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

Re: [Covenanted Reformation] Re: Covenanting.

Expand Messages
  • gmw
    No, I don t believe that would be a violation of the Covenant, so long as there is no rejection (or neglect), in part or in whole, of the Westminster
    Message 1 of 15 , Dec 4, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      No, I don't believe that would be a violation of the Covenant, so long as there is no rejection (or neglect), in part or in whole, of the Westminster Standards.  Samuel Rutherfurd once referred to the Heidelberg as "our catechism."  The Heidelberg is a beautiful, pastoral, comforting catechism, and very much a part of our Reformed heritage. 
       
      gmw.
      ----- Original Message -----
      From: Dan Fraas
      Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2003 10:27 AM
      Subject: [Covenanted Reformation] Re: Covenanting.

      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.



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



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

      ---
      Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
      Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
      Version: 6.0.545 / Virus Database: 339 - Release Date: 11/27/2003
    • gmw
      I should also add, that the Westminster Standards ought to be adopted formally. gmw. ... long as there is no rejection (or neglect), in part or in whole, of
      Message 2 of 15 , Dec 4, 2003
      • 0 Attachment
        I should also add, that the Westminster Standards ought to be adopted
        formally.

        gmw.

        --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, "gmw"
        <raging.calvinist@v...> wrote:
        > No, I don't believe that would be a violation of the Covenant, so
        long as there is no rejection (or neglect), in part or in whole, of
        the Westminster Standards. Samuel Rutherfurd once referred to the
        Heidelberg as "our catechism." The Heidelberg is a beautiful,
        pastoral, comforting catechism, and very much a part of our Reformed
        heritage.
        >
        > gmw.
        > ----- Original Message -----
        > From: Dan Fraas
        > To: covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com
        > Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2003 10:27 AM
        > Subject: [Covenanted Reformation] Re: Covenanting.
        >
        >
        > 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.
        >
        >
        > Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
        > ADVERTISEMENT
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
        > covenantedreformationclub-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
        >
        >
        >
        > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
        >
        >
        > ---
        > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
        > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
        > Version: 6.0.545 / Virus Database: 339 - Release Date: 11/27/2003
      • Dan Fraas
        Thanks for your answer to my question. On this note, to pose a completely different question, please note the following: A group (one whole congregation or
        Message 3 of 15 , Dec 4, 2003
        • 0 Attachment
          Thanks for your answer to my question. On this note, to pose a
          completely different question, please note the following:

          A group (one whole congregation or several congregations) of Reformed
          Christians from uncovenanted Germany emigrate to the United States.
          They are covenanted together to one uniform set of confession and
          catechisms, namely the Three Forms. (Of course these people are
          covenanted together. Almost every church with members requires them
          to covenant in one way or another to submit to the government of the
          church and live godly lives.) Is this transplanted German church
          then obligated to officially and formally approve the British
          Westminster Standards as their standard of doctrine just because they
          are geographically located within the political boundaries of the
          United States? Do they have to go with two official sets of
          standards now? (...having already covenanted together under the Three
          Forms standard) Thought this would make for an interesting question.

          Riley
          --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, "gmw"
          <raging.calvinist@v...> wrote:
          >
          > I should also add, that the Westminster Standards ought to be
          adopted
          > formally.
          >
          > gmw.
          >
          > --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, "gmw"
          > <raging.calvinist@v...> wrote:
          > > No, I don't believe that would be a violation of the Covenant, so
          > long as there is no rejection (or neglect), in part or in whole, of
          > the Westminster Standards. Samuel Rutherfurd once referred to the
          > Heidelberg as "our catechism." The Heidelberg is a beautiful,
          > pastoral, comforting catechism, and very much a part of our Reformed
          > heritage.
          > >
          > > gmw.
          > > ----- Original Message -----
          > > From: Dan Fraas
          > > To: covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com
          > > Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2003 10:27 AM
          > > Subject: [Covenanted Reformation] Re: Covenanting.
          > >
          > >
          > > 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.
          > >
          > >
          > > Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
          > > ADVERTISEMENT
          > >
          > >
          > >
          > >
          > >
          > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
          > > covenantedreformationclub-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
          > >
          > >
          > >
          > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
          Service.
          > >
          > >
          > > ---
          > > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
          > > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
          > > Version: 6.0.545 / Virus Database: 339 - Release Date:
          11/27/2003
        • gmw
          Did you know that the Protestants in German DID swear a Covenant (Smalcald)? In your scenerio, are the Germans seeking citizenship in the covenanted land? Or,
          Message 4 of 15 , Dec 4, 2003
          • 0 Attachment
            Did you know that the Protestants in German DID swear a Covenant
            (Smalcald)?

            In your scenerio, are the Germans seeking citizenship in the
            covenanted land? Or, are they simply seeking refuge (like the Marian
            Exhiles in Geneva?).

