Skip to comments.Christ Calls Presbyterians To Repent Says John Meacham, Author Of 'Divine Revelation'
Posted on 09/21/2011 1:14:17 AM PDT by Cronos
Jesus Christ is now calling Christians everywhere to experience spiritual birth, to store up heavenly riches, to live a divine spiritual life, to join the armies of heaven, to fight for church reform, and to prepare the church for His Second Coming
This is a message from Jesus Christ to the Presbyterian Church. I am the Son of God whose eyes blaze like fire, whose feet shine like polished brass. I know what you do. I know your love, your faithfulness, your service, and your patience. But this is what I have against you: you tolerate those lesbians."
You have placed those lesbians in a position of divine ordination and now you kneel beside their beds and worship a world of sexual pleasure rather than praying to My Father to forgive your sins of sexual immorality. If you do not turn from these hideous sins and repent, you will forever know the suffering that Satan brings upon those who worship in his house of sensual pleasures."
To those who see My Holy Light and come out of the darkness of sexual immorality, I will give them eternal peace and forever let them glow in the light of the bright morning star."
I challenge you to shed your sin soiled clothes, to put on My White Linens, to join the armies of heaven, and to help Me restore My Church. If you have ears, then, listen to what the Spirit says to the churches.
I am a lifelong Presbyterian and at the PCUSA Website I read that we Presbyterians are seeking thoughtful solutions to the challenges of our time. However, I recall discussing the new Presbyterian Policy of Ordaining Homosexuals with a local Lesbian Presbyterian Pastor and she thoughtfully said that those Presbyterians who do not like this new policy can just leave the Presbyterian Church. In His Message to the Presbyterians, Christ calls us to help Him restore His Church and not drive our fellow Christians away from their church home.
At the PCUSA Website, I also read that we Presbyterians seek to continue Christs mission of teaching the truth. Yet, I remember at one of the Presbytery of New Hopes votes to ordain homosexuals a local pastor quoted from I Corinthians saying: Do not fool yourselves; people who are immoral or worship idols or are adulterers or homosexual perverts or who steal or are greedy or are drunkards or who slander others or are thieves none of these will possess Gods Kingdom. Now, we Presbyterians have voted to ordain these homosexual perverts and as a result of this act, Christ extols us to repent and put on His White Linens and join the armies of heaven.
The PCUSA Website further proclaims that we Presbyterians are Christs faithful disciples in the world. Since the Presbyterian Churchs enactment to ordain homosexuals, I have struggled with whether or not I should leave the Presbyterian Church. When I discussed this dilemma with a respected Christian Pastor, he said: Either get out or lift up your prophetic voice against them or Gods judgment on their guilt will also fall on you. So, I have decided to speak out against these lesbians and ask the Presbyterian Church (USA) to repent and rescind their new policy of ordaining homosexuals.
Jesus Christ is now calling Christians everywhere to experience spiritual birth, to store up heavenly riches, to live a divine spiritual life, to join the armies of heaven, to fight for church reform, and to prepare the church for His Second Coming.
John Meacham is a Christian Author and Prophet for Jesus Christ who has authored four Christian books and served Christs Church as a Pastor, Preacher, Workshop Leader, Bible Study Instructor, and Teacher.
This John Meacham is not to be confused with the Jon Meacham who drove Newsweek bankrupt.
good thing you clarified that.
I am quite sure that neither Mr. Meacham would be honored by the confusion......
Not to be too critical, but, the profile statement in the OP states that the author has pastored churches, written four books on Christian topics and is a prophet of Jesus.
In light of this resume, my first thoughts are why is this individual still associated with the PCUSA? It’s like a former alcholic having a debate with himself on the wisedom of remaining a member of the irish drinking guild (no offense to my Irish brethern) because he thinks there is a movement within the guild to condone the consumption of adult beverages. Some things in life are just so obvious as to render debate obsolete but hey, what do I know?
As a new Christian and barely out of my teen years, I left the PCUSA way back in 1985 because I could clearly see that even as a non-prophet the PCUSA was headed into the abyss. Just using simple powers of observation, it is clear that the PCUSA as a viable Christian organization is basically a gonner. There is nothing in the NT that teaches that one should be associated with churches that are in a state of disbelief, which clearly the PCUSA is in. While it is true that a single lone voice for the truth can be a powerful force, the task at hand is not as is assumed reform, no, it’s conversion. In effect what I’m saying is the leadership (this includes influencial pastors, seminary professors and so on) of the PCUSA is not christian so it’s condition is being mis-diagnossed. I’m sure some will be offended by my conclusion but this is how I see it.
I thought it was written by the Newsweek guy, and that made no sense.
