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

RE: Simon's Post

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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.