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

RE: Appreciation

Expand Messages
  • s.padbury@tiscali.co.uk
    Hi BD, and all, {BD, I thought I would also send my response to you [slightly corrected, e.g., typos] on this list, now that something has become evident to me
    Message 1 of 16 , Apr 1, 2004
      Hi BD, and all,

      {BD, I thought I would also send my response to you [slightly corrected,
      e.g., typos] on this list, now that something has become evident to me (see
      what I write in some background information below). I dislike having to
      bring this up again, but I think I must do so because many long-standing
      members of this list will be aware of at least some of what has been going
      on between myself and Colin. So, dor some background information.....}

      You may be aware of some of the history emnity between Colin and I. If not,
      here: Since I mentioned on that list that I think Theonomy is an error,
      and consequently Colin became agitated and sought to devend and promote
      Theonomy/Christian Reconstructionism at great length over a year ago.

      Colin repeatedly accused me of being "slanderous" (because I said his presbyterian
      Theonomist heros were opposing WCF 19.4), "wicked" and "ungodly" (because
      I opposed Theonomy's errors, and he thinks that all who do so are antinomian,
      and if we persist in it after a Theonomist has tried to 'educate' us, therefore
      we must be reprobate and blind), and "ignorant" (because I admitted that
      I had not read as many Theonomist books as he had, and I had no wish to
      do so).

      I temporarily left the group while relocating to Stockton-on-Tees, and then
      ex-Theonomist Greg Loren Durand stepped in and so strongly 'grappled' with
      him, that Colin lost all the arguments, even many arguments which at that
      time I myself struggled with. Evidently Greg was the better man for fighting
      people like Colin!

      Later I engaged Colin in a series of private emails, trying to get him to
      retract his outrageous accustions against me. I resumed the debate in private
      with him, and showed him clearly that I was *not* an antinomian, and that
      I well knew the arguments of the Theonomists/Christian Reconstructionists
      from the (fewer) books that I had read by Bahnsen, North, Rushdoony, and
      on the Chalcedon Foundation websites and many other websites. I showed him
      that I was a Christian at least as truly as he was, and that I loved the
      law of God. But Colin completely refused all my attempts at freindly reconsiliation.

      NEVER have I treated Colin as badly and shamefully as he has treated me.

      I sincerely believe that it will not be well with his soul unless he 'takes
      back' what he has said against me. And I would not be surprised that he
      likewise 'character-assassinates' other Christians for opposing Theonomy/Christian
      Reconstructionism.

      Maybe Colin the Theonomist, if he ever had power over me for opposing his
      preferred form of governing such "slanderous," "wicked," "ungodly" men as
      myself, would seek to have me stoned to death! I can only conclude that
      he fully believes I am a heretic, and in the Theonomic system, heretics
      bust be punished with death.

      On the more recent matter of disagreement, "The Bishop's Doom" responded
      to me, seeking to clarify my response to Colin. Actually I have not really
      begun to respond to Colin, but so far I am merely trying to get him to respond
      to me as though I were a Christian brother. He is refusing to do so. BD
      has thought that maybe in my annoyance with Colin, I was also opposing him
      (BD). BD emailed me in private about this, and I responded in private.

      But I paste in here my response to BD, for your interest.

      <><><><><><><><>

      Greetings BD,

      I'm sorry if I sounded as though I was taking issue with what you wrote
      - not at all. I was merely trying to lay out some matters hich I think are
      important enough to be emphasised in bald terms.

      I am also trying to elicit a response from Colin which portrays his position
      plainly, so that it can be critiqued properly. I have used my own words
      to describe in summary what I think his position might be, and I have invited
      correction and clarification from him.

      He is on record in numerous places for holding the opinion that I am wicked,
      ungodly, slanderous, ignorant (his words). Therefore I have 'taken the liberty'
      of winding him up a little with my post. My aim therein is to get him to
      defend himself against what I have said I think his position is (which I
      described in my own words). I hope this cuts out much that is superfluous
      and focuses on the Commandment in question, which he as a Theonomist likes
      to think he knows very well (and he thinks he knows very well that his position
      on portayals of Christ the Man is not addressed by this Commandment).

      I have been hinting, "Is it because you think you think the Man Christ was
      not God?" He'll deny it. "Is it because you think the Body of Christ is
      not part of Christ - i.e., that there is a part of the Man Christ that is/was
      not God?" Hopefully he'll deny that too. "What then? Is it because the Commandment
      pertains to worship, and worship is not intended to be done to, e.g., Mel
      Gibson's film?" Ah, here's the focus of the Commandment.

