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

Uncomprimising Christians

Expand Messages
  • Peter
    WOW. You guys must be real hardliners. From my limited experience it seems like most reformed circles on the internet are infested with Baptists, preterists,
    Message 1 of 12 , Jun 30, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      WOW. You guys must be real hardliners. From my limited experience it
      seems like most "reformed" circles on the internet are infested with
      Baptists, preterists, and possibly worst of all, Sabbath deniers. I
      haven't had the time to cipher through all the messages but your
      home page definitely gives the impression that you are
      uncompromising adherents to the WCF. Even conservative Presbyterian
      denominations don't believe the Pope is the AntiChrist anymore. Is
      this the consensus here or have I made a fool of myself?
    • Darren Harr
      Hi Peter. my name is Darren Harr and I live in North Dakota. What you define as hardliners we refer to as faithfulness to the word of God. I am a member of
      Message 2 of 12 , Jul 1, 2003
      • 0 Attachment
        Hi Peter. my name is Darren Harr and I live in North Dakota.  What you define as "hardliners" we refer to as faithfulness to the word of God.  I am a member of the Reformed Presbytery of North America and yes we sincerely uphold the WCF.  I am glad to see you believe in keeping the Sabbath. You would do yourself a great deal of good if you read the material as to why we believe the pope is the anti-Christ. I believe you will conclude as I have, along with other nations that concluded the same thing.  So to answer your question yes we believe the pope is most definitely the anti-Christ.     
         
         
        eter <pjgray@...> wrote:
        WOW. You guys must be real hardliners. From my limited experience it
        seems like most "reformed" circles on the internet are infested with
        Baptists, preterists, and possibly worst of all, Sabbath deniers. I
        haven't had the time to cipher through all the messages but your
        home page definitely gives the impression that you are
        uncompromising adherents to the WCF. Even conservative Presbyterian
        denominations don't believe the Pope is the AntiChrist anymore. Is
        this the consensus here or have I made a fool of myself?



        To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
        covenantedreformationclub-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



        Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.


        Do you Yahoo!?
        SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
      • thebishopsdoom
        ... it ... with ... This club (silly, nostalgic me... I mean group ) is a mix of different calvinistic people (and we ve had a few non-calvinistic as well),
        Message 3 of 12 , Jul 1, 2003
        • 0 Attachment
          --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, "Peter"
          <pjgray@s...> wrote:
          > WOW. You guys must be real hardliners. From my limited experience
          it
          > seems like most "reformed" circles on the internet are infested
          with
          > Baptists, preterists, and possibly worst of all, Sabbath deniers. I
          > haven't had the time to cipher through all the messages but your
          > home page definitely gives the impression that you are
          > uncompromising adherents to the WCF. Even conservative Presbyterian
          > denominations don't believe the Pope is the AntiChrist anymore. Is
          > this the consensus here or have I made a fool of myself?

          This club (silly, nostalgic me... I mean "group") is a mix of
          different calvinistic people (and we've had a few non-calvinistic as
          well), like one might expect from any other group of a similar nature
          on the internet. But the club itself is run by a covenanter, and has
          a focus geared towards the covenanters. The covenanters are those
          known also as Reformed Presbyterians, who rejected the settlement of
          the Church of Scotland under the authority of William
          of Orange at the time of the "Glorious Revolution" as it was regarded
          as establishing the church on new, unwarranted (and partly erastian)
          footing and violated the covenants to God that had been previously
          taken by church and state. They also rejected the changes that were
          adopted when the presbyterians of Scotland and Ireland were forming
          into ecclesiastical courts in North America. Many of us in this club
          identify with the secession from the RPCNA that took place in 1840,
          which declined Synod's jurisdiction due widening breaches in the
          RPCNA from the original RP views, and the inability after 7 years to
          get fair representation before synod to address the matter.
          Notwithstanding a recognition of gifts and talents of Christians
          (some of whom are friends) who happen to be in these other
          denominations, they find that the reasons for dissent from these
          synodical bodies as ecclesiastical bodies still exists, and remain
          outside of official ecclesiastical relations with these denominations
          as ecclesiastical bodies.
          - doom
        • Peter
          I m sorry for being unclear. If its any excuse it was very late for me when I posted that message. But, my intentions were praise not mockery. hardliners was
          Message 4 of 12 , Jul 1, 2003
          • 0 Attachment
            I'm sorry for being unclear. If its any excuse it was very late for
            me when I posted that message. But, my intentions were praise not
            mockery. "hardliners" was supposed to be an term of affection. I too
            believe the Pope is the Anti-Christ. Again, what I said was meant in
            praise, though I can certainly see how it might be construed
            otherwise. Noticed I criticized preterism, which seems to dominate
            CT churches today. Needless to say, I am NOT a futurist. I thought
            futurism was generally held by disbys & premills. I have read many
            good things on popery. In fact, lately most of my free time has been
            devoted to studying popery. My personal favorite is J.A.
            Wylie's "The Papacy is the AntiChrist". I believe this book is
            considered to be the authoritative vindication of that premise. I
            have a book by Alexander Hislop called the Two Babylons which
            compares Romanism to the pagan worship of Belshazzar. I haven't had
            the chance to read it yet is it good? I have a single volume of
            Puritan sermons about popery. I've listened to innumerable historic
            sermons on the Nicodemians, reforming the church, and romes
            idolatry. Without a doubt the Pope is the man of sin and the RCC the
            mystery of iniquity, I'm as sure of it as I am that Jesus is Christ
            and Protestantism and the OT and apostolic religions proceeding it
            are the mystery of godliness (some what reminiscent of Wylie?).
            What I said, "Even conservative Presbyterian denominations don't
            believe the Pope is the AntiChrist anymore" was said in surprise and
            elation, because I know most conservative American Presbyterian
            denominations don't have a definitive stance on eschatology- PCA,
            OPC. The Reformed Presbytery of North America might, I don't know
            any thing about them. Given you live in N. Dakota I assume they are
            a German (Rhinish Palatinate) Presbytery? Note I am none of these:
            Baptist, preterist, Sabbath denier. I only mentioned them because it
            seems many people of reformed persuasion fall away on these points
            of orthodoxy. Have you noticed that? Im sorry if you misunderstood,
            but how could you take offense to subject entitled "Uncomprimising
            Christians"?