Strange. I can't find "Christ's Epistle to the Presbyterians" in my Bible. Protestants accuse the Pope of a lot of things, but the Pope doesn't write encyclicals that claim to be speaking the new and inspired words of Our Lord.
And my understanding of Protestant ecclesiology is that "Christ's Church" is invisible, and not to be confused with any earthly organization, which the PCUSA certainly is.
In case anyone thinks I'm being snarky toward Protestants in general, please keep in mind that the PCUSA has had abortion coverage in their insurance package for clergy for many years. To me, calling an apostate organization which enshrines baby killing as a "healthcare" option for their clergy ... calling them "Christ's Church" is objectively blasphemous.
Marcus Grodi, I believe, was a PCUSA pastor. When he was deciding it was time to bail, one of his PCUSA friends tried to argue him out of it, saying, "But, Marcus, you can't leave the Church!" Grodi blurted out, "If staying in the Church is so important, why did we leave the Church in the first place?!?" The PCUSA is way beyond any "reforming".
I’ve been wondering for a while how the PCUSA and other Mainline denominations are going to get enough young people to enter their seminaries.
Haven’t we had enough of self-styled prophets?
FYI Campion, the PCUSA being apostate doesn’t make the Pope the leader of the truth squad. Of course, not many it any in the PCUSA have theological issues with Rome.
Died-in-the-wool Presbos don’t need to repent, and they don’t need to do anything else (other than have faith) to be saved.
They and other true Calvinists say they have been pre-selected for salvation. They believe (a) that no amount of sin will cause them to lose the grace already bestowed upon them, and (b) that no amount of “good works” and repentance will allow a non-selected mortal to join those who are predestined for heaven.
So they can with impunity commit all kinds of heresies — pay for pastors’ wives to have abortions, ordain homosexual clergy, etc. etc. — and still they will be saved. Sorry folks, believe it or not, but that’s just the way it is.
In some ways the PCUSA assembly I was associated with was not as far into the pit as the ELCA group. I remember giving the message in the ELCA church one Sunday and offering up an invitation to accept Jesus as Savior. The reaction I received from some of the older members was one of nostalgia, as in we used to hear that sort of thing all the time but not anymore "sigh". From the younger associates, the reaction was more on the order of “are you some kind of religious zealot"?
So my opinion based on a little bit of research and a whole lot of gut instinct tells me that academia within the mainline denominations has hijacked the seminaries beyond repair and why anyone interested in a future career in the counseling industry would go the religion route when state schools offer the same education at a fraction of the cost and a higher return in salary for the investment?
As I understand the teaching of the Bible on the matter, what we should be doing as believers in the risen Christ is serve Him, not get attached to buildings and ritual and dare I say it, fellow members.
I always go back to the LIFE ISSUE. It seems logical that anyone wanting to be a pastor would be pro-life.
Why would a pro-choice person even want to be a pastor? The Mainline denominations are radically pro-choice, and I don’t see how they can attract young people to their seminaries.
yes, that is sad — they believe they are part of a higher caste already pre-saved and that the rest are going to heck
At the heart of reformed “covenant” theology embraced by traditional Presbyterian teaching is the Gospel as spelled out in the New Testament. We can debate the legitimacy of “covenant” theology of which I do not believe the Bible teaches but many Calvinist that take the Bible seriously are cleansed by the blood and thus redeemed by the cross.
So, some who are died-in-the-wood are saved since they are trusting in Jesus, (which implies repentence), some who are died-in-the-wool are not because they are trusting in dogma (which does not imply repentence).
Dr. Scarpetta, not that life issues are un-important, they are but as a believer in Jesus, I’m pro-life due to the teaching of the Bible and the life changing power of the new birth, not because my church requires me to be pro-life.
The mainlines have survived by absorbing smaller groups. The day will come when there are no longer any smaller groups to absorbe. We see this now where under the guise of the ecumenical movement there is a move to consolidate different protestant groups and even a move to join up with Rome. This is to my thinking a move to ward off a starvation of numbers. One of the disadvantages of being big is that it cost a lot of money to keep the machine well oiled.
>> some who are died-in-the-wood are saved since they are trusting in Jesus <<
Well, I’ve heard Calvinist preachers say time and again that there’s nothing a man can do to save his soul. It’s all up to God. So if these Calvinists are right, then it shouldn’t matter if somebody does or doesn’t trust Jesus. As long as he is predestined, the Unbeliever will be saved just as will the predestined Believer.
Of course, there are those who will argue that the Believer has faith precisely because he IS predestined for salvation, while the Unbeliever lacks faith precisely because he ISN’T predestined. But to me, that’s circular reasoning — not really persuasive.