      Thus, I have been showing that at the Incarnation, Christ "became flesh"
      as the God-Man, and that therefore it is actually *God* who is seeking to
      be portrayed, *not* merely a body-which-is-not-God, (or moreover, if he's
      clever enough to see the point you're making, an-image-of-a-body-which-is-not-in-itself-God).
      So firstly, we have to be clear that the "I" which the Incarnate Christ
      refers to when he says, e.g., "I and my Father are one," most definitely
      includes his whole manhood, which certainly includes his fleshly body. Some
      of what Colin has said seems to indicate that he is not clear on this. I
      want to get this dealt with so that we can move on.

      Then secondly, I maintain that the moment we assent that an object of man's
      device *is* a representation of any Member of the Trinity, thereby we have
      broken the Second Commandment. Therefore both the artist and the viewer
      who approves of the man-graven image *do* break the second commandment -
      as I will show:

      It is inevitable that those who assent that the man-made
      thing is (even at least somewhat of) a representation of the Godhead, thereby
      consequently approve of it, and therefore admire it, and therefore worship
      it.

      The Second Commandment does not merely cover worship that take place within
      public acts at stated times, but it covers *any* man-graven image that is
      intended to portray God. Never can we accept a man-made depiction of anything
      in the universe, adopting as our own belief concerning that man-made thing,
      "This is indeed a representation of my god. My god is (even somewhat) like
      this thing."

      It is because we always, men always, misrepresent God (Christ
      Himself alone excepted); and by however much we do so, by that much we dishonour
      God. And besides this dishonour that is always done, the artist (metal-worker,
      painter, actor) and the approver thereof are also violating God's revealed
      commandment.

      Sorry again BD, if you thought I had an unfreindly attitude toward you.

      Sincere regards, Simon.

      <><><><><><><><>



      __________________________________________________
      Broadband from an unbeatable £15.99!

      http://www.tiscali.co.uk/products/broadband/home.html?code=SM-NL-11AM
    • Colin
      ... Some significant corrections need to be made to this unusual post by Simon (which at first I thought was some kind of April fool s joke, but apparently he
      Message 2 of 16 , Apr 5, 2004
        --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, s.padbury@t...
        wrote:
        > Hi BD, and all,
        >
        > {BD, I thought I would also send my response to you [slightly
        > corrected, e.g., typos] on this list, now that something has become
        > evident to me (see what I write in some background information
        > below). I dislike having to bring this up again, but I think I must
        > do so because many long-standing members of this list will be aware
        > of at least some of what has been going on between myself and
        > Colin.

        Some significant corrections need to be made to this unusual post by
        Simon (which at first I thought was some kind of April fool's joke,
        but apparently he seems to be serious).

        First, there is nothing "going on on" between myself and Simon. I
        have not had any personal contact with him for over a year.

        > So, dor some background information.....}
        >
        > You may be aware of some of the history emnity between Colin and I.
        >

        I wouldn't call it "emnity" on my part.

        > If not, here: Since I mentioned on that list that I think Theonomy
        > is an error, and consequently Colin became agitated and sought to
        > defend and promote Theonomy/Christian Reconstructionism at great
        > length over a year ago.

        Ah! the good ol' days! :-) But I don't recall ever getting "agitated".

        > Colin repeatedly accused me of being "slanderous" (because I said
        > his presbyterian Theonomist heros were opposing WCF 19.4), "wicked"
        > and "ungodly" (because I opposed Theonomy's errors,

        Simon has taken my words out of their original context. I have never
        called anyone "wicked" or "ungodly" merely because they "opposed
        Theonomy". But I have occasionally done so for the *way* some have
        chosen to oppose it when the situation clearly called for it. (i.e.
        calling a spade a spade).

        In Simon's case, it would have been better for him to go back to the
        archives and see my original posts on the matter and then cite my
        words **in their original context**, instead of his own interpreted
        context and selective quotation of my words.

        > and he thinks that all who do so are antinomian,
        >

        Again, this is false, and I have never said that "all" those who
        oppose Theonomy are "antinomian" (though some may well be).

        I certainly do not do what some Steelites Covenanters do, who call
        all non-Steelite Presbyterians "backsliders" and "covenant breakers"
        (never mind what they call all hymn singers!). My point here is that
        I am far more charitable towards non-Theonomists than some Steelites
        are to non-Steelites (there are some exceptions of course).

        > and if we persist in it after a Theonomist has tried to 'educate'
        > us, therefore we must be reprobate and blind), and "ignorant"
        > (because I admitted that I had not read as many Theonomist books as
        > he had, and I had no wish to do so).