            > Hi Peter. my name is Darren Harr and I live in North Dakota. What
            you define as "hardliners" we refer to as faithfulness to the word
            of God. I am a member of the Reformed Presbytery of North America
            and yes we sincerely uphold the WCF. I am glad to see you believe
            in keeping the Sabbath. You would do yourself a great deal of good
            if you read the material as to why we believe the pope is the anti-
            Christ. I believe you will conclude as I have, along with other
            nations that concluded the same thing. So to answer your question
            yes we believe the pope is most definitely the anti-Christ.
            >

            Excuse me, I confused the covenanters with the leaguers. My grasp on
            history isn't as good as yours but I do know a wee bit about the era
            (Im a fan of Paisley). I thought that the Scots would be friendly
            with King Billy because the Jacobins were papists? The histories of
            the Presbyterian Churches are very confusing. The largest
            Presbyterian church where I live is the PC-USA other main ones are
            the OPC and PCA. I believe that trend continues throughout the
            entire east cost? I think these churches are mainly of British
            descent?


            >This club (silly, nostalgic me... I mean "group") is a mix of
            different calvinistic people (and we've had a few non-calvinistic as
            well), like one might expect from any other group of a similar
            nature
            on the internet. But the club itself is run by a covenanter, and has
            a focus geared towards the covenanters. The covenanters are those
            known also as Reformed Presbyterians, who rejected the settlement of
            the Church of Scotland under the authority of William
            of Orange at the time of the "Glorious Revolution" as it was
            regarded
            as establishing the church on new, unwarranted (and partly erastian)
            footing and violated the covenants to God that had been previously
            taken by church and state. They also rejected the changes that were
            adopted when the presbyterians of Scotland and Ireland were forming
            into ecclesiastical courts in North America. Many of us in this club
            identify with the secession from the RPCNA that took place in 1840,
            which declined Synod's jurisdiction due widening breaches in the
            RPCNA from the original RP views, and the inability after 7 years to
            get fair representation before synod to address the matter.
            Notwithstanding a recognition of gifts and talents of Christians
            (some of whom are friends) who happen to be in these other
            denominations, they find that the reasons for dissent from these
            synodical bodies as ecclesiastical bodies still exists, and remain
            outside of official ecclesiastical relations with these
            denominations
            as ecclesiastical bodies.
            >- doom
          • s.padbury@tiscali.co.uk
            Dear Peter, You wrote,
            Message 5 of 12 , Jul 2, 2003
            • 0 Attachment
              Dear Peter,

              You wrote,

              <<I have a book by Alexander Hislop called the Two Babylons which compares
              Romanism to the pagan worship of Belshazzar. I haven't had the chance to
              read it yet is it good?>>

              Yes, it's very good, and worth reading more than once.

              If you are able, it's also worth you while getting the sermon CD titled
              "True and False Worship" by Mr Roy Mohon, available on the James Begg Society's
              website (http://www.jbeggsoc.org.uk).

              Mr Mohon, my pastor, is a fan of Hislop, and what he says in that sermon
              is in accord with Hislop, and John Knox, and is also what all Covenanters
              on this list would agree with and heartily endorse. (Paisley would agree
              with it all except for where Mr Mohon promotes exclusive Psalmody.) In fact
              I would also recommend you all get it! though some of you may not want to
              as my pastor is not in a Covenanter denomination (though he is in full agreement
              with the Covenanters, and trained at an RP seminary). It may also let you
              know, those who are interested, what sort of preaching is still (though
              rarely) available here in the United Kingdom.

              Yours sincerely,

              Simon Padbury.
            • thebishopsdoom
              ... That s fine. I had expected based on the content of what you wrote that this was the intended case, though I also know that people often reserve the term
              Message 6 of 12 , Jul 2, 2003
              • 0 Attachment
                --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, "Peter"
                <pjgray@s...> wrote:
                > I'm sorry for being unclear. If its any excuse it was very late for
                > me when I posted that message. But, my intentions were praise not
                > mockery. "hardliners" was supposed to be an term of affection.
                That's fine. I had expected based on the content of what you wrote
                that this was the intended case, though I also know that people often
                reserve the term for those who tend towards harshness and strict
                views simply for the sake of being strict. Not that this is
                inherently implied in the term, but I think it tends easily to
                conjure up such images.


                > Excuse me, I confused the covenanters with the leaguers.