            Yes, interesting question.

            gmw.

            --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, "Dan Fraas"
            <fraasrd@y...> wrote:
            > Thanks for your answer to my question. On this note, to pose a
            > completely different question, please note the following:
            >
            > A group (one whole congregation or several congregations) of
            Reformed
            > Christians from uncovenanted Germany emigrate to the United
            States.
            > They are covenanted together to one uniform set of confession and
            > catechisms, namely the Three Forms. (Of course these people are
            > covenanted together. Almost every church with members requires
            them
            > to covenant in one way or another to submit to the government of
            the
            > church and live godly lives.) Is this transplanted German church
            > then obligated to officially and formally approve the British
            > Westminster Standards as their standard of doctrine just because
            they
            > are geographically located within the political boundaries of the
            > United States? Do they have to go with two official sets of
            > standards now? (...having already covenanted together under the
            Three
            > Forms standard) Thought this would make for an interesting
            question.
            >
            > Riley
            > --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, "gmw"
            > <raging.calvinist@v...> wrote:
            > >
            > > I should also add, that the Westminster Standards ought to be
            > adopted
            > > formally.
            > >
            > > gmw.
            > >
            > > --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, "gmw"
            > > <raging.calvinist@v...> wrote:
            > > > No, I don't believe that would be a violation of the Covenant,
            so
            > > long as there is no rejection (or neglect), in part or in whole,
            of
            > > the Westminster Standards. Samuel Rutherfurd once referred to the
            > > Heidelberg as "our catechism." The Heidelberg is a beautiful,
            > > pastoral, comforting catechism, and very much a part of our
            Reformed
            > > heritage.
            > > >
            > > > gmw.
            > > > ----- Original Message -----
            > > > From: Dan Fraas
            > > > To: covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com
            > > > Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2003 10:27 AM
            > > > Subject: [Covenanted Reformation] Re: Covenanting.
            > > >
            > > >
            > > > 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.
            > > >
            > > >
            > > > Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
            > > > ADVERTISEMENT
            > > >
            > > >
            > > >
            > > >
            > > >
            > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
            > > > covenantedreformationclub-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
            > > >
            > > >
            > > >
            > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
            > Service.
            > > >
            > > >
            > > > ---
            > > > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
            > > > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
            > > > Version: 6.0.545 / Virus Database: 339 - Release Date:
            > 11/27/2003
          • gmw
            Well, I m sure it was in German, but I meant, in Germany. gmw. ... Marian ... Covenant, ... whole, ... the ... violation ... in ... I ... sufficient ...
            Message 5 of 15 , Dec 4, 2003
            • 0 Attachment
              Well, I'm sure it was in German, but I meant, in Germany.

              gmw.

              --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, "gmw"
              <raging.calvinist@v...> wrote:
              >
              > Did you know that the Protestants in German DID swear a Covenant
              > (Smalcald)?
              >
              > In your scenerio, are the Germans seeking citizenship in the
              > covenanted land? Or, are they simply seeking refuge (like the
              Marian
              > Exhiles in Geneva?).
              >
              > Yes, interesting question.
              >
              > gmw.
              >
              > --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, "Dan Fraas"
              > <fraasrd@y...> wrote:
              > > Thanks for your answer to my question. On this note, to pose a
              > > completely different question, please note the following:
              > >
              > > A group (one whole congregation or several congregations) of
              > Reformed
              > > Christians from uncovenanted Germany emigrate to the United
              > States.
              > > They are covenanted together to one uniform set of confession and
              > > catechisms, namely the Three Forms. (Of course these people are
              > > covenanted together. Almost every church with members requires
              > them
              > > to covenant in one way or another to submit to the government of
              > the
              > > church and live godly lives.) Is this transplanted German church
              > > then obligated to officially and formally approve the British
              > > Westminster Standards as their standard of doctrine just because
              > they
              > > are geographically located within the political boundaries of the
              > > United States? Do they have to go with two official sets of
              > > standards now? (...having already covenanted together under the
              > Three
              > > Forms standard) Thought this would make for an interesting
              > question.
              > >
              > > Riley
              > > --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, "gmw"
              > > <raging.calvinist@v...> wrote:
              > > >
              > > > I should also add, that the Westminster Standards ought to be
              > > adopted
              > > > formally.
              > > >
              > > > gmw.
              > > >
              > > > --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, "gmw"
              > > > <raging.calvinist@v...> wrote:
              > > > > No, I don't believe that would be a violation of the
              Covenant,
              > so
              > > > long as there is no rejection (or neglect), in part or in
              whole,
              > of
              > > > the Westminster Standards. Samuel Rutherfurd once referred to
              the
              > > > Heidelberg as "our catechism." The Heidelberg is a beautiful,
              > > > pastoral, comforting catechism, and very much a part of our
              > Reformed
              > > > heritage.
              > > > >
              > > > > gmw.
              > > > > ----- Original Message -----
              > > > > From: Dan Fraas
              > > > > To: covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com
              > > > > Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2003 10:27 AM
              > > > > Subject: [Covenanted Reformation] Re: Covenanting.
              > > > >
              > > > >
              > > > > 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.
              > > > >
              > > > >
              > > > > Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
              > > > > ADVERTISEMENT
              > > > >
              > > > >
              > > > >
              > > > >
              > > > >
              > > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
              > > > > covenantedreformationclub-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
              > > > >
              > > > >
              > > > >
              > > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
              > > Service.
              > > > >
              > > > >
              > > > > ---
              > > > > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
              > > > > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
              > > > > Version: 6.0.545 / Virus Database: 339 - Release Date:
              > > 11/27/2003
            • Dan Fraas
              ... Yes, I knew that, but I hadn t thought of it. I m not sure it was all the Protestants who covenanted. If the group in this scenario were German
              Message 6 of 15 , Dec 5, 2003
              • 0 Attachment
                --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, "gmw"
                <raging.calvinist@v...> wrote:
                >
                > Did you know that the Protestants in German DID swear a Covenant
                > (Smalcald)?