        I have never said nor implied such nonsense.

        > I temporarily left the group while relocating to Stockton-on-Tees,
        > and then ex-Theonomist Greg Loren Durand stepped in and so
        > strongly 'grappled' with him, that Colin lost all the arguments,
        > even many arguments which at that time I myself struggled with.
        > Evidently Greg was the better man for fighting people like Colin!

        Simon is clearly dreaming if he thinks that I "lost" any arguments to
        Mr. Durand. I have repeatedly engaged him on other forums, and I have
        so thoroughly refuted his many false accusations and fabrications of
        facts that he publicly chose to no longer "interact" with me anymore
        or respond to my e-mails. Durand is not fighter but a quitter.

        Furthermore, I would readily debate him again if the occasion
        requires it. His arguments are easy to refute because many of them
        are either strawmen fallacies, or ad hominem fallacies, or hasty
        generalization fallacies, or mere scurrilous accusations. He is
        simply not a serious critic of Theonomy/CR.

        Remember too that its just as easy to create strawman attacks against
        Calvinism as it is to do so against Theonomy. The polemical methods
        are identical in most cases.

        > Later I engaged Colin in a series of private emails, trying to get
        > him to retract his outrageous accustions against me.

        Unfortunately for Simon, he never presented my allegedly "outrageous
        accusation" in its original context. And I could hardly "retract"
        words that were clearly taken out of their initial context.

        > I resumed the debate in private with him, and showed him clearly
        > that I was *not* an antinomian, and that I well knew the arguments
        > of the Theonomists/Christian Reconstructionists from the (fewer)
        > books that I had read by Bahnsen, North, Rushdoony, and on the
        > Chalcedon Foundation websites and many other websites. I showed him
        > that I was a Christian at least as truly as he was, and that I
        > loved the law of God. But Colin completely refused all my attempts
        > at freindly reconsiliation.

        Again, this is false. I never "refused" any "attempts at friendly
        reconcilliation". In fact, it was Simon who insisted on stopping all
        private communication with me. His exact words were: "I will not
        waste my time any more. So, I will not be continuing this
        discussion with you". And that was the last thing he ever said to me.

        But just prior to all that, one of the things I had previously said
        to him was:

        "We are probably not as far as apart as you might think."

        I also said to him:

        "And BTW I never said that to disagree with North and Rushdoony makes
        you "ungodly" or "wicked"."

        I also referred to him as a "present day Calvinist".

        And I further told him last year before he abruptly ended our private
        correspondence:

        "I accept your hand of genuine Christian Fellowship."

        Now does that sound like I had "refused all attempts at friendly
        reconciliation."??

        > NEVER have I treated Colin as badly and shamefully as he has
        > treated me.

        Well I never chose to cut off communication with Simon, but I did
        respect his decision to cut off all communication with me.

        >
        > I sincerely believe that it will not be well with his soul unless
        > he 'takes back' what he has said against me.

        Well it would also be better for Simon to read and cite my words in
        their original context before insisting that I should "take them
        back". I do not take back words that are taken out of their original
        context. That would be foolish.

        > And I would not be surprised that he likewise 'character-
        > assassinates' other Christians for opposing Theonomy/Christian
        > Reconstructionism.

        I have witnessed more "character assassinations" made against
        Theonomists than I have the heart to recall. Just recently on another
        forum, a would be critic of Theonomy insisted on accusing all
        Theonomists of being "unregenerate" and "Phariseeical" and similar to
        the "Arian cult". Thankfully, the non-Theonomic Moderator rebuked
        that person and demanded that she never speak on the topic again.

        But I would have no reason to "character assassinate" anyone merely
        for "opposing Theonomy". Though I do admit that at times, some of my
        responses have been ad hominem after being overly provoked by a less
        than fair critic of Theonomy. But 'character assassinations" as such
        is not my method. Simon doesn't seem to be aware that his own
        comments could be classified as a "character assassination" against
        me.

        > Maybe Colin the Theonomist, if he ever had power over me for
        > opposing his preferred form of governing
        > such "slanderous," "wicked," "ungodly" men as myself, would seek to
        > have me stoned to death! I can only conclude that he fully believes
        > I am a heretic, and in the Theonomic system, heretics bust be
        > punished with death.

        It was these kind of absurd remarks that made me first think that
        Simon was playing some kind of April Fool's joke on the forum.