200 years ago, In America, you couldn’t find a church that didn’t teach what is called “Calvinism” today unless you were catholic. I wonder what went wrong?
Hawthorn, I have heard our friends in the Roman Catholic church state that they are saved (in effect) because they had the good sense to join the winning team. But just because some guy on the internet, nice as he may be, heard pastor so-in-so sermonize the preceived evils of refomed theology doesn’t make “Mr. Internet” correct in his theology and personal faith.
For this student of the Gospel, if the Bible teaches election and or predestination and or once saved always saved then the issue is settled as far as I’m concerned. BTW, you might have missed it but I’m not Presbyterian and certainly if I were I would not at this point in time be anywhere near the liberal PCUSA.
Augustinian monk, you have managed to achieve what most would consider impossible. What is that you ask? You missed the entire Arminian influenced Methodist/Wesylan/Baptist/Amish/Mennonite/Holiness/Moravian/Lutheran (to name a few) movements.
>> 200 years ago, In America, you couldnt find a church that didnt teach what is called Calvinism today unless you were catholic. <<
Don’t think you’re correct about that. After all, the most famous revivalist of the “Great Awakening” in early 19th century America, the Methodist preacher Lorenzo Dow, was an outspoken opponent of both Calvinism and Roman Catholicism.
Didn't say that it did. But I'm not a fan of Protestants using Protestant ecclesiology to justify their leaving the Catholic Church, and then switching to (misdirected) Catholic ecclesiology to justify staying in a man-made organization, especially one as apostate as the PCUSA.
Pick one, or pick the other.
Any Catholic who thinks being a Catholic guarantees him slam-dunk salvation needs to crack his catechism and try actually understanding what the Church says.
You were that guy always sleeping in class. :0 This has been covered many times on Freerepublic but I will post it again. My comments were about America’s roots. Not what existed in the entire world.
CALVINISM IN AMERICA
By Loraine Boettner
When we come to study the influence of Calvinism as a political force in the history of the United States we come to one of the brightest pages of all Calvinistic history. Calvinism came to America in the Mayflower, and Bancroft, the greatest of American historians, pronounces the Pilgrim Fathers “Calvinists in their faith according to the straightest system.”1 John Endicott, the first governor of the Massachusetts Bay Colony; John Winthrop, the second governor of that Colony; Thomas Hooker, the founder of Connecticut; John Davenport, the founder of the New Haven Colony; and Roger Williams, the founder of the Rhode Island Colony, were all Calvinists. William Penn was a disciple of the Huguenots. It is estimated that of the 3,000,000 Americans at the time of the American Revolution, 900,000 were of Scotch or Scotch-Irish origin, 600,000 were Puritan English, and 400,000 were German or Dutch Reformed. In addition to this the Episcopalians had a Calvinistic confession in their Thirty-nine Articles; and many French Huguenots also had come to this western world. Thus we see that about two-thirds of the colonial population had been trained in the school of Calvin. Never in the world’s history had a nation been founded by such people as these. Furthermore these people came to America not primarily for commercial gain or advantage, but because of deep religious convictions. It seems that the religious persecutions in various European countries had been providentially used to select out the most progressive and enlightened people for the colonization of America. At any rate it is quite generally admitted that the English, Scotch, Germans, and Dutch have been the most masterful people of Europe. Let it be especially remembered that the Puritans, who formed the great bulk of the settlers in New England, brought with them a Calvinistic Protestantism, that they were truly devoted to the doctrines of the great Reformers, that they had an aversion for formalism and oppression whether in the Church or in the State, and that in New England Calvinism remained the ruling theology throughout the entire Colonial period.
With this background we shall not be surprised to find that the Presbyterians took a very prominent part in the American Revolution. Our own historian Bancroft says: “The Revolution of 1776, so far as it was affected by religion, was a Presbyterian measure. It was the natural outgrowth of the principles which the Presbyterianism of the Old World planted in her sons, the English Puritans, the Scotch Covenanters, the French Huguenots, the Dutch Calvinists, and the Presbyterians of Ulster.” So intense, universal, and aggressive were the Presbyterians in their zeal for liberty that the war was spoken of in England as “The Presbyterian Rebellion.” An ardent colonial supporter of King George III wrote home: “I fix all the blame for these extraordinary proceedings upon the Presbyterians. They have been the chief and principal instruments in all these flaming measures. They always do and ever will act against government from that restless and turbulent anti-monarchial spirit which has always distinguished them everywhere.”2 When the news of “these extraordinary proceedings” reached England, Prime Minister Horace Walpole said in Parliament, “Cousin America has run off with a Presbyterian parson” (John Witherspoon, president of Princeton, signer of Declaration of Independence).