                Yes, I knew that, but I hadn't thought of it. I'm not sure it was
                all the Protestants who covenanted. If the group in this scenario
                were German covenanters from covenanted nations, it seems that would
                only complicate the issue.

                > In your scenerio, are the Germans seeking citizenship in the
                > covenanted land? Or, are they simply seeking refuge (like the
                Marian
                > Exhiles in Geneva?).

                Let's say they are seeking permanent refuge. They are content to
                live and work in the land and to bear children there. They may never
                become citizens, but their children will be born citizens.

                Riley

                > Yes, interesting question.
                >
                > gmw.
                >
                > --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, "Dan Fraas"
                > <fraasrd@y...> wrote:
                > > Thanks for your answer to my question. On this note, to pose a
                > > completely different question, please note the following:
                > >
                > > A group (one whole congregation or several congregations) of
                > Reformed
                > > Christians from uncovenanted Germany emigrate to the United
                > States.
                > > They are covenanted together to one uniform set of confession and
                > > catechisms, namely the Three Forms. (Of course these people are
                > > covenanted together. Almost every church with members requires
                > them
                > > to covenant in one way or another to submit to the government of
                > the
                > > church and live godly lives.) Is this transplanted German church
                > > then obligated to officially and formally approve the British
                > > Westminster Standards as their standard of doctrine just because
                > they
                > > are geographically located within the political boundaries of the
                > > United States? Do they have to go with two official sets of
                > > standards now? (...having already covenanted together under the
                > Three
                > > Forms standard) Thought this would make for an interesting
                > question.
                > >
                > > Riley
                > > --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, "gmw"
                > > <raging.calvinist@v...> wrote:
                > > >
                > > > I should also add, that the Westminster Standards ought to be
                > > adopted
                > > > formally.
                > > >
                > > > gmw.
                > > >
                > > > --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, "gmw"
                > > > <raging.calvinist@v...> wrote:
                > > > > No, I don't believe that would be a violation of the
                Covenant,
                > so
                > > > long as there is no rejection (or neglect), in part or in
                whole,
                > of
                > > > the Westminster Standards. Samuel Rutherfurd once referred to
                the
                > > > Heidelberg as "our catechism." The Heidelberg is a beautiful,
                > > > pastoral, comforting catechism, and very much a part of our
                > Reformed
                > > > heritage.
                > > > >
                > > > > gmw.
                > > > > ----- Original Message -----
                > > > > From: Dan Fraas
                > > > > To: covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com
                > > > > Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2003 10:27 AM
                > > > > Subject: [Covenanted Reformation] Re: Covenanting.
                > > > >
                > > > >
                > > > > 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.
                > > > >
                > > > >
                > > > > Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
                > > > > ADVERTISEMENT
                > > > >
                > > > >
                > > > >
                > > > >
                > > > >
                > > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                > > > > covenantedreformationclub-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                > > > >
                > > > >
                > > > >
                > > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
                > > Service.
                > > > >
                > > > >
                > > > > ---
                > > > > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
                > > > > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
                > > > > Version: 6.0.545 / Virus Database: 339 - Release Date:
                > > 11/27/2003
              • gmw
                ... Well, not if the matter of the Covenant is essentially the same, swearing to uphold, defend, and prosecute the True Religion against Papacy and other
                Message 7 of 15 , Dec 5, 2003
                • 0 Attachment
                  --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, "Dan Fraas"
                  <fraasrd@y...> wrote:
                  > --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, "gmw"
                  > <raging.calvinist@v...> wrote:
                  > >
                  > > Did you know that the Protestants in German DID swear a Covenant
                  > > (Smalcald)?
                  >
                  > Yes, I knew that, but I hadn't thought of it. I'm not sure it was
                  > all the Protestants who covenanted. If the group in this scenario
                  > were German covenanters from covenanted nations, it seems that would
                  > only complicate the issue.

