want about the "Erastian" settlement, but the
                            Scots-presbyterian's naive faith in the fidelity of kings and royalty
                            was a disappointment waiting to happen. If not in 1689, it would have
                            happened sooner or later (Psalm 146:3).

                            > Colin, we (CovenantedReformationClub) are Covenanters and hold to
                            > the faithful attainments of our forefathers as separate and
                            > distinct from the Resolutioners. We should focus our discussion
                            > around the differing principles of these two groups if we're going
                            > to obtain any traction.
                            >

                            The acrimonious Protestor/Resolutioner controversy is irrelevant for
                            our day. I see it as similar to the "common grace" controversy in the
                            CRC in 1924 in which the Protestant Reformed church (PRCA) still
                            wishes to keep that controversy alive or the "Burgher/Anti-Burgher"
                            controversy in Scotland in the 18th century which thankfully, like
                            the Protestor/Resolutioner controversy, has long since bitten the
                            dust. The modern abortion issue is only one example of such
                            importance that dwarfs the various Scottish disputes of the 17th
                            century.

                            In addition, it might help to have a bit of healthy skepticism
                            regarding the some of the achievements and "attainments" of
                            your "forefathers" in order to see the value of achievements of other
                            Godly brethren outside the covenanting fold (e.g. Thomas Boston and
                            the thousands of others who did not join with Cameronians).

                            Colin
                          • Dan Fraas
                            Hello brother Brian, You said, Colin, we (CovenantedReformationClub) are Covenanters and hold to the faithful attainments of our forefathers as separate and
                            Message 13 of 18 , Apr 4, 2003
                            • 0 Attachment
                              Hello brother Brian,

                              You said, "Colin, we (CovenantedReformationClub) are Covenanters and
                              hold to the faithful attainments of our forefathers as separate and
                              distinct from the Resolutioners. We should focus our discussion
                              around the differing principles of these two groups if we're going to
                              obtain any traction."

                              Indeed the topic of the British covenants and related issues are
                              pertinent for this group. I'd like to raise some questions on this
                              track.

                              First of all, I'd like to discuss the relation of the Covenants to
                              official oaths to "support and defend the Constitution of the United
                              States." Now I'm not certain, but I believe you old-school
                              Covenanter types do not allow such oaths on grounds that the U. S.
                              Constitution is an illegal document which does not recognize Christ's
                              kingship. Am I right? I've done some thinking on this subject
                              lately and there are some points I'd like to raise. Thank you
                              friends.

                              For Christ's Crown and Covenant!

                              Riley


                              --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, "b_kirkman"
                              <b_kirkman@m...> wrote:
                              > Colin and Martin,
                              >
                              > I know that quivveling over words is shameful so let's attempt to
                              speak
                              > clearly, in brotherly love.
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              > Inerrant can mean both 1) unable to err and 2) free from error.
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              > The first definition is synonymous with infallible, however the
                              second
                              > definition is slightly different.
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              > By definition #1, both Martin, Colin, and myself (along with
                              everyone who is
                              > truly RP) considers the WCF to NOT be inerrant.
                              >
                              > By definition #2 Martin and I (along with everyone who is truly RP)
                              > considers the WCF to be inerrant (free from error), and Colin
                              personally
                              > judges that it contain some error in some parts.
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              > None of us should get heated up by the fact alone that someone does
                              not
                              > consider the WCF to be free from error. Not long ago, I did not
                              consider it
                              > to be free from error. Then through studying the issues
                              (especially the
                              > ones that Colin has brought up) I had to change my position to one
                              of
                              > uncertainty. Then through God's grace, I began to realize that
                              they are in
                              > accordance with God's word although always subject to improvement
                              and
                              > revision. Colin, you can disagree, and I know you do. But
                              charitable
                              > dialogue and above all other means, reliance on the God's
                              revelation through
                              > his word and Spirit will bring us closer together. If nothing else
                              we can
                              > understand each other better than what's been going on here quite a
                              bit so
                              > far.
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              > The history of the disagreement:
                              >
                              > The issues of magistracy that have caused revisions in the WCF are
                              issues
                              > that have been dealt with quite thoroughly by the Act, Declaration,
                              and
                              > Testimony as well as by such authors as William Cunningham, William
                              > Symington, and George Gillespie for starters. The revised versions
                              are from
                              > the Resolutioner churches and their daughters (such as PCUSA, PCA,
                              OPC,
                              > ect.) who have always had these exact issues as the primary reasons
                              for
                              > separation from those who faithfully held to the covenants. The
                              revisions
                              > that they made in the 18th century are not surprising, given that
                              they had
                              > completely trodden the substance of the covenants many years prior
                              at the
                              > Resolution Settlement of 1689. Which, by the way, was such a
                              despicable
                              > compromise to the still Erastian civil head by the presbytery that
                              later
                              > errors were guaranteed to plague the Church of Scotland except had
                              they
                              > repented of this sinful engagement. The original testimony against
                              them
                              > still stands unanswered. Sure there have been attempts to answer
                              the
                              > Covenanters, but they've all fallen short of sound biblical
                              reasoning.
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              > Colin, we (CovenantedReformationClub) are Covenanters and hold to
                              the
                              > faithful attainments of our forefathers as separate and distinct
                              from the
                              > Resolutioners. We should focus our discussion around the differing
                              > principles of these two groups if we're going to obtain any
                              traction.
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              > Truth and peace,
                              >
                              > Brian Kirkman
                            • b_kirkman2002
                              That s correct. What are your questions/points? Churchman ... and ... and ... to ... this ... United ... Christ s
                              Message 14 of 18 , Apr 4, 2003
                              • 0 Attachment
                                That's correct. What are your questions/points?