        I have never desired that Simon "be stoned to death". Nor do I
        believe that he is a "heretic". Nor do I believe that heretics should
        be stoned or "punished with death". Neither does the Theonomic system
        ever teach that "heretics be punished with death". (If Simon has read
        Rushdoony's Institutes like he claims, then he would have known that).
        Infact, I don't know of any modern Theonomic book that teaches that
        heretics be punished with death. So I have no idea where Simon could
        have got that notion from.

        Perhaps he should be more concerned about the Steelite Covenanters
        who do infact believe that heretics should be punished by the civil
        magistrate. (I don't mean that he should be concerned about his own
        life of course, but that he should be concerned about what the
        Steelites really believe about punishing heretics).

        > On the more recent matter of disagreement, "The Bishop's Doom"
        > responded to me, seeking to clarify my response to Colin. Actually
        > I have not really begun to respond to Colin, but so far I am merely
        > trying to get him to respond to me as though I were a Christian
        > brother. He is refusing to do so.

        Well Simon is greatly mistaken if he thinks that I don't consider him
        a "Christian brother". My personal e-mails from last year should have
        prevented him from making that mistake.

        Simon is also mistaken that I am "refusing" to respond to him. I've
        actually been quite busy, as well as dealing with matters on other
        forums (and I am currently a Moderator of two Discussion Forum, and I
        have been asked to be a Moderator of a third one).

        > BD has thought that maybe in my annoyance with Colin, I was also
        > opposing him (BD). BD emailed me in private about this, and I
        > responded in private.

        Simon, I have not had the time to interact with your previous post or
        with BD's post. But I will respond eventually to your earlier posts.
        I assure you that my lack of response has nothing to do with our
        previous disagreements, or with what you erroneously think is my
        negative attitude towards you. I still stand by my last words to you
        from last year:

        "I accept your hand of genuine Christian Fellowship."

        <Snip>

        Colin
      • gmw
        ... Can t miss a chance to take a shot at Covenanters. Look, in all the time you ve been in this group, it seems to me you ve spent far more time and effort
        Message 3 of 16 , Apr 6, 2004
          --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, "Colin "
          <cbx292000@y...> wrote:

          > I certainly do not do what some Steelites Covenanters do, who call
          > all non-Steelite Presbyterians "backsliders" and "covenant breakers"
          > (never mind what they call all hymn singers!). My point here is that
          > I am far more charitable towards non-Theonomists than some Steelites
          > are to non-Steelites (there are some exceptions of course).

          Can't miss a chance to take a shot at Covenanters. Look, in all the
          time you've been in this group, it seems to me you've spent far more
          time and effort disagreeing with the things said here then agreeing.
          Every story needs an antagonist, I realize. But perhaps your role
          here has been played out.

          Don't take this as me picking on you because you're the theonomist....
          I would have read your post without any comment had I not come across
          this shot taken at those who strive to uphold the principles of the
          Covenanted Reformation. This is the Covenanted Reformation Club, mind
          you.

          gmw.
        • Colin
          ... Gerry, if you read my words carefully, you would note that I qualified them by saying some . And in case anyone would miss that, I even added there are
          Message 4 of 16 , Apr 6, 2004
            --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, "gmw"
            <raging.calvinist@v...> wrote:
            > --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, "Colin "
            > <cbx292000@y...> wrote:
            >
            > > I certainly do not do what some Steelites Covenanters do, who
            > > call all non-Steelite Presbyterians "backsliders" and "covenant
            > > breakers" (never mind what they call all hymn singers!). My point
            > > here is that I am far more charitable towards non-Theonomists
            > > than some Steelites are to non-Steelites (there are some
            > > exceptions of course).
            >
            > Can't miss a chance to take a shot at Covenanters.

            Gerry, if you read my words carefully, you would note that I
            qualified them by saying "some". And in case anyone would miss that,
            I even added "there are some exceptions of course").

            I was not criticizing the entire Covenanters, or even all the
            Steelite ones.

            > Look, in all the time you've been in this group, it seems to me
            > you've spent far more time and effort disagreeing with the things
            > said here then agreeing.

            I've never been good as acting as a mere "Yes man". I'm sorry that
            you think that I make a poor candidate for the Steelite
            Covenanter "cheerleading squad".

            But I have in the past expressed my agreements with the Scottish
            Covenanters (though admittedly far less so with the modern Steelite
            edition).