                  Well, not if the matter of the Covenant is essentially the same,
                  swearing to uphold, defend, and prosecute the True Religion against
                  Papacy and other enemies, and swearing to band together with and
                  defend those who do the same.

                  > > In your scenerio, are the Germans seeking citizenship in the
                  > > covenanted land? Or, are they simply seeking refuge (like the
                  > Marian
                  > > Exhiles in Geneva?).
                  >
                  > Let's say they are seeking permanent refuge. They are content to
                  > live and work in the land and to bear children there. They may never
                  > become citizens, but their children will be born citizens.

                  I suppose the citizens of the covenanted nation would be bound by the
                  covenant privileges and obligations of that nation. The question in
                  my mind is whether or not those who were covenanted in essence to the
                  Protestant Religion, though perhaps in a different form (i.e.
                  different sub-standards) would be bound to the old standards or the
                  new ones. That I'll have to ponder a bit more.

                  Good question.

                  gmw.
                • Volker-Jordan@t-online.de
                  Dear Dan, dear Jerry, I do not think that your example is that well-chosen or at least almost unpracticable, since the Reformed churches in Germany never
                  Message 8 of 15 , Dec 6, 2003
                  • 0 Attachment

                    Dear Dan, dear Jerry,

                    I do not think that your example is that well-chosen or at least almost unpracticable, since the Reformed churches in Germany never adopted as a whole the Three Forms of Unity. This was, to be sure, the case in the Netherlands, and even (for a short time) in the Reformed church of the Rhineland, when that establishment was not yet independent from the Reformed church in the Netherlands. It still is the case with the Evangelical Old Reformed Church in Lower Saxony (although they themselves have become liberal in our day). But taken as a whole, only the Heidelberg Catechism obtained a universally accepted and subscribed to confessional status throughout the German Reformed churches. In many instances, the Canons of Dordt or the Belgic Confession were/are not even known in those ecclesiastical bodies.

                    Regarding the Schmalkaldic League and the Schmalkaldic Articles, I have copied and pasted the relevant articles from the Encyclopaedia Britannica here for our easy reference. Certainly, the Schmalkaldic League was a political defensive alliance against emperor Charles V. with good fruits for Reformation in the participating states, but is thus in no way comparable to the Solemn League & Covenant and its obligations. Besides, only part of the German Protestant territories, and mainly Lutheran ones, joined it. Germany thus cannot be considered a covenanted nation at all.

                    Schmalkaldic League

                    German Schmalkaldischer Bund, during the German Reformation, a defensive alliance formed by Protestant states of the Holy Roman Empire to defend the newly formed Lutheran churches from attack by the Roman Catholic emperor Charles V. Established in 1531 at Schmalkalden, Ger., the league was led by Philip the Magnanimous of Hesse and John Frederick I of Saxony. Among its other original member states were Brunswick, Anhalt, Mansfeld, Magdeburg, Bremen, Strassburg, and Ulm.

                    Fearing that the league would ally itself with his enemy, Francis I of France, Charles was forced to grant it de facto recognition until 1544, when he made peace with Francis. He then began military operations against its leaders and effectively destroyed it by 1547.

                    Source: Encyclopædia Britannica, from Encyclopædia Britannica Ultimate Reference Suite 2004 DVD. Copyright © 1994-2003 Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc. May 30, 2003.

                    Because of a certain link to the Schmalkaldic Articles, I am also inserting here the EB entry about the Schmalkaldic Articles:

                    Schmalkaldic Articles

                    one of the confessions of faith of Lutheranism, written by Martin Luther in 1536. The articles were prepared as the result of a bull issued by Pope Paul III calling for a general council of the Roman Catholic Church to deal with the Reformation movement. (The council was actually postponed several times until it met in Trent in 1545.) John Frederick I, Lutheran elector of Saxony, wished to determine what issues could be negotiated with the Roman Catholics and what could not be compromised. He asked Luther to review earlier statements of faith by the Reformers to determine what was absolutely essential to the faith. After Luther had prepared the articles, he invited several Reformers to Wittenberg to discuss them, and after some minor changes eight theologians signed them. They were then sent to the Elector in January 1537.