                                "Churchman"

                                --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, "Dan Fraas"
                                <fraasrd@y...> wrote:
                                > Hello brother Brian,
                                >
                                > You said, "Colin, we (CovenantedReformationClub) are Covenanters
                                and
                                > hold to the faithful attainments of our forefathers as separate
                                and
                                > distinct from the Resolutioners. We should focus our discussion
                                > around the differing principles of these two groups if we're going
                                to
                                > obtain any traction."
                                >
                                > Indeed the topic of the British covenants and related issues are
                                > pertinent for this group. I'd like to raise some questions on
                                this
                                > track.
                                >
                                > First of all, I'd like to discuss the relation of the Covenants to
                                > official oaths to "support and defend the Constitution of the
                                United
                                > States." Now I'm not certain, but I believe you old-school
                                > Covenanter types do not allow such oaths on grounds that the U. S.
                                > Constitution is an illegal document which does not recognize
                                Christ's
                                > kingship. Am I right? I've done some thinking on this subject
                                > lately and there are some points I'd like to raise. Thank you
                                > friends.
                                >
                                > For Christ's Crown and Covenant!
                                >
                                > Riley
                                >
                                >
                              • raging_calvinist
                                First of all, I d like to discuss the relation of the Covenants to official oaths to support and defend the Constitution of the United States. Now I m not
                                Message 15 of 18 , Apr 4, 2003
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  "First of all, I'd like to discuss the relation of the Covenants to
                                  official oaths to "support and defend the Constitution of the United
                                  States." Now I'm not certain, but I believe you old-school
                                  Covenanter types do not allow such oaths on grounds that the U. S.
                                  Constitution is an illegal document which does not recognize Christ's
                                  kingship. Am I right?"

                                  That's pretty much right on, Riles. I would also point out that a
                                  Christian (who is covenant bound to Christ) that swears to uphold the
                                  U.S. Constitution would find themselves (for one example)
                                  simultaneously defending the First Table of the Law which regulates
                                  worship AND the First Ammendment with essentially prevents the
                                  government from enforcing the First Table. I recall Christ saying
                                  something about what happens when trying to serve two masters.

                                  Please, Riley, ask any question you may have. It's likely someone
                                  here would be willing to tackle them.

                                  gmw.
                                • Dan Fraas
                                  As far as I understand your position you believe in the right of a people to self-government. You would not be in favor of a minority coercing an entire
                                  Message 16 of 18 , Apr 4, 2003
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    As far as I understand your position you believe in the right of a
                                    people to self-government. You would not be in favor of a minority
                                    coercing an entire nation into legal adherance to the Covenant, but
                                    instead pray for God's grace to convict our countrymen and convince a
                                    majority of them of their obligation to honor Christ as King and be
                                    faithful to the covenanted attainments of their forefathers. This
                                    majority should then enact civil change in the country's laws and
                                    institutions by peaceful means if at all possible. Is this accurate?