                Historically, they are the same, but the term "covenanter" became
                reserved for >those
                > known also as Reformed Presbyterians, who rejected the settlement
                of
                > the Church of Scotland under the authority of William
                > of Orange at the time of the "Glorious Revolution" as it was
                > regarded
                > as establishing the church on new, unwarranted (and partly
                erastian)
                > footing and violated the covenants to God that had been previously
                > taken by church and state.
                Those I mentioned previously who broke off from synod of the RPCNA in
                1840 to maintain the original RP positions I think have all either
                died out or merged with the RPCNA since some point after 1994 (but
                don't quote me on that; I only know that I recall having heard
                before - may or may not be true - that at some point after Ethel
                White's death in 1994 things supposedly were pretty well fizzling out
                among the old North Union congregation by either deaths or people
                just going ahead and joining the RPCNA; the church building no longer
                houses a covenanter congregation and I think was sold - as to the
                other members in two other locations in Pennsylvania in the late
                1800s, they appear to have stopped correspondence early in the 20th
                century so far as I can recall and most everyone presumes have long
                since died out; I believe the Ohio schism from the late 19th century
                pretty well died out or ended up in other churches early in the 20th
                century, I am only aware of one posible member who died in the 1940s,
                and I am not absolutely certain whether he was affiliated with the
                Ohio schism or not; I just assume he may have been because he lived
                in Ohio and the North Union people had no apparent recollection of
                the name). To the best of my understanding, in the early 1990s, some
                individuals were moving in the general direction of what that group
                professed (though disagreeing with a move the group had made some
                time before; while testifying against defection in the RPCNA the
                congregation had yet allowed RPCNA elders to come to preach to them,
                one of which elders is said - from what I have heard - to have
                proclaimed to others either that he would see to it that he would use
                this opportunity to "nail the coffin" on this congregation or else he
                may have actually proclaimed that he had nailed the coffin on the
                congregation); some of these foresaid individuals began contacts with
                some past and some then present members of the dying congregation,
                holding some contacts with them, and apparently receiving some
                records, books, and old sermon manuscripts from them, etc. with hopes
                to help keep the testimony alive and press its claims to the present
                and future generations, and the North Union group seemed favourable
                to this possibilty as well. Some lectures and other meetings with
                interested persons were had in western Pennsylvania, I think they
                were held at the North Union church, which at that time was still
                in the possession of the North Union congregation, but my
                recollection could err there. It might be just that there happened to
                be some North Union members at the meetings. Please excuse that my
                scatterbrained mind has forgotten some of these details as they had
                been relayed to me some time ago and I don't have any notes written
                down anywhere. Whatever the case, out of these contacts, the private
                publishing of a magazine for a few years back in the 1990s, at least
                one bookseller, and several websites since the late 1990s, a movement
                began to spawn into the late 1990s which led to what has become the
                formation of a few groups and also probably several dozen
                unaffiliated individuals all of whom would identify themselves with
                the old covenanters.

                >I thought that the Scots would be friendly
                > with King Billy because the Jacobins were papists?
                It is true that the Jacobites favoured the papacy. The fact that
                James was kicked out, laws enacted against anyone coming to the
                throne who would acknowledge the civil authority of the pope (though
                they were required to uphold the ecclesiastical authority of the
                king!), and the general persecution against presbyterians in Scotland
                ended are generally emphasized today, and were in his own day. It
                became habit to sweep several other very crucial matters under the
                carpet and led to continued compromises on the part of the Church of
                Scotland, not as overt or persecuting as they had done under James
                II, but compromises nonetheless.
                William of Orange was held to be the monarchical head of the church
                by virtue of his office as king over the British Isles. This of
                course was more especially felt in England and Ireland where the
                episcopal church was established. Scotland didn't have to use the
                title "head of the church, but the authority to some degree was still
                exercised; William held (and used) the prerogative, for instance, to
                call or dispense with assemblies, as his kingly right, and to kick
                ministers out of office and declare their pastorates vacant. William
                also retained on the law books the act recissory of 1662. This act
                nullified the acts of parliament that were passed during the
                covenanted reformation in fulfillment of the solemn league and
                covenant (including the adoption of the solemn league and covenant,
                which was by this act declared nullified, though William no longer
                had an oath of renunciation of the covenant as under James II). One
                could seemingly go on and on.
                I happened also to have found on the internet the following seemingly
                astounding claim:

                "We must ask why did William, a Dutchman, come to England, and why
                did James seek political asylum in France? Louis XIV, autocrat of
                France and supreme representative of feudalism in Europe, was busily
                engaged at the time in spreading French dominance in the western
                world. In the struggle to achieve control Louis required allies, and
                to upset the balance of power he needed England on his side. James'
                flight to France was thus mutually beneficial for both the French
                monarch and the deposed English monarch. James saw his alliance with
                Louis as a means whereby he could re-establish his dominance at home
                whereas Louis saw the potential of a re-installed James in terms of
                his own efforts to dominate Europe.
                William of Orange, on the other hand, was fighting for the
                independence of Holland against Louis and as such was very interested
                in having England on his side. Thus William's view of the throne of
                England was its usefulness in defending the national independence of
                Holland...
                In fact Catholic Spain was one of William's main allies in the fight
                against the spread of French dominance. And - wait for it - the Pope -
                as temporal monarch of Italy - was a fervent supporter of William's
                claim to the English throne and a military ally in the fight against
                Louis and France. When William and his army arrived on English soil,
                he brought with him a Papal blessing and a banner proclaiming the
                support of Italy and the Pope!!" (found in an essay on the internet.)

                Now, it is easy to dismiss this as so much hocus pocus conspiratorial
                gibberish from a raving lunatic, but the fact is that William of
                Orange did declare a fast that the churches in Scotland were required
                to uphold,

                "for the success of the war against Lewis XIV (of which above), and
                in favor of the Pope, which king William was bound to prosecute by
                virtue of a covenant made with the allies at the Hague, February,
                1691, to be seen in the declaration of war then made against France,
                wherein it is expressly said, "That no peace is to be made with Lewis
                XIV, till he has made reparation to the Holy See for whatsoever he
                has acted against it, and till he make void all these infamous
                proceedings (viz: of the parliament of Paris) against the holy
                father, Innocent XI." Behold here the acknowledgment of the
                Pope's
                supremacy, and his power and dignity, both as a secular and
                ecclesiastical prince; and in the observation of these fasts, the
                church did mediately (tell it not in Gath—) pray for success to
                the
                man of sin" (from the Act, Declaration, and Testimony).