                    In February 1537 the Protestant secular heads of state who were members of the Schmalkaldic League met with several theologians at Schmalkalden to decide how to deal with a council of the Roman Catholic Church. Luther became ill and could not attend, but John Frederick I presented Luther's articles to the gathering. Because of Luther's somewhat controversial doctrine of the Lord's Supper, Melanchthon urged that the Augsburg Confession and its Apology, previously presented to Emperor Charles V, adequately presented the Reformer's faith and that additional statements should not be added. This decision was adopted and the Schmalkaldic Articles were not officially accepted. They were, however, circulated and read, and 44 theologians signed them as an expression of their personal faith. Subsequently, they were included in the Book of Concord (1580).

                    The Schmalkaldic Articles are divided into three sections. The first discusses the unity of God, the Trinity, the Incarnation, and Christ, and on these subjects Luther believed there was no real controversy between Roman Catholics and Protestants. The second section dealt with Christ and justification by faith. According to Luther, “On this article rests all that we teach and practiceagainst the pope, the devil, and the world.” This section also discusses the mass, monastic orders, and the papacy. The third section discusses 15 articles that could be considered by Roman Catholics and Protestants. It includes such subjects as sin, the Law, repentance, the sacraments, confession, the ministry, and a definition of the church.

                    Source: Encyclopædia Britannica, from Encyclopædia Britannica Ultimate Reference Suite 2004 DVD. Copyright © 1994-2003 Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc. May 30, 2003.

                    BTW, Schmalkalden still is a very nice little city with a historical old town centre, situated at the foot of the Thuringian Forest. For those of you which would be interested in visiting the old monuments of the German Reformation, it would certainly be quite useful to see. I have been there several times, and you see there much more pertaining to the Reformation than for example in Heidelberg, where, at least in many cases, not even the Heidelberg Catechism is known to the population.

                    Warm regards in Christ,

                    Volker Jordan

                    Volker-Jordan@...

                    (31, freelance translator for Reformed publishing houses, from Germany)

                  • gmw
                    ... Right, we are speaking hypotheticals here. The question is, if a group of people specifially swore to uphold certain sub-standards (the Three Forms was
                    Message 9 of 15 , Dec 6, 2003
                    • 0 Attachment
                      --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, Volker-Jordan@t...
                      wrote:
                      > Dear Dan, dear Jerry,
                      >
                      > I do not think that your example is that well-chosen or at least almost
                      > unpracticable, since the Reformed churches in Germany never adopted as a
                      > whole the Three Forms of Unity.

                      Right, we are speaking hypotheticals here. The question is, if a
                      group of people specifially swore to uphold certain sub-standards (the
                      Three Forms was merely an example) migrated to a nation under the
                      Solemn League and Covenant (sworn to uphold the Westminster
                      Standards), what then?

                      gmw.
                    • seamrog1935
                      ... almost ... adopted as a ... (the ... I would contribute, but I am at a loss for an answer except to say that it would seem that the Confession that is the
                      Message 10 of 15 , Dec 6, 2003
                      • 0 Attachment
                        --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, "gmw"
                        <raging.calvinist@v...> wrote:
                        > --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, Volker-Jordan@t...
                        > wrote:
                        > > Dear Dan, dear Jerry,
                        > >
                        > > I do not think that your example is that well-chosen or at least
                        almost
                        > > unpracticable, since the Reformed churches in Germany never
                        adopted as a
                        > > whole the Three Forms of Unity.
                        >
                        > Right, we are speaking hypotheticals here. The question is, if a
                        > group of people specifially swore to uphold certain sub-standards
                        (the
                        > Three Forms was merely an example) migrated to a nation under the
                        > Solemn League and Covenant (sworn to uphold the Westminster
                        > Standards), what then?
                        >

                        I would contribute, but I am at a loss for an answer except to say
                        that it would seem that the Confession that is the greatest
                        attainment (as measured by Scripture) and that was covenanted with
                        God would take precedence. Why would one want to slide back to a
                        subordinate standard of lesser attainment? Were the Three Forms of
                        Unity (TFU) covenanted with God just as the Scottish Covenants were
                        or were the TFU merely affirmed as agreeable to Scripture? I know
                        next to nothing about mainland Reformation except for the First
                        Reformation and Dort.

                        Whit
                      • Martin
                        If someone has already replied to this, my apologies. You can buy the book from SWRB http://www.swrb.com You can also get it online for free at:
                        Message 11 of 15 , Dec 7, 2003
                        • 0 Attachment
                          If someone has already replied to this, my apologies.

                          You can buy the book from SWRB http://www.swrb.com

                          You can also get it online for free at:
                          http://www.ecn.ab.ca/prce/books/index.html

                          Martin

                          ----- Original Message -----
                          From: "revrayjoseph" <no_reply@yahoogroups.com>
                          To: <covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com>
                          Sent: Wednesday, December 03, 2003 9:33 PM
                          Subject: [Covenanted Reformation] Re: Covenanting.


