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

Re: Covenanting.

Expand Messages
  • seamrog1935
    ... of ... The ... collection ... bound ... I am reading Covenanted Reformation Defended Against Contemporary Schismatics , which is helpful in explaining
    Message 1 of 14 , Dec 3, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      > Ok, then I will not endeavor to prove that which has been conceded,
      > that the American Colonies were under the Covenant when originally
      > sworn. The article did place much emphasis on the British descent
      of
      > the American people, which is important, but not the only point.
      The
      > Covenant was a national covenant, and an ecclesiastical covenant.
      > Our view is that America as a nation, and not simply as a
      collection
      > of folks with English blood, is bound, and will be bound, until she
      > ceases to exist. Why? Because if, as you concede, America was
      bound
      > up until 100 years ago, then she still is bound, for she is still
      > America, daughter of England.

      I am reading "Covenanted Reformation Defended Against Contemporary
      Schismatics", which is helpful in explaining American history and her
      being bound to the Covenant. Since the colonies were not all English
      in America, where stood the Spanish colony of Florida in America
      after the establishment of the Covenant? I can see how Florida and
      other non-English colonies of America are bound when they joined the
      English colonies (later the US), but between swearing of the Covenant
      and the respective colony's union with the English colonies, I'm
      having difficulty in understanding if and when the non-English
      colonies of America would be bound. At the time of the Covenant,
      there were 2 nations in one land, America. Does the Covenant bind
      geographically (Florida and other non-English colonies as well) in
      addition to nationally and genealogically?

      Whit
    • Peter
      Thank you gmw, Where as you consider yourself a novice; I consider myself many times your inferior in all respects. So let me reiterate before I respond, I
      Message 2 of 14 , Dec 3, 2003
      • 0 Attachment
        Thank you gmw,

        Where as you consider yourself a novice; I consider myself many
        times your inferior in all respects. So let me reiterate before I
        respond, I have no knowledge of jurisprudence/Scripture. All I have
        to go by is my flawed (even among humans) reason.

        You said:
        >Because if, as you concede, America was bound
        > up until 100 years ago, then she still is bound, for she is still
        > America, daughter of England.
        I understand in many ways nations are like people, but unlike people
        I don't believe one nation can begat another! Not in this way any
        how. A nation can have a nation by the branching off of families.
        All I need is a link between colonial America and present day
        America and I can put my conscience to rest. Not that I my ears
        should be satisfied but rather that I might know my faith is not
        rested upon blind obedience to the commandments of men. I also pray
        that the Holy Spirit will lead me and keep me from the pit-falls of
        error. And that he will enable me to believe all the teachings of
        God's word, the Lord of my Conscience. In my gut I believe you are
        right. I have assumed too much on my own, I need to speak with both
        sides personally.

        > Do you mean the 3rd Commandment? Falsely swearing and covenant-
        > breaking are violations of the 3rd Commandment. Of course, the
        > things you mention are benefits. But the benefits envisioned in
        >the Covenant are the blessings of God on Church and State, peace in
        >the nation, unity in faith and practice in all the Churches in the
        > nation, removal of Popery and Prelacy, etc., etc.
        > "The wicked shall be turned into hell, and all the nations that
        > forget God."
        > As a result of putting the Covenant behind our back, we see not
        >unity but disunity, we see Popery running wild, the displeasure of
        >God, etc.

        Oops. That's correct according to the Lollard/Lutheran numbering of
        the Decalogue. The things you said are the benefits/penalties of
        keeping/breaking the moral principals of the Covenant. My question
        was just about realizing/not realizing its legal authority.

        I live in S.E. PA, about an hr away from probably the RP's (& many
        other presbies) historic focal point- Philly.