                While the fast was not in itself directly stated to be for papal
                claims, but rather the success of William's army's endeavors, William
                had leagued himself with the Spanish and Italians in this war which
                the people were praying for, and the terms of the war as they had
                been declared to France were that Louis would make reparation to the
                pope. So the presbyterians were ultimately praying for the success of
                a war which had as its declared end the claims of the papacy. FWIW,
                the pope did not support James II on the English throne at this time
                because James had fled to France and allied himself with Louis.
                -doom.
              • weeping_calvinist
                Welcome, Peter. gmw. ... too ... in ... been ... historic ... the ... and ... it ... What ... on ... era ... as ... has ... of ... erastian) ... club ... to
                Message 7 of 12 , Jul 3, 2003
                • 0 Attachment
                  Welcome, Peter.

                  gmw.

                  --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, "Peter"
                  <pjgray@s...> wrote:
                  > I'm sorry for being unclear. If its any excuse it was very late for
                  > me when I posted that message. But, my intentions were praise not
                  > mockery. "hardliners" was supposed to be an term of affection. I
                  too
                  > believe the Pope is the Anti-Christ. Again, what I said was meant
                  in
                  > praise, though I can certainly see how it might be construed
                  > otherwise. Noticed I criticized preterism, which seems to dominate
                  > CT churches today. Needless to say, I am NOT a futurist. I thought
                  > futurism was generally held by disbys & premills. I have read many
                  > good things on popery. In fact, lately most of my free time has
                  been
                  > devoted to studying popery. My personal favorite is J.A.
                  > Wylie's "The Papacy is the AntiChrist". I believe this book is
                  > considered to be the authoritative vindication of that premise. I
                  > have a book by Alexander Hislop called the Two Babylons which
                  > compares Romanism to the pagan worship of Belshazzar. I haven't had
                  > the chance to read it yet is it good? I have a single volume of
                  > Puritan sermons about popery. I've listened to innumerable
                  historic
                  > sermons on the Nicodemians, reforming the church, and romes
                  > idolatry. Without a doubt the Pope is the man of sin and the RCC
                  the
                  > mystery of iniquity, I'm as sure of it as I am that Jesus is Christ
                  > and Protestantism and the OT and apostolic religions proceeding it
                  > are the mystery of godliness (some what reminiscent of Wylie?).
                  > What I said, "Even conservative Presbyterian denominations don't
                  > believe the Pope is the AntiChrist anymore" was said in surprise
                  and
                  > elation, because I know most conservative American Presbyterian
                  > denominations don't have a definitive stance on eschatology- PCA,
                  > OPC. The Reformed Presbytery of North America might, I don't know
                  > any thing about them. Given you live in N. Dakota I assume they are
                  > a German (Rhinish Palatinate) Presbytery? Note I am none of these:
                  > Baptist, preterist, Sabbath denier. I only mentioned them because
                  it
                  > seems many people of reformed persuasion fall away on these points
                  > of orthodoxy. Have you noticed that? Im sorry if you misunderstood,
                  > but how could you take offense to subject entitled "Uncomprimising
                  > Christians"?
                  >
                  > > Hi Peter. my name is Darren Harr and I live in North Dakota.
                  What
                  > you define as "hardliners" we refer to as faithfulness to the word
                  > of God. I am a member of the Reformed Presbytery of North America
                  > and yes we sincerely uphold the WCF. I am glad to see you believe
                  > in keeping the Sabbath. You would do yourself a great deal of good
                  > if you read the material as to why we believe the pope is the anti-
                  > Christ. I believe you will conclude as I have, along with other
                  > nations that concluded the same thing. So to answer your question
                  > yes we believe the pope is most definitely the anti-Christ.
                  > >
                  >
                  > Excuse me, I confused the covenanters with the leaguers. My grasp
                  on
                  > history isn't as good as yours but I do know a wee bit about the
                  era
                  > (Im a fan of Paisley). I thought that the Scots would be friendly
                  > with King Billy because the Jacobins were papists? The histories of
                  > the Presbyterian Churches are very confusing. The largest
                  > Presbyterian church where I live is the PC-USA other main ones are
                  > the OPC and PCA. I believe that trend continues throughout the
                  > entire east cost? I think these churches are mainly of British
                  > descent?
                  >
                  >
                  > >This club (silly, nostalgic me... I mean "group") is a mix of
                  > different calvinistic people (and we've had a few non-calvinistic
                  as
                  > well), like one might expect from any other group of a similar
                  > nature
                  > on the internet. But the club itself is run by a covenanter, and
                  has
                  > a focus geared towards the covenanters. The covenanters are those
                  > known also as Reformed Presbyterians, who rejected the settlement
                  of
                  > the Church of Scotland under the authority of William
                  > of Orange at the time of the "Glorious Revolution" as it was
                  > regarded
                  > as establishing the church on new, unwarranted (and partly
                  erastian)
                  > footing and violated the covenants to God that had been previously
                  > taken by church and state. They also rejected the changes that were
                  > adopted when the presbyterians of Scotland and Ireland were forming
                  > into ecclesiastical courts in North America. Many of us in this
                  club
                  > identify with the secession from the RPCNA that took place in 1840,
                  > which declined Synod's jurisdiction due widening breaches in the
                  > RPCNA from the original RP views, and the inability after 7 years
                  to
                  > get fair representation before synod to address the matter.
                  > Notwithstanding a recognition of gifts and talents of Christians
                  > (some of whom are friends) who happen to be in these other
                  > denominations, they find that the reasons for dissent from these
                  > synodical bodies as ecclesiastical bodies still exists, and remain
                  > outside of official ecclesiastical relations with these
                  > denominations
                  > as ecclesiastical bodies.
                  > >- doom
                • Colin
                  ... What are CT churches? Do you mean churches which hold to Covenant Theology? What evidence is there that preterism is dominant among CT churches? ...
                  Message 8 of 12 , Jul 3, 2003
                  • 0 Attachment
                    --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, "Peter"
                    <pjgray@s...> wrote:
                    > I too believe the Pope is the Anti-Christ. Again, what I said was
                    > meant in praise, though I can certainly see how it might be
                    > construed otherwise. Noticed I criticized preterism, which seems to
                    > dominate CT churches today.