                          > Whit,
                          > Where did you get the book, "Covenanted Reformation Defended Against
                          > Contemporary Schismatics", ?
                          >
                          > Thanks.
                          > Ray Joseph
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                          > covenantedreformationclub-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                          >
                          >
                          >
                        • Dan Fraas
                          Thank you Volker. I must have been mistaken. I assumed that the Three Forms had been subscribed by the Reformed churches in Germany since the only German
                          Message 12 of 15 , Dec 8, 2003
                          • 0 Attachment
                            Thank you Volker. I must have been mistaken. I assumed that the
                            Three Forms had been subscribed by the Reformed churches in Germany
                            since the only German heritage Reformed church of which I'm familiar
                            in the U. S. (the RCUS) subscribes to the three forms. In any case
                            my question could apply to the Heidelberg Catechism alone, or any
                            other standard.

                            Riley
                            --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, Volker-Jordan@t...
                            wrote:
                            > Dear Dan, dear Jerry,
                            >
                            > I do not think that your example is that well-chosen or at least
                            almost
                            > unpracticable, since the Reformed churches in Germany never adopted
                            as a
                            > whole the Three Forms of Unity. This was, to be sure, the case in
                            the
                            > Netherlands, and even (for a short time) in the Reformed church of
                            the
                            > Rhineland, when that establishment was not yet independent from the
                            Reformed
                            > church in the Netherlands. It still is the case with the
                            Evangelical Old
                            > Reformed Church in Lower Saxony (although they themselves have
                            become
                            > liberal in our day). But taken as a whole, only the Heidelberg
                            Catechism
                            > obtained a universally accepted and subscribed to confessional
                            status
                            > throughout the German Reformed churches. In many instances, the
                            Canons of
                            > Dordt or the Belgic Confession were/are not even known in those
                            > ecclesiastical bodies.
                            >
                            > Regarding the Schmalkaldic League and the Schmalkaldic Articles, I
                            have
                            > copied and pasted the relevant articles from the Encyclopaedia
                            Britannica
                            > here for our easy reference. Certainly, the Schmalkaldic League was
                            a
                            > political defensive alliance against emperor Charles V. with good
                            fruits for
                            > Reformation in the participating states, but is thus in no way
                            comparable to
                            > the Solemn League & Covenant and its obligations. Besides, only
                            part of the
                            > German Protestant territories, and mainly Lutheran ones, joined it.
                            Germany
                            > thus cannot be considered a covenanted nation at all.
                            >
                            > Schmalkaldic League
                            >
                            > German Schmalkaldischer Bund, during the German Reformation, a
                            defensive
                            > alliance formed by Protestant states of the Holy Roman Empire to
                            defend the
                            > newly formed Lutheran churches from attack by the Roman Catholic
                            emperor
                            > Charles V. Established in 1531 at Schmalkalden, Ger., the league
                            was led by
                            > Philip the Magnanimous of Hesse and John Frederick I of Saxony.
                            Among its
                            > other original member states were Brunswick, Anhalt, Mansfeld,
                            Magdeburg,
                            > Bremen, Strassburg, and Ulm.
                            >
                            > Fearing that the league would ally itself with his enemy, Francis I
                            of
                            > France, Charles was forced to grant it de facto recognition until
                            1544, when
                            > he made peace with Francis. He then began military operations
                            against its
                            > leaders and effectively destroyed it by 1547.
                            >
                            > Source: Encyclopædia Britannica, from Encyclopædia Britannica
                            Ultimate
                            > Reference Suite 2004 DVD. Copyright © 1994-2003 Encyclopædia
                            Britannica,
                            > Inc. May 30, 2003.
                            >
                            > Because of a certain link to the Schmalkaldic Articles, I am also
                            inserting
                            > here the EB entry about the Schmalkaldic Articles:
                            >
                            > Schmalkaldic Articles
                            >
                            > one of the confessions of faith of Lutheranism, written by Martin
                            Luther in
                            > 1536. The articles were prepared as the result of a bull issued by
                            Pope Paul
                            > III calling for a general council of the Roman Catholic Church to
                            deal with
                            > the Reformation movement. (The council was actually postponed
                            several times
                            > until it met in Trent in 1545.) John Frederick I, Lutheran elector
                            of
                            > Saxony, wished to determine what issues could be negotiated with
                            the Roman
                            > Catholics and what could not be compromised. He asked Luther to
                            review
                            > earlier statements of faith by the Reformers to determine what was
                            > absolutely essential to the faith. After Luther had prepared the
                            articles,
                            > he invited several Reformers to Wittenberg to discuss them, and
                            after some
                            > minor changes eight theologians signed them. They were then sent to
                            the
                            > Elector in January 1537.
                            >
                            > In February 1537 the Protestant secular heads of state who were
                            members of
                            > the Schmalkaldic League met with several theologians at
                            Schmalkalden to
                            > decide how to deal with a council of the Roman Catholic Church.
                            Luther
                            > became ill and could not attend, but John Frederick I presented
                            Luther's
                            > articles to the gathering. Because of Luther's somewhat
                            controversial
                            > doctrine of the Lord's Supper, Melanchthon urged that the Augsburg
                            > Confession and its Apology, previously presented to Emperor Charles
                            V,
                            > adequately presented the Reformer's faith and that additional
                            statements
                            > should not be added. This decision was adopted and the Schmalkaldic
                            Articles
                            > were not officially accepted. They were, however, circulated and
                            read, and
                            > 44 theologians signed them as an expression of their personal faith.
                            > Subsequently, they were included in the Book of Concord (1580).
                            >
                            > The Schmalkaldic Articles are divided into three sections. The first
                            > discusses the unity of God, the Trinity, the Incarnation, and
                            Christ, and on
                            > these subjects Luther believed there was no real controversy
                            between Roman
                            > Catholics and Protestants. The second section dealt with Christ and
                            > justification by faith. According to Luther, "On this article rests
                            all that
                            > we teach and practiceagainst the pope, the devil, and the world."
                            This
                            > section also discusses the mass, monastic orders, and the papacy.
                            The third
                            > section discusses 15 articles that could be considered by Roman
                            Catholics
                            > and Protestants. It includes such subjects as sin, the Law,
                            repentance, the
                            > sacraments, confession, the ministry, and a definition of the
                            church.
                            >
                            > Source: Encyclopædia Britannica, from Encyclopædia Britannica
                            Ultimate
                            > Reference Suite 2004 DVD. Copyright © 1994-2003 Encyclopædia
                            Britannica,
                            > Inc. May 30, 2003.
                            >
                            > BTW, Schmalkalden still is a very nice little city with a
                            historical old
                            > town centre, situated at the foot of the Thuringian Forest. For
                            those of you
                            > which would be interested in visiting the old monuments of the
                            German
                            > Reformation, it would certainly be quite useful to see. I have been
                            there
                            > several times, and you see there much more pertaining to the
                            Reformation
                            > than for example in Heidelberg, where, at least in many cases, not
                            even the
                            > Heidelberg Catechism is known to the population.
                            >
                            > Warm regards in Christ,
                            >
                            > Volker Jordan
                            >
                            > Volker-Jordan@t...
                            >
                            > (31, freelance translator for Reformed publishing houses, from
                            Germany)
                          • Dan Fraas
                            Whit, It seems to me that the Westminster Standards were not covenanted with God specifically, but that they were written in fulfillment of and subsequent to
                            Message 13 of 15 , Dec 8, 2003
                            • 0 Attachment
                              Whit,