            Agreements such as 5 point Calvinism, The Free Offer of the Gospel,
            the pedagogic value of puritan and presbyterian church history,
            Postmillennialism, the pedagogic value of creeds and confessions, the
            pro-nomian views of the law of God between Covenanters and
            Theonomists. The belief in the universal kingship of Christ (as ably
            expressed in William Symington's "Messiah the Prince" and similar
            covenanter writings). The militant protestant stand against Romanism
            and idolatry in the Church. The appreciation for the Protestant
            Reformers like Calvin and Knox, as well as for the Protestant Martyrs
            of England and Scotland. The opposition to political tyranny and
            pluralism in government (e.g. "Lex Rex"), etc.

            >
            > Don't take this as me picking on you because you're the
            > theonomist....
            > I would have read your post without any comment had I not come
            > across this shot taken at those who strive to uphold the principles
            > of the Covenanted Reformation.

            My "shot" Gerry, was not intended as a shot at the Steelites at all,
            but only to point out to Simon that his concerns about Theonomy were
            entirely unjustified. And if he is really concerned about the matter
            of state punishment of heretics (that he wrongly imputes to
            Theonomists), he ought to more concerned about a group of Christians
            who actually believe in that (such as the Steelite Covenanters). But
            Simon appears oblivious to the real irony of where he actually
            expressed his concerns about State punishment of heretics, that is,
            on this very forum which holds to that view.

            So I was really taking more of a "shot" at Simon's paranoia, than at
            the Steelites. I am sorry that you took it the wrong way, Gerry.

            > This is the Covenanted Reformation Club, mind you.
            >

            Yes, and I have learned much from many of your posts, and from BD's
            posts, and I appreciate your zeal for reformed Church history.

            Colin
          • gmw
            ... wrote: I m sorry that you think that I make a poor candidate for the Steelite Covenanter cheerleading squad . We got spirit, yes we do,
            Message 5 of 16 , Apr 6, 2004
              --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, "Colin "
              <cbx292000@y...> wrote:

              "I'm sorry that you think that I make a poor candidate for the
              Steelite Covenanter "cheerleading squad".

              We got spirit, yes we do, we got spirit....

              How 'bout you?

              gmw.
            • thebishopsdoom
              It is true that some of the modern debates on the issue of Reformed Presbyterians have gotten quite polemical, not just in favour of, but also against the
              Message 6 of 16 , Apr 6, 2004
                It is true that some of the modern debates on the issue of Reformed
                Presbyterians have gotten quite polemical, not just in favour of, but
                also against the views of the Reformed Presbyterians.
                Perhaps it's time to take a closer look at David Steele, since so
                much of the modern controversy seems to revolve around appeals to
                him. It seems much ado has been made about Steele for a whole lot of
                nasty things.
                Despite popular opinion, Steele was not absolutely loathed by the
                RPCNA in his day as a minister among them. J.R. Willson had
                handpicked him for a professorship at RPTS (while the controversy
                with Synod was ongoing in which Steele had taken a part), and had
                promised Steele that he already had the votes to get him in as co-
                professor. Steele declined, because he felt he was not adequately
                prepared for a professorship at that time. (This is incidentally
                notably absent from the book on RPTS history, Spare No Exertions.) He
                was during that time also called to be minister in one of the
                congregations in the Pittsburgh area, though he had declined the call
                at that time. Yes, Steele for his leaving synod did accrue some
                strong opponents in the RPCNA. But the view some of them had of him
                was not universal.
                Despite some polemical language used of a few ministers who he
                believed weree engineering what became the New Light split, and a few
                others afterwards who he believed were attempting to bring the Old
                Lights down the same road - talk of former brethren, false brethren,
                and the like, David Steele did not as a rule speak of people in that
                way, either within nor without the RPCNA. Even "false brethren"
                didn't mean "false Christian" (as some appear to have assumed) but
                rather the falsity was with claiming to be fellow covenanters when
                the persons in question were attacking the views expressed in the
                standrads themselves. In particular, it might be noted that Steele
                late in life mentioned that he never ceased all the while to regard
                Willson Sr as a godly man upon whom he had no known quarrels (in
                spite of the fact that Willson did not feel compelled to leave when
                Steele, Lusk, and several ruling elders determined just cause to
                dissent from synod). In some of the issues of the magazines edited by
                Steele, it mentions some of his travels, both preaching and
                vacations. In there you find that Steele was granted by various RPCNA
                ministers the allowance to use their buildings to preach a sermon
                while in the area. The UPC allowed members to attend Mr. Steele's
                preaching. Steele preached to vacant congregations of the RPCS and
                RPCI in Ireland and Scotland by request of the people, and in one
                case was asked to consider a call to be their pastor. In this, he
                declined, stating that he would have to join with the RPCI to do so,
                and he could not in good conscience join them in the present
                constitutional state that they were in. No talk of "you wicked
                covenant breaking apostates," no talk of "come with me and flee
                babylon" or anything like that. He did not encourage people to leave
                their churches if unconvinced with the covenanter side of the church
                splits, though he encouraged people to consider the issues, and
                inform themselves of why the churches had so broken up. If they were
                convinced, and wished to transfer themselves under care of their
                presbytery (or later, general meeting), they were free to do so. If
                they did not fully understand the issues, but did enough to desire to
                transfer over to the reformed presbytery with a willingness to be
                instructed, he would not turn them back, though they were not made
                communicants without attaining some knowledge of the reason for the
                church's existence as a separate branch of the presbyterian church.
                It seems from my knowledge of him that if any were to ask about what
                problem Steele had with their church, he would certainly oblige to
                explain as best he could the causes of splits in the church and why
                they existed as a distinct church and did not agree to the routes
                taken in the other splits, believing them to have introduced error
                into the churches and broken off from the root. Undoubtedly if they
                did not agree or were unsure, he would have encouraged the inquisitor
                to continue considering these things as they progressed in their
                understanding of the faith. This is at least the picture of David
                Steele that I have gotten from the materials I have read with
                firsthand accounts. It also agrees with the fact that the Associate
                Presbyterian magazine actually published one of his articles that
                addressed an in-house issue going on at the time among the Associate
                Presbyterians, giving his take on the controversy. I don't see they
                would have done that if he was supposedly so universally viewed as a
                theological or ecclesiastical monster.
                In one of the articles concerning Steele's travels, in one of the
                covenanter magazines, he mentions a man coming up to him after
                sermon. Steele recognized him as a former congressman who was an old
                neighbor of his. He mentions the person as having been a member of
                the Methodist church, and also states (Steele was authoring the
                article) about the man being a friend of his and old neighbor whom he
                hadn't seen in a long time. Steele gladly obliged his friend's
                request to lodge at his home for some time. This at the least shows
                that Steele was able to do what most people can do, hold friendships
                with those he disagrees with. Something I think some people in the
                way they paint Steele can not conceive of.
                David Steele also took to task elder J.J. Peoples of the reformed
                Presbytery for vitriolic language in expressing his views on
                political dissent.