                    What are "CT" churches? Do you mean churches which hold to Covenant
                    Theology?

                    What evidence is there that preterism is "dominant" among "CT"
                    churches?

                    > Needless to say, I am NOT a futurist. I thought futurism was
                    > generally held by disbys & premills.

                    It is. Though some Amills tend to hold to it as well.

                    > I have read many good things on popery. In fact, lately most of my
                    > free time has been devoted to studying popery. My personal favorite
                    > is J.A. Wylie's "The Papacy is the AntiChrist". I believe this book
                    > is considered to be the authoritative vindication of that premise.

                    Are you reading the original edition or the modern "precises" edition
                    published by Ian Paisley's church?

                    Have you ever read Wylie's 2000 page "History of Protestantism"? 19th
                    century RC's hated it so much that they bought up several hundred
                    copies of it and had them burned.

                    http://www.doctrine.org/history/

                    Also, Wylie wrote a classic work The Papacy: Its History, Dogmas,
                    Genius, and Prospects".

                    http://www.biblebelievers.com/wylie/papacy/

                    In response, the 19th century RCC put out an assassination order
                    against Wylie if he ever came to Europe.

                    > I have a book by Alexander Hislop called the Two Babylons which
                    > compares Romanism to the pagan worship of Belshazzar. I haven't had
                    > the chance to read it yet is it good?

                    Yes if you are looking for a really good account of ancient
                    Babylonian pagan history. The historical details are quite
                    fascinating. But the eschatological method and conclusions drawn by
                    the writer are open to serious question. But Rev. Hislop was a solid
                    Presbyterian of the 19th century Free Church of Scotland. His
                    brother, Stephen Hislop was a missionary of the FCS.

                    > I have a single volume of Puritan sermons about popery.

                    Interesting. Who are the puritans in it?

                    > I've listened to innumerable historic sermons on the Nicodemians,
                    > reforming the church, and romes idolatry. Without a doubt the Pope
                    > is the man of sin and the RCC the mystery of iniquity, I'm as sure
                    > of it as I am that Jesus is Christ and Protestantism and the OT and
                    > apostolic religions proceeding it are the mystery of godliness
                    > (some what reminiscent of Wylie?).

                    Some staunch protestants take a different view of the Man of Sin and
                    Antichrist. (e.g. Loraine Boettner, author of "Roman Catholicism").
                    As well as the ex-Catholic, Gary DeMar who believes that the Man of
                    Sin was Emperor Nero.

                    > What I said, "Even conservative Presbyterian denominations don't
                    > believe the Pope is the AntiChrist anymore" was said in surprise
                    > and elation, because I know most conservative American Presbyterian
                    > denominations don't have a definitive stance on eschatology- PCA,
                    > OPC.

                    Those denominations hold to a revised WCF that has deleted those
                    portions on the Pope being "that Antichrist".

                    > I only mentioned them because it seems many people of reformed
                    > persuasion fall away on these points of orthodoxy.

                    Preterism is not a "falling away" from orthodoxy unless it is Hyper-
                    preterism.

                    > (Im a fan of Paisley).

                    So am I. I first met him in 1985 when he came to Canada to preach.
                    Have you listened to his famous Protest against the Pope's visit to
                    the European Parliament in 1988? He publicly denounced the Pope
                    as "Antichrist", then later went on the Radio to debate and defend
                    his position. All of that is online at SermonAudio.com, as are many
                    other of his sermons.

                    Another good sermon of his is, "The Crown Rights of King Jesus". This
                    was published as a booklet, but I've never heard it on tape. What
                    make it so interesting is that Paisley is an Historic
                    Premillennialist, but this sermon makes him sound like a
                    Postmillennialist! And he preached it at the 1984 General Synod of
                    the Bible Presbyterian Church (A Premillennial denomination). If you
                    ever find this sermon on tape, it should be well worth listening to,
                    along with reading the booklet.

                    Colin
                  • Peter
                    ... PCA,OPC. ... Hermenuetic minus Futurism minus Historicism equals Preterism (is there any other option?). Get my line of reasoning? It seems you have
                    Message 9 of 12 , Jul 10, 2003
                    • 0 Attachment
                      > What evidence is there that preterism is "dominant" among "CT"
                      > churches?

                      >>I thought futurism was generally held by disbys & premills.
                      > It is. Though some Amills tend to hold to it as well.
                      > > denominations don't have a definitive stance on eschatology-
                      PCA,OPC.
                      > Those denominations hold to a revised WCF that has deleted those
                      > portions on the Pope being "that Antichrist".

                      Hermenuetic minus Futurism minus Historicism equals Preterism (is
                      there any other option?). Get my line of reasoning? It seems you
                      have admitted it yourself. But if you say otherwise, Colin, I will
                      concede the point.