                              It seems to me that the Westminster Standards were not "covenanted
                              with God" specifically, but that they were written in fulfillment of
                              and subsequent to a mutual covenant by Christians to honor God in
                              obedience and unity of doctrine. Surely all members of churches with
                              formal church membership are covenanted before God with each other by
                              way of their vows of church membership. All those who have promised
                              to submit to the government of their churches have in this way
                              covenanted under the doctrinal standards that have been approved by
                              their synods. Most Christians are covenanters on this level, they
                              just haven't grown their covenant concept to national proportions.

                              For Christ's Crown and Covenant!

                              Riley
                              --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, seamrog1935
                              <no_reply@y...> wrote:
                              > --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, "gmw"
                              > <raging.calvinist@v...> wrote:
                              > > --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, Volker-
                              Jordan@t...
                              > > wrote:
                              > > > Dear Dan, dear Jerry,
                              > > >
                              > > > I do not think that your example is that well-chosen or at
                              least
                              > almost
                              > > > unpracticable, since the Reformed churches in Germany never
                              > adopted as a
                              > > > whole the Three Forms of Unity.
                              > >
                              > > Right, we are speaking hypotheticals here. The question is, if a
                              > > group of people specifially swore to uphold certain sub-standards
                              > (the
                              > > Three Forms was merely an example) migrated to a nation under the
                              > > Solemn League and Covenant (sworn to uphold the Westminster
                              > > Standards), what then?
                              > >
                              >
                              > I would contribute, but I am at a loss for an answer except to say
                              > that it would seem that the Confession that is the greatest
                              > attainment (as measured by Scripture) and that was covenanted with
                              > God would take precedence. Why would one want to slide back to a
                              > subordinate standard of lesser attainment? Were the Three Forms of
                              > Unity (TFU) covenanted with God just as the Scottish Covenants were
                              > or were the TFU merely affirmed as agreeable to Scripture? I know
                              > next to nothing about mainland Reformation except for the First
                              > Reformation and Dort.
                              >
                              > Whit
                            • seamrog1935
                              ... Against ... Ray Joseph: I bought mine from SWRB, for which Martin gave the correct link. Although it is in necessarily strong response to Mr. Bacon s
                              Message 14 of 15 , Dec 8, 2003
                              • 0 Attachment
                                --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, "Martin"
                                <paleopuritan@h...> wrote:
                                > If someone has already replied to this, my apologies.
                                >
                                > You can buy the book from SWRB http://www.swrb.com
                                >
                                > You can also get it online for free at:
                                > http://www.ecn.ab.ca/prce/books/index.html
                                >
                                > Martin
                                >
                                > ----- Original Message -----
                                > From: "revrayjoseph" <no_reply@yahoogroups.com>
                                > To: <covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com>
                                > Sent: Wednesday, December 03, 2003 9:33 PM
                                > Subject: [Covenanted Reformation] Re: Covenanting.
                                >
                                >
                                > > Whit,
                                > > Where did you get the book, "Covenanted Reformation Defended
                                Against
                                > > Contemporary Schismatics", ?
                                > >
                                > > Thanks.
                                > > Ray Joseph