                I will conclude by merely quoting a bio of Steele from a secular book:

                The REVEREND DAVID STEELE was ordained and installed as the third
                pastor of the Brush Creek Presbyterian Community Church of Adams
                County, Ohio on June 24, 1831. Brush Creek is an historic
                congregation due to church disputes over dogma.
                Dr. Steele was among the early settlers of Adams County, Ohio.
                Several members of his family followed him west from Pennsylvania. He
                was born in Londonderry, Ireland, November 2, 1803 of scotch-Irish
                ancestry. He was the the youngest of six brothers, whose father,
                David Steele, was the fourth generation from Captain John Steele of
                Lismahago, near Glascow, Scotland who fought on the side of the
                Covenanters in the battle of Drumclog, June 22, 1679. He was trained
                up according to the strict order of observance in Covenanting
                families. When he was about 20 years old he emigrated to the United
                States, arriving in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, June 7, 1824, where
                he stayed with an uncle and pursued his classical studies. Later on
                he taught in Edinburg Academy in Pennsylvania.
                In 1826 he was graduated from Western University of Pennsylvania and
                after studying theology with the late Dr. John Black of Pittsburg,
                Pennsylvania, he was licensed to preach the Gospel in April 1830. The
                following year he married Miss Eliza Johnson of Chillicothe, Ohio and
                one month afterward was ordained and installed as pastor of the
                Reformed Congregation of Brush Creek by the Ohio Presbytery at a
                salary of $400 a year.
                Brush Creek was then a wilderness and he and his wife found
                everything primitive and uncongenial to educated and refined living.
                Thousands of miles he travelled on horse-back yearly, having often to
                ford rivers when he had to get up on his knees in the saddle to keep
                from being saturated with water as there were few bridges in those
                days. For 29 years he labored in this congregation upon a salary
                hardly sufficient to procure the necessities of life. He also took
                care of several other community churches - one being Mill Creek,
                Kentucky.
                Although a little below medium in stature, he possessed an excellent
                constitution which enabled him to bare up under difficulties which
                would have been too great for others.
                As a scholar Dr. Steele was far above most of his compeers,
                particularly in the ancient classics as he could read the most
                difficult Latin and Greek at sight. His "Notes on the Apocalypse"
                show he was a master of Bible truth. He trained quite a number of
                young men for the Gospel ministry; and his home was the resort of all
                educated people who came to the neighborhood, and hospitality was a
                marked feature of his house.
                It is but proper to state that his wife cooperated heartily with him
                in all his plans for the elevation and culture of all who dwelt in
                the vicinity of Brush Creek. Brush Creek owes much to him as a leader
                in morality and culture.
                As an orator the Reverend David Steele was concise, clear and
                frequently eloquent and impassioned and his discrimination in the use
                of words showed his mastery of the English language. He received the
                Doctor of Divinity degree from his Alma Mater a few years before his
                death.
                After leaving Ohio he spent several years near Sparta, Illinois,
                retiring to Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, where he died in the 54th
                year of his ministry at the age of eighty-four. His remains lie in
                the Petersburg Cemetery in Huntington, Pennsylvania.
                -Taken from A History of Adams County, Ohio by Evans and Stivers