                      And also,
                      > Some staunch protestants take a different view of the Man of Sin
                      >and Antichrist. (e.g. Loraine Boettner, author of "Roman
                      >Catholicism"). As well as the ex-Catholic, Gary DeMar who believes
                      >that the Man of Sin was Emperor Nero.
                      Most other theonomists believe the same, correct?

                      >>I thought futurism was generally held by disbys & premills.
                      > It is. Though some Amills tend to hold to it as well.
                      >>Noticed I criticized preterism, which seems to
                      > > dominate CT churches today.
                      I'm sorry, is it improper to call a church that doesn't adhere to
                      Dispensational Theology and adherent of Covenant Theology?

                      > Are you reading the original edition or the modern "precises"
                      edition
                      > published by Ian Paisley's church?
                      I read the original. Its available online some where.

                      > Have you ever read Wylie's 2000 page "History of Protestantism"?
                      19th
                      No. But I've bought it and read alot about it.

                      > Interesting. Who are the puritans in it?
                      Henry Wilkinson, Peter Vinke, Samuel Lee, Richard Mayo, Edward West,
                      William Jenkin, Edward Veal, Thomas Lye, Samuel Annesley, Thomas
                      Vincent, Richard Fairclough, Mathew Sylvester,Edward Lawrence,
                      Richard Steele, Thomas Wadsworth, Thomas Doolittle- the 6th volume.
                      Not many bigwigs (sorry if "bigwig" is too ambiguous for you) but
                      these men were the contemporaries of the greats. In the preceding
                      volumes: Thomas Watson, Richard Baxter, John Owen.

                      > Have you listened to his famous Protest against the Pope's visit
                      >to the European Parliament in 1988?
                      Just a clip of it from a news report.
                      He publicly denounced the Pope
                      > as "Antichrist", then later went on the Radio to debate and defend
                      > his position.
                      I've heard that.

                      > Another good sermon of his is, "The Crown Rights of King Jesus".
                      Thanks I'll listen to it.

                      Have patients with me. I am neither as experienced nor as
                      knowledgeable. Consider this before you attempt to tear me to pieces.

                      And thank you for all your welcomes.
                      Peter Gray
                    • Colin
                      ... Its not so simple as you suppose. Many CT churches hold to a variety of views including Futurism, Preterism, and also the one option you failed to mention,
                      Message 10 of 12 , Jul 11, 2003
                      • 0 Attachment
                        --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, "Peter"
                        <GrayPJ@c...> wrote:
                        > > What evidence is there that preterism is "dominant" among "CT"
                        > > churches?
                        >
                        > Hermenuetic minus Futurism minus Historicism equals Preterism (is
                        > there any other option?). Get my line of reasoning? It seems you
                        > have admitted it yourself. But if you say otherwise, Colin, I will
                        > concede the point.

                        Its not so simple as you suppose. Many CT churches hold to a variety
                        of views including Futurism, Preterism, and also the one option you
                        failed to mention, that is, "Idealism" (which is an Ahistorical
                        approach). And sometimes they hold to a mixture of all three or two
                        such as in Amillennial churches which are partly futurist (a coming
                        future antichrist and apostasy) and partly Idealist (the NT
                        prophecies in Revelation are about Good Vs Evil, etc).

                        Orthodox preterism is a minority view, as is Historicism too. The
                        former is gaining more ground, while the latter has lost a lot ground
                        to the point of almost disappearing from the face of the earth. This
                        is why the book, "Four Views on the Book of Revelation" edited by
                        Marvin Pate, contains no advocate for the Historicist view, while
                        Preterism is one of the four views being advocated. However,
                        Historicism is mentioned in Steve Gregg's four part "Parallel
                        Commentary" on Revelation).

                        Futurism is the dominant view in most evangelical churches. Among CT
                        churches Amillennial "Futurism" and Idealism are the dominant views.
                        Orthodox Preterism has been the most successful in challenging the
                        Status Quo Futurism of our day.

                        So your equation that a "hermeneutic minus Futurism and Historicism
                        equals preterism" is not entirely accurate when you omit the Idealist
                        method. And it isn't accurate when describing CT churches either,
                        though perhaps some day it will be. :-)

                        > > And also,
                        > > Some staunch protestants take a different view of the Man of Sin
                        > > and Antichrist. (e.g. Loraine Boettner, author of "Roman
                        > > Catholicism"). As well as the ex-Catholic, Gary DeMar who
                        > > believes that the Man of Sin was Emperor Nero.
                        >
                        > Most other theonomists believe the same, correct?

                        Yes, but that is not a point essential to Theonomy, since those
                        things are unrelated to each other. Some Theonomists take a different
                        view of the Man of Sin.


                        > > > I thought futurism was generally held by disbys & premills.
                        > >It is. Though some Amills tend to hold to it as well.
                        >
                        > I'm sorry, is it improper to call a church that doesn't adhere to
                        > Dispensational Theology and adherent of Covenant Theology?
                        >

                        Usually, but then there are a variety of views on either side: e.g.
                        hyper-dispensationalism, classical dispensationalism, progressive
                        dispensationalism are all on one side, while the other side has
                        classical covenant theology, "New Covenant" Theology, Meredith
                        Kline's "Two Age" Intrusion Theory (which some have said belongs on
                        the other side), and Lutheran Theology and the mono-covenantalism of
                        Norman Shepherd. Why do you think there is a book called, "Five Views
                        on Law and Gospel" (and that one doesn't even cover NCT or Kline or
                        Shepherd's views). And sadly, Kline's views have become very
                        prevalent in many CT churches which allows them be reformed while
                        espousing the discontinuity hermeneutic of dispensationalism.