                                    Riley
                                    --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, "b_kirkman2002"
                                    <b_kirkman@m...> wrote:
                                    > That's correct. What are your questions/points?
                                    >
                                    > "Churchman"
                                    >
                                    > --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, "Dan Fraas"
                                    > <fraasrd@y...> wrote:
                                    > > Hello brother Brian,
                                    > >
                                    > > You said, "Colin, we (CovenantedReformationClub) are Covenanters
                                    > and
                                    > > hold to the faithful attainments of our forefathers as separate
                                    > and
                                    > > distinct from the Resolutioners. We should focus our discussion
                                    > > around the differing principles of these two groups if we're
                                    going
                                    > to
                                    > > obtain any traction."
                                    > >
                                    > > Indeed the topic of the British covenants and related issues are
                                    > > pertinent for this group. I'd like to raise some questions on
                                    > this
                                    > > track.
                                    > >
                                    > > First of all, I'd like to discuss the relation of the Covenants
                                    to
                                    > > official oaths to "support and defend the Constitution of the
                                    > United
                                    > > States." Now I'm not certain, but I believe you old-school
                                    > > Covenanter types do not allow such oaths on grounds that the U.
                                    S.
                                    > > Constitution is an illegal document which does not recognize
                                    > Christ's
                                    > > kingship. Am I right? I've done some thinking on this subject
                                    > > lately and there are some points I'd like to raise. Thank you
                                    > > friends.
                                    > >
                                    > > For Christ's Crown and Covenant!
                                    > >
                                    > > Riley
                                    > >
                                    > >
                                  • weeping_calvinist
                                    I find this statement agreeable. Anyone else? gmw. ... a ... accurate? ... Covenanters ... discussion ... are
                                    Message 17 of 18 , Apr 4, 2003
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      I find this statement agreeable. Anyone else?

                                      gmw.

                                      --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, "Dan Fraas"
                                      <fraasrd@y...> wrote:
                                      > As far as I understand your position you believe in the right of a
                                      > people to self-government. You would not be in favor of a minority
                                      > coercing an entire nation into legal adherance to the Covenant, but
                                      > instead pray for God's grace to convict our countrymen and convince
                                      a
                                      > majority of them of their obligation to honor Christ as King and be
                                      > faithful to the covenanted attainments of their forefathers. This
                                      > majority should then enact civil change in the country's laws and
                                      > institutions by peaceful means if at all possible. Is this
                                      accurate?
                                      >
                                      > Riley
                                      > --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, "b_kirkman2002"
                                      > <b_kirkman@m...> wrote:
                                      > > That's correct. What are your questions/points?
                                      > >
                                      > > "Churchman"
                                      > >
                                      > > --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, "Dan Fraas"
                                      > > <fraasrd@y...> wrote:
                                      > > > Hello brother Brian,
                                      > > >
                                      > > > You said, "Colin, we (CovenantedReformationClub) are
                                      Covenanters
                                      > > and
                                      > > > hold to the faithful attainments of our forefathers as separate
                                      > > and
                                      > > > distinct from the Resolutioners. We should focus our
                                      discussion
                                      > > > around the differing principles of these two groups if we're
                                      > going
                                      > > to
                                      > > > obtain any traction."
                                      > > >
                                      > > > Indeed the topic of the British covenants and related issues
                                      are
                                      > > > pertinent for this group. I'd like to raise some questions on
                                      > > this
                                      > > > track.
                                      > > >
                                      > > > First of all, I'd like to discuss the relation of the Covenants
                                      > to
                                      > > > official oaths to "support and defend the Constitution of the
                                      > > United
                                      > > > States." Now I'm not certain, but I believe you old-school
                                      > > > Covenanter types do not allow such oaths on grounds that the U.
                                      > S.
                                      > > > Constitution is an illegal document which does not recognize
                                      > > Christ's
                                      > > > kingship. Am I right? I've done some thinking on this subject
                                      > > > lately and there are some points I'd like to raise. Thank you
                                      > > > friends.
                                      > > >
                                      > > > For Christ's Crown and Covenant!
                                      > > >
                                      > > > Riley
                                      > > >
                                      > > >
                                    • Dan Fraas
                                      I submit that the U. S. Constitution is an alterable embodiment of Americans prerogative to self-government. An oath to support and defend the Constitution
                                      Message 18 of 18 , Apr 4, 2003
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        I submit that the U. S. Constitution is an alterable embodiment of
                                        Americans' prerogative to self-government. An oath to "support and
                                        defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic" is
                                        not an oath to support the perpetual existence of all laws and
                                        articles contained in the Constitution and agreement with the same.
                                        Rather it is a promise to oppose any overthrow of Constitutional law
                                        outside of the legal process that the American people have instituted
                                        and to oppose the usurpation of Americans' right to self-government.