                -thebishopsdoom
              • s.padbury@tiscali.co.uk
                I accept your hand of genuine Christian Fellowship. Thankyou Colin, but I guess I either forgt about that part, or else I didn t think it was worth anything
                Message 7 of 16 , Apr 8, 2004
                  "I accept your hand of genuine Christian Fellowship."

                  Thankyou Colin, but I guess I either forgt about that part, or else I didn't
                  think it was worth anything since you refuse to retract your repeated references
                  to me as wicked and ungodly and slanderous.

                  You say we might not be so far apart as I might think. That may be true
                  in some of the outcomes, but we arrive at them by distinctly different routes.
                  But at least you're backing off from suggesting that I am somewhat an antinomian
                  or a dispensationalist now.

                  As for raking through past posts and engading you in these matters again,
                  I can't be bothered, sorry. I've had enough of debating with (some!) Theonomists,
                  because of their abusive language.

                  But I do admit that you are not as bad as some in that respect, and I appreciate
                  that.

                  Simon.

                  __________________________________________________
                  Broadband from an unbeatable £15.99!

                  http://www.tiscali.co.uk/products/broadband/home.html?code=SM-NL-11AM
                • gmw
                  ... There is nothing new under the sun. It is sinful man s nature to say sinful things towards those with whom we disagree. Thanks for this informative post.
                  Message 8 of 16 , Apr 9, 2004
                    --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, thebishopsdoom
                    <no_reply@y...> wrote:

                    > It is true that some of the modern debates on the issue of Reformed
                    > Presbyterians have gotten quite polemical, not just in favour of,
                    > but also against the views of the Reformed Presbyterians.

                    There is nothing new under the sun. It is sinful man's nature to say
                    sinful things towards those with whom we disagree. Thanks for this
                    informative post.

                    I'm not sure if this has anything to do with the present topic or
                    not, but the following are objections and answers taken from A Short
                    Vindication of Our Covenanted Reformation, published by a commitee of
                    the Reformed Presbytery, Philadelphia, 1879 (the objections sound
                    familiar, and the answers are refreshing):

                    ---
                    1. "You think nobody right but yourselves." Just so; that is, in the
                    points wherein others differ from us; otherwise we will only proclaim
                    our own hypocrisy. We believe, and therefore speak.

                    2. "You think nobody will be saved but such as adopt your peculiar
                    principles." This is an old objection. It was "cast in the teeth" of
                    one of our martyred ministers, Mr. Donald Cargil, as he was "led as a
                    lamb to the slaughter." He meekly answered, "No." "Well, and what
                    more would you want than to be saved?" "I want a great deal more,"
                    was his simple reply, "I want Christ glorified on earth." He
                    understood the first question of the Shorter Catechism, of which too
                    many are ignorant to-day. "Man's chief end is neither his salvation
                    nor destruction." Rev. 4:11.

                    3. "Your principles are impracticable." If they are scriptural the
                    objection is true in one sense, but false in another. Our Saviour
                    told his real disciples—"Without me (separated from me) ye can do
                    nothing." Jno. 15:5. This was Paul's experience (Rom. 7:18), and he
                    tells us that this is part of all believers' experience. Gal. 5:17.
                    On the other hand, if our distinctive principles are scriptural, as
                    we believe them to be, they are certainly practicable to a true
                    believer; for of such no impossibilities are required. 2 Cor. 12:9;
                    Phil. 4:13.

