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

[Covenanted Reformation] Re: Covenanting.

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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 8 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 9 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 10 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 11 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 12 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.