        --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, "gmw"
        <raging.calvinist@v...> wrote:
        > --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, "Peter"
        > <GrayPJ@c...> wrote:
        > > Thanks for the help and I'm sorry for being delinquent in
        replying
        > > to your post.
        >
        > No problem at all. If I can refresh your memory as well, I
        consider
        > myself a novice, and believe that others are far more qualified to
        > comment than myself. But I'll give it my best shot.
        >
        > > My trouble is finding a connection between Britain and present
        day
        > > America.... Your answers to my objections were sufficient so I
        will
        > > concede- at the time of the signing, the colonies were put under
        > > the Covenant and up until 100 years ago the people were still.
        >
        > Ok, then I will not endeavor to prove that which has been
        conceded,
        > that the American Colonies were under the Covenant when originally
        > sworn. The article did place much emphasis on the British descent
        of
        > the American people, which is important, but not the only point.
        The
        > Covenant was a national covenant, and an ecclesiastical covenant.
        > Our view is that America as a nation, and not simply as a
        collection
        > of folks with English blood, is bound, and will be bound, until
        she
        > ceases to exist. Why? Because if, as you concede, America was
        bound
        > up until 100 years ago, then she still is bound, for she is still
        > America, daughter of England. When it was time to lay the
        foundation
        > of this nation, and America rejected the establishment of a
        Reformed
        > and Presbyterian Church, she did so sinfully, for she was bound by
        > Covenant to do so. Likewise, the Churches in this nation which
        > refuse to reform themselves according to the agreed upon
        standards,
        > are refusing the Covenant as well.
        >
        > The following are some considerations taken from an article on
        > Covenanting found here:
        > http://www.covenanter.org/RPCNA/testimonyforpubliccov.htm
        >
        > ---
        >
        > 1. The Solemn League and Covenant was one vow in which the members
        of
        > the church and citizens of the state were bound inseparably,
        though
        > distinctly; and whom any principle of the covenant binds, the
        whole
        > binds; because it cannot be divided. "What God hath joined
        together,
        > let no man put asunder."
        >
        > 2. As God is one party, the Covenanter who emigrates, is after
        > emigration, still within the dominions of him "who is King of
        Kings
        > and Lord of Lords." Those who have come into the United States,
        since
        > the taking of the covenants, are as really under the kingly
        authority
        > of Christ, as they were in Great Britain; for he is "the Lord of
        the
        > whole earth."
        >
        > 3. The covenant of the British empire was renewed by the New-
        England
        > Puritan Pilgrims, in the year 1644, by which they and all their
        > descendants became formally bound.
        >
        > 4. The colonies, at the time of entering into the Solemn League
        and
        > Covenant, were an integral part of the British nation. They held
        > their lands under the crown, and were governed by deputies of the
        > throne, whom they acknowledged as their governors. The Boston
        > renovation, demonstrates that they held themselves bound by the
        > federal deed of the Lords and Commons, in 1643.
        >
        > 5. The old Congress of 1774, solemnly claimed for themselves, and
        for
        > the people of the colonies whom they represented "all the rights
        and
        > immunities of British Citizens." (See Marshall's Life of
        Washington.)
        > The most excellent part of their birthright and immunities, was,
        that
        > they inherited a title to the covenant blessings of their
        ancestors,
        > who entered into federal relations with the God of Israel. It may
        be
        > said in reply to this, that they did not intend to claim the
        covenant
        > birthright. It is admitted that they did not, and that in doing,
        so,
        > they committed a great sin. Men often do things, when they do not
        > understand their own transactions, as the Assyrian king fulfilled
        the
        > counsel of the Lord, although "he meant not so, nor did his heart
        > think so." Isa. 10:7.
        >
        > 6. The land has been blessed remarkably in temporal good things,
        > notwithstanding it "has deeply revolted;" as God showed favor to
        > Israel even when grossly offending him, by their abominable
        > idolatries. "To any nation," except Israel, "never he such favor
        did
        > afford." And we may say of our land, as David did of Israel, "Thou
        > shewedst them favor." Psal. 44:3.
        >
        > 7. All nations are under the covenant made with Noah,
        notwithstanding
        > they are dispersed over all the earth. All see the rainbow—and all
        > enjoy "summer and winter, cold and heat, seed time and harvest,
        day
        > and night," in fulfillment of the covenant made with their common
        > ancestor.
        >
        > 8. The ten tribes, cast out into far countries, are still bound by
        > their national covenant. The dispersed of Judah are also bound by
        the
        > same bond, dispersed as they are over Asia, Africa, Europe and
        > America. "And he shall set up an ensign for the nations, and shall
        > assemble the outcasts of Israel and the dispersed of Judah; to it
        > shall the Gentiles seek, and his rest shall be glorious." Isa.
        11:12.
        > God promises to be a little sanctuary to them in the lands whither
        > they are scattered. "Thus saith the Lord God, although I have cast
        > them far off among the heathen, and although I have scattered them
        > among the countries, yet will I be to them as a little sanctuary
        in
        > the countries where they shall come." Ezek. 11:6. They are farther
        > remote from the land of their fathers' sepulchres, than we of this
        > country, are from the British Isles; and yet the God of their
        father
        > Jacob, acknowledges their outward covenant, relation to him.
        >
        > 9. The people of Judah and Benjamin were not released from their
        > covenant obligations, during their captivity in Babylon.
        >
        > 10. This is the doctrine of our Declaration and
        Testimony. "Covenants
        > entered into by an individual or a community, continue binding
        upon,
        > those who enter into them, either personally, or by their
        > representatives, so long as such persons live, unless the
        covenants
        > have limited their duration to a certain period." (Reformation
        > Principles, p. 107.). This doctrine is proved from Jer.
        11:10, "The
        > house of Israel, and the house of Judah, have broke, the covenant
        > which I made with their fathers." The community of the British
        nation
        > still exists, and many such persons still live, in the United
        States,
        > whose fathers entered into the National Covenant of Scotland, and
        > into "the Solemn League and Covenant of the three kingdoms of
        > Scotland, England and Ireland."
        > This is no more than a specimen of the ample testimony that might
        be
        > adduced to prove, both the perpetuity of the national covenants
        and
        > their descending obligation. We trust no one will ask more to
        > demonstrate that the ground which the Reformed Presbyterian church
        > occupies has not been taken rashly.
        >
        > While under obligations so solemn, ratified by the most holy
        > sanctions, endeared to us by the blood of our martyred fathers,—
        "men
        > of whom the world was not worthy,"—and recorded in the archives of
        > heaven, we must bear our testimony against a sinful nation, laden
        > with iniquity, that with all the lights of divine truth, shining
        in
        > her firmament for nearly two centuries, has neglected to recognize
        > her duty, by "joining herself to the Lord in a perpetual covenant,
        > not to be forgotten." O that the God of Israel may soon set the
        fair
        > jewel of his covenant in our forehead, and make our nation "the
        glory
        > of all lands." "He hath commanded his covenant forever; holy and
        > reverend is his name." Psal. 111:9.
        >
        > ---
        >
        > The considerations above may be helpful in considering this issue
        of
        > the obligation of the Covenant upon the U.S..
        >
        > > My second question was about the practical consequences of being
        > > legally bound to the SL&C. What are the benefits: Motivation as
        a
        > > result of fear of breaking the 2nd commandment, a reminder of
        your
        > > Christian obligations?
        >
        > Do you mean the 3rd Commandment? Falsely swearing and covenant-
        > breaking are violations of the 3rd Commandment. Of course, the
        > things you mention are benefits. But the benefits envisioned in
        the
        > Covenant are the blessings of God on Church and State, peace in
        the
        > nation, unity in faith and practice in all the Churches in the
        > nation, removal of Popery and Prelacy, etc., etc.
        >
        > > What are the penalties for not recognizing
        > > the Covenants legal force? Certainly you lose the two aforesaid
        > > benefits. What else?
        >
        > "The wicked shall be turned into hell, and all the nations that
        > forget God."
        >
        > As a result of putting the Covenant behind our back, we see not
        unity
        > but disunity, we see Popery running wild, the displeasure of God,
        etc.
        >
        > Blessings to you, Peter.
        >
        > Where ya from?
        >
        > gmw.
      • gmw
        ... You bring up an interesting question, one that I have not concluded yet in my own mind. What of Florida and New Amsterdam? Whatever we may conclude
        Message 3 of 14 , Dec 3, 2003
        • 0 Attachment
          --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, seamrog1935
          <no_reply@y...> wrote:

          > I am reading "Covenanted Reformation Defended Against Contemporary
          > Schismatics", which is helpful in explaining American history and her
          > being bound to the Covenant. Since the colonies were not all English
          > in America, where stood the Spanish colony of Florida in America
          > after the establishment of the Covenant? I can see how Florida and
          > other non-English colonies of America are bound when they joined the
          > English colonies (later the US), but between swearing of the Covenant
          > and the respective colony's union with the English colonies, I'm
          > having difficulty in understanding if and when the non-English
          > colonies of America would be bound. At the time of the Covenant,
          > there were 2 nations in one land, America. Does the Covenant bind
          > geographically (Florida and other non-English colonies as well) in
          > addition to nationally and genealogically?

          You bring up an interesting question, one that I have not concluded
          yet in my own mind. What of Florida and New Amsterdam? Whatever we
          may conclude regarding their obligation as Colonies, I think we can
          agree that once they united, they took upon themselves not only the
          benefits, but also the obligations, of the nation.

          gmw.
        • gmw
          ... What is it that happened between the time of the obligation of the Colonies, and the present day, which, biblically, ends covenant obligation? Declaring
          Message 4 of 14 , Dec 3, 2003
          • 0 Attachment
            --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, "Peter"
            <GrayPJ@c...> wrote:

            > All I need is a link between colonial America and present day
            > America and I can put my conscience to rest.