                        > > Have you ever read Wylie's 2000 page "History of Protestantism"?
                        >
                        > No. But I've bought it and read alot about it.
                        >

                        Its well worth reading. It took me over a year to finish it. And
                        unlike the online version, the original comes with some very good
                        illustrations of inmportant events in Protestant history. It should
                        be a required history text book in all seminaries and Bible Colleges,
                        along with "Foxe's Book of Martyrs" (Of course, the 8 Volume "Acts
                        and Monuments" by Foxe would be quite impractical as a text book).

                        Paisley preached a sermon based on Wylie's book when it was reprinted
                        in 1985. The sermon was entitled, "On Church History" and sounds very
                        postmillennial. :-)

                        Colin
                      • Peter
                        Thank you for correcting me. I guess I over-simplified the matter. My experience is limited to articles and books- I don t think I ve ever had this
                        Message 11 of 12 , Jul 11, 2003
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Thank you for correcting me. I guess I over-simplified the matter.
                          My experience is limited to articles and books- I don't think I've
                          ever had this conversation.

                          > future antichrist and apostasy) and partly Idealist (the NT
                          > prophecies in Revelation are about Good Vs Evil, etc).

                          "Idealism" almost sounds like Christian Dualism "Good Vs Evil".
                          Also, it sounds like the logical conclusion of futurism's
                          hermeneutical technique, which stresses the literal method of
                          interpretation. I guess if they were true to their method they would
                          believe Babylon the Great was actually a whore on a dragon, if I'm
                          interpreting what your saying correctly? Please tell me more about
                          Idealism?

                          Why do you think there is a book called, "Five Views
                          > on Law and Gospel" (and that one doesn't even cover NCT or Kline
                          or
                          > Shepherd's views)?
                          I've never heard of that book. I was aware that there are variations
                          of the two main views of the Covenants but not to such an extent.
                          How old was the book? Most of these schismatic seem to have arisen
                          fairly recently. I know NCT is new (I'm not being redundant).

                          Where is the online version of the History of Protestantism? I
                          bought SWRB's, version does it have illustrations? Where did you buy
                          yours?

                          It surprised me when I found out Paisley was a Premillennialist.
                          Perhaps a remnant of his Baptist upbringing or am a being narrow
                          minded?

                          --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, "Colin "
                          <cbx292000@y...> wrote:
                          > --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, "Peter"
                          > <GrayPJ@c...> wrote:
                          > > > What evidence is there that preterism is "dominant" among "CT"
                          > > > churches?
                          > >
                          > > Hermenuetic minus Futurism minus Historicism equals Preterism
                          (is
                          > > there any other option?). Get my line of reasoning? It seems you
                          > > have admitted it yourself. But if you say otherwise, Colin, I
                          will
                          > > concede the point.
                          >
                          > Its not so simple as you suppose. Many CT churches hold to a
                          variety
                          > of views including Futurism, Preterism, and also the one option
                          you
                          > failed to mention, that is, "Idealism" (which is an Ahistorical
                          > approach). And sometimes they hold to a mixture of all three or
                          two
                          > such as in Amillennial churches which are partly futurist (a
                          coming
                          > future antichrist and apostasy) and partly Idealist (the NT
                          > prophecies in Revelation are about Good Vs Evil, etc).
                          >
                          > Orthodox preterism is a minority view, as is Historicism too. The
                          > former is gaining more ground, while the latter has lost a lot
                          ground
                          > to the point of almost disappearing from the face of the earth.
                          This
                          > is why the book, "Four Views on the Book of Revelation" edited by
                          > Marvin Pate, contains no advocate for the Historicist view, while
                          > Preterism is one of the four views being advocated. However,
                          > Historicism is mentioned in Steve Gregg's four part "Parallel
                          > Commentary" on Revelation).
                          >
                          > Futurism is the dominant view in most evangelical churches. Among
                          CT
                          > churches Amillennial "Futurism" and Idealism are the dominant
                          views.
                          > Orthodox Preterism has been the most successful in challenging the
                          > Status Quo Futurism of our day.
                          >
                          > So your equation that a "hermeneutic minus Futurism and
                          Historicism
                          > equals preterism" is not entirely accurate when you omit the
                          Idealist
                          > method. And it isn't accurate when describing CT churches either,
                          > though perhaps some day it will be. :-)
                          >
                          > > > And also,
                          > > > Some staunch protestants take a different view of the Man of
                          Sin
                          > > > and Antichrist. (e.g. Loraine Boettner, author of "Roman
                          > > > Catholicism"). As well as the ex-Catholic, Gary DeMar
                          who
                          > > > believes that the Man of Sin was Emperor Nero.
                          > >
                          > > Most other theonomists believe the same, correct?
                          >
                          > Yes, but that is not a point essential to Theonomy, since those
                          > things are unrelated to each other. Some Theonomists take a
                          different
                          > view of the Man of Sin.
                          >
                          >
                          > > > > I thought futurism was generally held by disbys & premills.
                          > > >It is. Though some Amills tend to hold to it as well.
                          > >
                          > > I'm sorry, is it improper to call a church that doesn't adhere
                          to
                          > > Dispensational Theology and adherent of Covenant Theology?
                          > >
                          >
                          > Usually, but then there are a variety of views on either side:
                          e.g.
                          > hyper-dispensationalism, classical dispensationalism, progressive
                          > dispensationalism are all on one side, while the other side has
                          > classical covenant theology, "New Covenant" Theology, Meredith
                          > Kline's "Two Age" Intrusion Theory (which some have said belongs
                          on
                          > the other side), and Lutheran Theology and the mono-covenantalism
                          of
                          > Norman Shepherd. Why do you think there is a book called, "Five
                          Views
                          > on Law and Gospel" (and that one doesn't even cover NCT or Kline
                          or
                          > Shepherd's views). And sadly, Kline's views have become very
                          > prevalent in many CT churches which allows them be reformed while
                          > espousing the discontinuity hermeneutic of dispensationalism.
                          >
                          > > > Have you ever read Wylie's 2000 page "History of
                          Protestantism"?
                          > >
                          > > No. But I've bought it and read alot about it.
                          > >
                          >
                          > Its well worth reading. It took me over a year to finish it. And
                          > unlike the online version, the original comes with some very good
                          > illustrations of inmportant events in Protestant history. It
                          should
                          > be a required history text book in all seminaries and Bible
                          Colleges,
                          > along with "Foxe's Book of Martyrs" (Of course, the 8 Volume "Acts
                          > and Monuments" by Foxe would be quite impractical as a text book).
                          >
                          > Paisley preached a sermon based on Wylie's book when it was
                          reprinted
                          > in 1985. The sermon was entitled, "On Church History" and sounds
                          very
                          > postmillennial. :-)
                          >
                          > Colin
                        • Colin
                          ... The Idealist method of prophetic interpretation is primarily an Ahistorical method (in effect, the very opposite of Historicism and to some extent, the
                          Message 12 of 12 , Jul 11, 2003
                          • 0 Attachment
                            --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, "Peter"
                            <GrayPJ@c...> wrote:
                            >
                            > "Idealism" almost sounds like Christian Dualism "Good Vs Evil".
                            > Also, it sounds like the logical conclusion of futurism's
                            > hermeneutical technique, which stresses the literal method of
                            > interpretation. I guess if they were true to their method they
                            > would believe Babylon the Great was actually a whore on a dragon,
                            > if I'm interpreting what your saying correctly? Please tell me more
                            > about Idealism?

