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

Re: Uncomprimising Christians

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 12 , Jul 1, 2003
      --- 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 2 of 12 , Jul 1, 2003
        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 3 of 12 , Jul 2, 2003
          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 4 of 12 , Jul 2, 2003
            --- 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 5 of 12 , Jul 3, 2003
              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 6 of 12 , Jul 3, 2003
                --- 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 7 of 12 , Jul 10, 2003
                  > 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 8 of 12 , Jul 11, 2003
                    --- 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 9 of 12 , Jul 11, 2003
                      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 10 of 12 , Jul 11, 2003
                        --- 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.