                                        Someone who is opposed to and would like to change an article or
                                        amendment of the Constutution is never considered an "enemy" of the
                                        Constitution as long as he or she proceeds by the process instituted
                                        by law. An enemy of the Constitution is one who seeks to affect the
                                        government of the United States by some illegal, violent, and/or
                                        subversive means. I believe that it is the duty of a Christian to
                                        oppose such enemies even though a biblical Christian cannot assent to
                                        all of the articles in the said Constitution. Indeed some articles
                                        of the Constitution are *morally* unlawful.

                                        This state is different from that state which the Scottish
                                        Covenanters opposed in that the U. S. Constitution is an alterable
                                        expression of the public political will whereas a despotic monarch
                                        set himself above the Covenant in England. In that case the church
                                        had no option of affecting change by peaceful, legal means because
                                        there wasn't a democratic government. Christians were forced to take
                                        up arms in resistance. Today, we American Christians ought to seek
                                        to implement the Covenants into public law by the constitutional
                                        means the American people have proscribed and regard the right of
                                        self-government. Therefore we should not hesitate to swear an oath
                                        to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against
                                        all enemies, foreign and domestic, and bear true faith and allegiance
                                        to the same." It doesn't mean we assent to the *moral* lawfulness of
                                        the actual words contained therein!

                                        For Christ's Crown and Covenant!

                                        Riley


                                        --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, "weeping_calvinist"
                                        <raging.calvinist@v...> wrote:
                                        > I find this statement agreeable. Anyone else?
                                        >
                                        > gmw.
                                        >
                                        > --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, "Dan Fraas"
                                        > <fraasrd@y...> wrote:
                                        > > As far as I understand your position you believe in the right of
                                        a
                                        > > people to self-government. You would not be in favor of a
                                        minority
                                        > > coercing an entire nation into legal adherance to the Covenant,
                                        but
                                        > > instead pray for God's grace to convict our countrymen and
                                        convince
                                        > a
                                        > > majority of them of their obligation to honor Christ as King and
                                        be
                                        > > faithful to the covenanted attainments of their forefathers.
                                        This
                                        > > majority should then enact civil change in the country's laws and
                                        > > institutions by peaceful means if at all possible. Is this
                                        > accurate?
                                        > >
                                        > > Riley
                                        > > --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, "b_kirkman2002"
                                        > > <b_kirkman@m...> wrote:
                                        > > > That's correct. What are your questions/points?
                                        > > >
                                        > > > "Churchman"
                                        > > >
                                        > > > --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, "Dan Fraas"
                                        > > > <fraasrd@y...> wrote:
                                        > > > > Hello brother Brian,
                                        > > > >
                                        > > > > You said, "Colin, we (CovenantedReformationClub) are
                                        > Covenanters
                                        > > > and
                                        > > > > hold to the faithful attainments of our forefathers as
                                        separate
                                        > > > and
                                        > > > > distinct from the Resolutioners. We should focus our
                                        > discussion
                                        > > > > around the differing principles of these two groups if we're
                                        > > going
                                        > > > to
                                        > > > > obtain any traction."
                                        > > > >
                                        > > > > Indeed the topic of the British covenants and related issues
                                        > are
                                        > > > > pertinent for this group. I'd like to raise some questions
                                        on
                                        > > > this
                                        > > > > track.
                                        > > > >
                                        > > > > First of all, I'd like to discuss the relation of the
                                        Covenants
                                        > > to
                                        > > > > official oaths to "support and defend the Constitution of the
                                        > > > United
                                        > > > > States." Now I'm not certain, but I believe you old-school
                                        > > > > Covenanter types do not allow such oaths on grounds that the
                                        U.
                                        > > S.
                                        > > > > Constitution is an illegal document which does not recognize
                                        > > > Christ's
                                        > > > > kingship. Am I right? I've done some thinking on this
                                        subject
                                        > > > > lately and there are some points I'd like to raise. Thank
                                        you
                                        > > > > friends.
                                        > > > >
                                        > > > > For Christ's Crown and Covenant!
                                        > > > >
                                        > > > > Riley
                                        > > > >
                                        > > > >
                                      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.