            What is it that happened between the time of the obligation of the
            Colonies, and the present day, which, biblically, ends covenant
            obligation? Declaring Independence can't be it, because Israel and
            Judah were both bound to their covenant obligations even though they
            split. What then?

            > I live in S.E. PA, about an hr away from probably the RP's (& many
            > other presbies) historic focal point- Philly.

            I'm in Lebanon County, so perhaps one day we can discuss this over
            some coffee, or beer.

            gmw.
          • revrayjoseph
            Whit, Where did you get the book, Covenanted Reformation Defended Against Contemporary Schismatics , ? Thanks. Ray Joseph
            Message 5 of 14 , Dec 3, 2003
            • 0 Attachment
              Whit,
              Where did you get the book, "Covenanted Reformation Defended Against
              Contemporary Schismatics", ?

              Thanks.
              Ray Joseph
            • thebishopsdoom
              ... Unless I m mistaken, they would not have been in covenant when they had still been foriegn territory, less so than even the Indians who lived in the sphere
              Message 6 of 14 , Dec 3, 2003
              • 0 Attachment
                --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, "gmw"
                <raging.calvinist@v...> wrote:
                > You bring up an interesting question, one that I have not concluded
                > yet in my own mind. What of Florida and New Amsterdam?

                Unless I'm mistaken, they would not have been in covenant when they
                had still been foriegn territory, less so than even the Indians who
                lived in the sphere of British territory. The Indians were not under
                covenant unless they incorporated into colonial society, at which
                points they had all the rights, privileges, and responsibilities of
                English citizens. Previous to that, they were separate nations,
                living in the region of British influence and control, but treated as
                separate national groups. There were laws limiting things they might
                be able to do within Britsh territory, but they were for all that
                still separate nation groups and not citizens of the colonies.
                Likewise the Dutch, French and Spanish were separate until
                incorporated in with the rest. Non-english / Irish / Scots/ Scots-
                Irish / Welsh persons in the English colonies would be responsible
                for not violating any measures passed relative to the covenant, but
                would not become personally under covenanted obligation unless and
                until incorporating into the body politic by being granted
                citizenship, or else if they were taken into the membership of the
                churches who had adopted these covenants.
                -doom
              • Dan Fraas
                So, Under the terms of the covenants, is it a covenant violation for churches and families to catechize using the Heidelberg Catechism? -- (not in the sense of
                Message 7 of 14 , Dec 4, 2003
                • 0 Attachment
                  So,

                  Under the terms of the covenants, is it a covenant violation for
                  churches and families to catechize using the Heidelberg Catechism? --
                  (not in the sense of rejecting the Westminster Catechisms)