                            The "Idealist" method of prophetic interpretation is primarily
                            an "Ahistorical" method (in effect, the very opposite of Historicism
                            and to some extent, the opposite of Preterism too). The Idealist
                            method does not look for fulfullment of NT prophecy in any historical
                            events, but only in terms of themes or ideals (ie. "Good Vs
                            Evil", "Christ Vs Satan", the "Church Vs the kingdom of Antichrist",
                            etc).

                            Not surprisingly, no premillennialist would subscribe to this method.
                            But some Postmillennialists have (e.g. Rushdoony's book, "Thy Kingdom
                            Come: Studies in Daniel and Revelation"). But mostly its a view held
                            by many Amillennialists today (e.g. William Hendickson, Kim
                            Riddlebarger, Sam Hamstra, Cornelis Venema, Robert Strimple, etc.).
                            While some other Amills are futurists (e.g. David Engelsma) and other
                            Amills are preterists (e.g. Jay Adams).

                            >
                            > > Why do you think there is a book called, "Five Views
                            > > on Law and Gospel" (and that one doesn't even cover NCT or Kline
                            > > or Shepherd's views)?
                            >
                            > I've never heard of that book. I was aware that there are
                            > variations of the two main views of the Covenants but not to such
                            > an extent.
                            > How old was the book?

                            It was first published in 1994 under the title, "The Law, The Gospel
                            and the Modern Christian: Five Views" edited by Wayne Strickland. Its
                            recent edition has a newer title.

                            > Most of these schismatic seem to have arisen
                            > fairly recently. I know NCT is new (I'm not being redundant).

                            Yes, NCT is an over-reaction against classical covenant theology and
                            infant baptism. (Its also an over-reaction to Theonomy too, which NCT
                            Advocates (Reisinger and Zens) see as the logical implication of
                            classical covenant theology).

                            > Where is the online version of the History of Protestantism?
                            >

                            Everywhere!

                            http://www.bpc.org/reading_room/books/ wylie/protestantism.html

                            http://www.reformation.org/wylie2.html

                            http://www.whatsaiththescripture.com/Voice/
                            History.Protestant.v1.b1.html

                            http://www.doctrine.org/history

                            http://www.reformedreader.org/history/wylie/protestantism.htm

                            http://www.fbinstitute.com/history/His_Pro_Vol1.html

                            http://www.john3-16.connectfree.co.uk/histprotestant/indexprot.html

                            http://www.geocities.com/~stahr_family/historytable.html

                            http://www.tracts.ukgo.com/james_wylie.htm






                            > I bought SWRB's, version does it have illustrations? Where did you
                            > buy yours?

                            I bought mine 15 years ago from "Valley Gospel Mission", the Canadian
                            distributor of "Gospel Mission" books in Choteau, MT.

                            If yours is the "SWRB version", then you must be referring to a
                            photocopy reprint, since that is mostly what they sell now. But it
                            should come with the same illustrations throughout the book. The only
                            reason why the online versions do not have the illustrations included
                            are because the image files are too big to download off the Internet.

                            If you want to get the real book version of HoP, then go to:

                            http://solid-ground-books.com/books_28.asp

                            >
                            > It surprised me when I found out Paisley was a Premillennialist.
                            > Perhaps a remnant of his Baptist upbringing or am a being narrow
                            > minded?

                            Its more due to his fundamentalist upbringing and associations (e.g.
                            Bob Jones University) , but also because Spurgeon, Andrew Bonar and
                            McCheyne were all premill too, as well as his favorite puritan,
                            Thomas Goodwin. There is even an organisation that is dedicated to
                            promoting sovereign grace and [post-trib] premillennialism:

                            http://www.sgat.org/

                            Many older ministers in Paisley's Free Presbyterian church are
                            premillennial, but the younger ones tend to be Amill (and one who is
                            postmill), but everyone of them are Historicists.

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