                    4. "You meddle with political matters;—preach the gospel and let
                    civil government alone." We often meet this objection under the form
                    of friendly advice; and we believe none is of deeper significance or
                    more pregnant with consequences. (a) It confounds politics and civil
                    government. (b) It separates between the gospel and civil government.
                    (c) It excludes the Bible and its Author from the commonwealth. (d)
                    It conducts us to infidelity and issues in blank atheism. But this
                    objection involving, as it does, so much both of principle and
                    practice, demands more consideration and a particular and
                    intelligible answer. It is not true that we meddle with politics; for
                    a Covenanter can affiliate with no existing political party because
                    no party will consent to be governed by the Bible. The gospel, as we
                    understand it, covers the whole of the Scriptures. Gen. 18:18, Gal.
                    3:8, Heb. 4:2. It is "another gospel" which excludes any part of the
                    Bible. That we may be more fully understood, we assert that the Holy
                    Scriptures are the only infallible rule to direct mankind in
                    individual and social life: that all the lawful relations of this
                    life are instituted, defined and limited in the Bible. We find in the
                    Sacred Oracles that God has organized society in three, and only
                    three departments, both for its conservation and reformation. These
                    are the family, the church, and the state, the two latter being
                    auxiliaries of the first—the church and civil commonwealth to be
                    helpful to the family. The plain lesson of history and experience is,
                    that insubordination in the family generates contumacy in the church,
                    and issues in insurrection and rebellion in the state. If there be
                    no "church in the house," there will be no godliness in the church,
                    nor honesty without godliness in the state. To effect a real
                    reformation then, these three divine ordinances are the proper
                    instrumentalities to be employed—and no other. These have the promise
                    of their Author to render them effectual. Prov. 22:6; 1 Tim. 4:16;
                    Josh. 1:8. Of course, we cannot co-operate in the voluntary and
                    irresponsible confederacies of our time, having but one condition of
                    fellowship, and demanding a pledge of fidelity. To ask or give such
                    pledge involves an insult offered to our Master, to whom alone our
                    pledge has been previously given, that we will be governed by that
                    law in His hand, which commands every duty and forbids every sin in
                    all our relations. According to our interpretation of the gospel,
                    therefore, we must have scriptural and definite views of the divine
                    ordinance of civil government, while we do not "meddle with politics"—
                    earth's party politics, which disregard the Lord, His Anointed and
                    His word.

                    5. "You will admit none to your communion but those who adopt your
                    peculiar principles: and does it not follow that you account none to
                    be Christians but yourselves? All others, by your close communion,
                    you would shut out of heaven." We have given this objection in
                    greater fulness than the preceding ones, because of the frequency and
                    plausibility of its utterance by the generality of professors. Well,
                    we readily admit the truth of the first part of the objection: but in
                    the practice of restricted fellowship we are not peculiar, and we
                    think consistency, common sense and honesty, justify this part of
                    Christian practice. Nor does this practise involve a denial of the
                    Christianity or meetness for heaven of any others. This part of the
                    objection denies, or at least confounds the necessary distinction
                    between the visible and invisible state of the church—an error which
                    is logically followed by many others. Consistently with our
                    distinctive principles and practice, which alone exemplify true
                    charity, as we sincerely believe, we doubt not many are now in heaven
                    and also on earth, partakers of the "common salvation," who never
                    heard of Covenanters. And, moreover, Covenanters have always, in
                    private intercourse, been ready to embrace in their heart's
                    affections, all who in their judgment love God in Christ. This they
                    do on the principle that "every one that loveth Him that begat loveth
                    Him also that is begotten of Him." 1 Jno 5:1. But this private and
                    occasional intercourse the Scriptures distinguish from public,
                    ecclesiastical fellowship; and Covenanters endeavor to act according
                    to that supreme rule. They cannot, therefore, at the same time,
                    consistently testify against the errors and sins of parties, and
                    appear under an official or judicial banner as one with them. "If any
                    man see thee which hast knowledge sit at meat in the idol's temple,
                    shall not the conscience of him which is weak be emboldened to eat
                    those things which are offered to idols?" 1 Cor. 8:10.—Not that we
                    charge all others with idolatry: but there is a rule in Logic which
                    the learned acknowledge to be correct, Majus et minus non variant
                    speciem,—"greater or less does not vary the nature of a thing." And
                    we are enjoined to "mark them which cause divisions and offences
                    contrary to the doctrine which you have learned; and avoid them, Rom.
                    16:17: as also to "withdraw ourselves from every brother that walketh
                    disorderly"—yes, though a brother. 2 Thes. 3:6; 1 Tim. 3:5. No, no,
                    we are not uncharitable. While hating Pharisaic exclusiveness, we no
                    less dislike the spurious charity that "suffers sin upon a brother"
                    without rebuke. Lev. 19:17; Tit. 1:13.

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