                  Riley
                  --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, "gmw"
                  <raging.calvinist@v...> wrote:
                  > --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, "Peter"
                  > <GrayPJ@c...> wrote:
                  > > Thanks for the help and I'm sorry for being delinquent in
                  replying
                  > > to your post.
                  >
                  > No problem at all. If I can refresh your memory as well, I
                  consider
                  > myself a novice, and believe that others are far more qualified to
                  > comment than myself. But I'll give it my best shot.
                  >
                  > > My trouble is finding a connection between Britain and present
                  day
                  > > America.... Your answers to my objections were sufficient so I
                  will
                  > > concede- at the time of the signing, the colonies were put under
                  > > the Covenant and up until 100 years ago the people were still.
                  >
                  > Ok, then I will not endeavor to prove that which has been conceded,
                  > that the American Colonies were under the Covenant when originally
                  > sworn. The article did place much emphasis on the British descent
                  of
                  > the American people, which is important, but not the only point.
                  The
                  > Covenant was a national covenant, and an ecclesiastical covenant.
                  > Our view is that America as a nation, and not simply as a
                  collection
                  > of folks with English blood, is bound, and will be bound, until she
                  > ceases to exist. Why? Because if, as you concede, America was
                  bound
                  > up until 100 years ago, then she still is bound, for she is still
                  > America, daughter of England. When it was time to lay the
                  foundation
                  > of this nation, and America rejected the establishment of a
                  Reformed
                  > and Presbyterian Church, she did so sinfully, for she was bound by
                  > Covenant to do so. Likewise, the Churches in this nation which
                  > refuse to reform themselves according to the agreed upon standards,
                  > are refusing the Covenant as well.
                  >
                  > The following are some considerations taken from an article on
                  > Covenanting found here:
                  > http://www.covenanter.org/RPCNA/testimonyforpubliccov.htm
                  >
                  > ---
                  >
                  > 1. The Solemn League and Covenant was one vow in which the members
                  of
                  > the church and citizens of the state were bound inseparably, though
                  > distinctly; and whom any principle of the covenant binds, the whole
                  > binds; because it cannot be divided. "What God hath joined
                  together,
                  > let no man put asunder."
                  >
                  > 2. As God is one party, the Covenanter who emigrates, is after
                  > emigration, still within the dominions of him "who is King of Kings
                  > and Lord of Lords." Those who have come into the United States,
                  since
                  > the taking of the covenants, are as really under the kingly
                  authority
                  > of Christ, as they were in Great Britain; for he is "the Lord of
                  the
                  > whole earth."
                  >
                  > 3. The covenant of the British empire was renewed by the New-
                  England
                  > Puritan Pilgrims, in the year 1644, by which they and all their
                  > descendants became formally bound.
                  >
                  > 4. The colonies, at the time of entering into the Solemn League and
                  > Covenant, were an integral part of the British nation. They held
                  > their lands under the crown, and were governed by deputies of the
                  > throne, whom they acknowledged as their governors. The Boston
                  > renovation, demonstrates that they held themselves bound by the
                  > federal deed of the Lords and Commons, in 1643.
                  >
                  > 5. The old Congress of 1774, solemnly claimed for themselves, and
                  for
                  > the people of the colonies whom they represented "all the rights
                  and
                  > immunities of British Citizens." (See Marshall's Life of
                  Washington.)
                  > The most excellent part of their birthright and immunities, was,
                  that
                  > they inherited a title to the covenant blessings of their
                  ancestors,
                  > who entered into federal relations with the God of Israel. It may
                  be
                  > said in reply to this, that they did not intend to claim the
                  covenant
                  > birthright. It is admitted that they did not, and that in doing,
                  so,
                  > they committed a great sin. Men often do things, when they do not
                  > understand their own transactions, as the Assyrian king fulfilled
                  the
                  > counsel of the Lord, although "he meant not so, nor did his heart
                  > think so." Isa. 10:7.
                  >
                  > 6. The land has been blessed remarkably in temporal good things,
                  > notwithstanding it "has deeply revolted;" as God showed favor to
                  > Israel even when grossly offending him, by their abominable
                  > idolatries. "To any nation," except Israel, "never he such favor
                  did
                  > afford." And we may say of our land, as David did of Israel, "Thou
                  > shewedst them favor." Psal. 44:3.
                  >
                  > 7. All nations are under the covenant made with Noah,
                  notwithstanding
                  > they are dispersed over all the earth. All see the rainbow—and all
                  > enjoy "summer and winter, cold and heat, seed time and harvest, day
                  > and night," in fulfillment of the covenant made with their common
                  > ancestor.
                  >
                  > 8. The ten tribes, cast out into far countries, are still bound by
                  > their national covenant. The dispersed of Judah are also bound by
                  the
                  > same bond, dispersed as they are over Asia, Africa, Europe and
                  > America. "And he shall set up an ensign for the nations, and shall
                  > assemble the outcasts of Israel and the dispersed of Judah; to it
                  > shall the Gentiles seek, and his rest shall be glorious." Isa.
                  11:12.
                  > God promises to be a little sanctuary to them in the lands whither
                  > they are scattered. "Thus saith the Lord God, although I have cast
                  > them far off among the heathen, and although I have scattered them
                  > among the countries, yet will I be to them as a little sanctuary in
                  > the countries where they shall come." Ezek. 11:6. They are farther
                  > remote from the land of their fathers' sepulchres, than we of this
                  > country, are from the British Isles; and yet the God of their
                  father
                  > Jacob, acknowledges their outward covenant, relation to him.
                  >
                  > 9. The people of Judah and Benjamin were not released from their
                  > covenant obligations, during their captivity in Babylon.
                  >
                  > 10. This is the doctrine of our Declaration and
                  Testimony. "Covenants
                  > entered into by an individual or a community, continue binding
                  upon,
                  > those who enter into them, either personally, or by their
                  > representatives, so long as such persons live, unless the covenants
                  > have limited their duration to a certain period." (Reformation
                  > Principles, p. 107.). This doctrine is proved from Jer. 11:10, "The
                  > house of Israel, and the house of Judah, have broke, the covenant
                  > which I made with their fathers." The community of the British
                  nation
                  > still exists, and many such persons still live, in the United
                  States,
                  > whose fathers entered into the National Covenant of Scotland, and
                  > into "the Solemn League and Covenant of the three kingdoms of
                  > Scotland, England and Ireland."
                  > This is no more than a specimen of the ample testimony that might
                  be
                  > adduced to prove, both the perpetuity of the national covenants and
                  > their descending obligation. We trust no one will ask more to
                  > demonstrate that the ground which the Reformed Presbyterian church
                  > occupies has not been taken rashly.
                  >
                  > While under obligations so solemn, ratified by the most holy
                  > sanctions, endeared to us by the blood of our martyred fathers,—
                  "men
                  > of whom the world was not worthy,"—and recorded in the archives of
                  > heaven, we must bear our testimony against a sinful nation, laden
                  > with iniquity, that with all the lights of divine truth, shining in
                  > her firmament for nearly two centuries, has neglected to recognize
                  > her duty, by "joining herself to the Lord in a perpetual covenant,
                  > not to be forgotten." O that the God of Israel may soon set the
                  fair
                  > jewel of his covenant in our forehead, and make our nation "the
                  glory
                  > of all lands." "He hath commanded his covenant forever; holy and
                  > reverend is his name." Psal. 111:9.
                  >
                  > ---
                  >
                  > The considerations above may be helpful in considering this issue
                  of
                  > the obligation of the Covenant upon the U.S..
                  >
                  > > My second question was about the practical consequences of being
                  > > legally bound to the SL&C. What are the benefits: Motivation as a
                  > > result of fear of breaking the 2nd commandment, a reminder of
                  your
                  > > Christian obligations?
                  >
                  > Do you mean the 3rd Commandment? Falsely swearing and covenant-
                  > breaking are violations of the 3rd Commandment. Of course, the
                  > things you mention are benefits. But the benefits envisioned in
                  the
                  > Covenant are the blessings of God on Church and State, peace in the
                  > nation, unity in faith and practice in all the Churches in the
                  > nation, removal of Popery and Prelacy, etc., etc.
                  >
                  > > What are the penalties for not recognizing
                  > > the Covenants legal force? Certainly you lose the two aforesaid
                  > > benefits. What else?
                  >
                  > "The wicked shall be turned into hell, and all the nations that
                  > forget God."
                  >
                  > As a result of putting the Covenant behind our back, we see not
                  unity
                  > but disunity, we see Popery running wild, the displeasure of God,
                  etc.
                  >
                  > Blessings to you, Peter.
                  >
                  > Where ya from?
                  >
                  > gmw.
                • Shawn Anderson
                  ... Dear pastor Joseph, You can find a FREE copy of The Covenanted Reformation Defended Against Contemporary Schismatics at:
                  Message 8 of 14 , Dec 8, 2003
                  • 0 Attachment
                    > Whit,
                    >Where did you get the book, "Covenanted Reformation Defended Against
                    >Contemporary Schismatics", ?
                    >
                    >Thanks.
                    >Ray Joseph