                                Ray Joseph: I bought mine from SWRB, for which Martin gave the
                                correct link. Although it is in necessarily strong response to Mr.
                                Bacon's scandalous work "Defense Departed" against the Covenanters
                                and ultimately against God, it is also an excellent starting source
                                about the doctrines and related (frequently blood-stained) history of
                                the Covenanters and their godly martyrs. Currently, I am at the part
                                discussing Terms of Communion regarding examination before being
                                admitted to the Lord's Table. I also bought several other books from
                                them and have been very pleased with the service as well as the
                                quality of the books and photocopies. They also have free books and
                                tracts on their site.

                                Whit
                              • seamrog1935
                                Dan, Thank you for the clarification and help. When I wrote covenanted with God , I was struggling to find the right words. Whit ... of ... with ... by ...
                                Message 15 of 15 , Dec 8, 2003
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  Dan,

                                  Thank you for the clarification and help. When I wrote "covenanted
                                  with God", I was struggling to find the right words.

                                  Whit


                                  --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, "Dan Fraas"
                                  <fraasrd@y...> wrote:
                                  > Whit,
                                  >
                                  > It seems to me that the Westminster Standards were not "covenanted
                                  > with God" specifically, but that they were written in fulfillment
                                  of
                                  > and subsequent to a mutual covenant by Christians to honor God in
                                  > obedience and unity of doctrine. Surely all members of churches
                                  with
                                  > formal church membership are covenanted before God with each other
                                  by
                                  > way of their vows of church membership. All those who have
                                  promised
                                  > to submit to the government of their churches have in this way
                                  > covenanted under the doctrinal standards that have been approved by
                                  > their synods. Most Christians are covenanters on this level, they
                                  > just haven't grown their covenant concept to national proportions.
                                  >
                                  > For Christ's Crown and Covenant!
                                  >
                                  > Riley
                                  > --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, seamrog1935
                                  > <no_reply@y...> wrote:
                                  > > --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, "gmw"
                                  > > <raging.calvinist@v...> wrote:
                                  > > > --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, Volker-
                                  > Jordan@t...
                                  > > > wrote:
                                  > > > > Dear Dan, dear Jerry,
                                  > > > >
                                  > > > > I do not think that your example is that well-chosen or at
                                  > least
                                  > > almost
                                  > > > > unpracticable, since the Reformed churches in Germany never
                                  > > adopted as a
                                  > > > > whole the Three Forms of Unity.
                                  > > >
                                  > > > Right, we are speaking hypotheticals here. The question is, if
                                  a
                                  > > > group of people specifially swore to uphold certain sub-
                                  standards
                                  > > (the
                                  > > > Three Forms was merely an example) migrated to a nation under
                                  the
                                  > > > Solemn League and Covenant (sworn to uphold the Westminster
                                  > > > Standards), what then?
                                  > > >
                                  > >
                                  > > I would contribute, but I am at a loss for an answer except to
                                  say
                                  > > that it would seem that the Confession that is the greatest
                                  > > attainment (as measured by Scripture) and that was covenanted
                                  with
                                  > > God would take precedence. Why would one want to slide back to a
                                  > > subordinate standard of lesser attainment? Were the Three Forms
                                  of
                                  > > Unity (TFU) covenanted with God just as the Scottish Covenants
                                  were
                                  > > or were the TFU merely affirmed as agreeable to Scripture? I
                                  know
                                  > > next to nothing about mainland Reformation except for the First
                                  > > Reformation and Dort.
                                  > >
                                  > > Whit
                                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.