                    Dear pastor Joseph,

                    You can find a FREE copy of "The Covenanted Reformation Defended
                    Against Contemporary Schismatics" at:

                    http://www.ecn.ab.ca/prce/books/covrefdf/covrefdf2.htm

                    You should aslo check out this work:

                    http://www.ecn.ab.ca/prce/books/rpcna/rpcna.htm

                    -Shawn Anderson
                    Albany CRPC
                  • seamrog1935
                    ... Against ... Thanks, Shawn, for providing the link as well! :) Whit
                    Message 9 of 14 , Dec 8, 2003
                    • 0 Attachment
                      --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, "Shawn Anderson"
                      <christ_saves_sinners@y...> wrote:
                      > > Whit,
                      > >Where did you get the book, "Covenanted Reformation Defended
                      Against
                      > >Contemporary Schismatics", ?
                      > >
                      > >Thanks.
                      > >Ray Joseph
                      >
                      > Dear pastor Joseph,
                      >
                      > You can find a FREE copy of "The Covenanted Reformation Defended
                      > Against Contemporary Schismatics" at:
                      >
                      > http://www.ecn.ab.ca/prce/books/covrefdf/covrefdf2.htm
                      >
                      > You should aslo check out this work:
                      >
                      > http://www.ecn.ab.ca/prce/books/rpcna/rpcna.htm
                      >
                      > -Shawn Anderson
                      > Albany CRPC

                      Thanks, Shawn, for providing the link as well! :)

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