History is eloquent in declaring that American democracy was born of Christianity and that that Christianity was Calvinism. The great Revolutionary conflict which resulted in the formation of the American nation, was carried out mainly by Calvinists, many of whom had been trained in the rigidly Presbyterian College at Princeton, and this nation is their gift to all liberty loving people.
J. R. Sizoo tells us: “When Cornwallis was driven back to ultimate retreat and surrender at Yorktown, all of the colonels of the Colonial Army but one were Presbyterian elders. More than one-half of all the soldiers and officers of the American Army during the Revolution were Presbyterians.”3
The testimony of Emilio Castelar, the famous Spanish statesman, orator and scholar, is interesting and valuable. Castelar had been professor of Philosophy in the University of Madrid before he entered politics, and he was made president of the republic which was set up by the Liberals in 1873. As a Roman Catholic he hated Calvin and Calvinism. Says he: “It was necessary for the republican movement that there should come a morality more austere than Luther’s, the morality of Calvin, and a Church more democratic than the German, the Church of Geneva. The Anglo-Saxon democracy has for its lineage a book of a primitive society the Bible. It is the product of a severe theology learned by the few Christian fugitives in the gloomy cities of Holland and Switzerland, where the morose shade of Calvin still wanders . . . And it remains serenely in its grandeur, forming the most dignified, most moral and most enlightened portion of the human race.”4
Says Motley: “In England the seeds of liberty, wrapped up in Calvinism and hoarded through many trying years, were at last destined to float over land and sea, and to bear the largest harvests of temperate freedom for great commonwealths that were still unborn.5 “The Calvinists founded the commonwealths of England, of Holland, and America.” And again, “To Calvinists more than to any other class of men, the political liberties of England, Holland and America are due.”6
The testimony of another famous historian, the Frenchman Taine, who himself held no religious faith, is worthy of consideration. Concerning the Calvinists he said: “These men are the true heroes of England. They founded England, in spite of the corruption of the Stuarts, by the exercise of duty, by the practice of justice, by obstinate toil, by vindication of right, by resistance to oppression, by the conquest of liberty, by the repression of vice. They founded Scotland; they founded the United States; at this day they are, by their descendants, founding Australia and colonizing the world.”7
In his book, “The Creed of Presbyterians,” E. W. Smith asks concerning the American colonists, “Where learned they those immortal principles of the rights of man, of human liberty, equality and self-government, on which they based their Republic, and which form today the distinctive glory of our American civilization ? In the school of Calvin they learned them. There the modern world learned them. So history teaches,” (p. 121).
We shall now pass on to consider the influence which the Presbyterian Church as a Church exerted in the formation of the Republic. “The Presbyterian Church,” said Dr. W. H. Roberts in an address before the General Assembly, “was for three-quarters of a century the sole representative upon this continent of republican government as now organized in the nation.” And then he continues: “From 1706 to the opening of the revolutionary struggle the only body in existence which stood for our present national political organization was the General Synod of the American Presbyterian Church. It alone among ecclesiastical and political colonial organizations exercised authority, derived from the colonists themselves, over bodies of Americans scattered through all the colonies from New England to Georgia. The colonies in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, it is to be remembered, while all dependent upon Great Britain, were independent of each other. Such a body as the Continental Congress did not exist until 1774. The religious condition of the country was similar to the political. The Congregational Churches of New England had no connection with each other, and had no power apart from the civil government. The Episcopal Church was without organization in the colonies, was dependent for support and a ministry on the Established Church of England, and was filled with an intense loyalty to the British monarchy. The Reformed Dutch Church did not become an efficient and independent organization until 1771, and the German Reformed Church did not attain to that condition until 1793. The Baptist Churches were separate organizations, the Methodists were practically unknown, and the Quakers were non-combatants.”
Delegates met every year in the General Synod, and as Dr. Roberts tells us, the Church became “a bond of union and correspondence between large elements in the population of the divided colonies.” “Is it any wonder,” he continues, “that under its fostering influence the sentiments of true liberty, as well as the tenets of a sound gospel, were preached throughout the territory from Long Island to South Carolina, and that above all a feeling of unity between the Colonies began slowly but surely to assert itself? Too much emphasis cannot be laid, in connection with the origin of the nation, upon the influence of that ecclesiastical republic, which from 1706 to 1774 was the only representative on this continent of fully developed federal republican institutions. The United States of America owes much to that oldest of American Republics, the Presbyterian Church.”8
It is, of course, not claimed that the Presbyterian Church was the only source from which sprang the principles upon which this republic is founded, but it is claimed that the principles found in the Westminster Standards were the chief basis for the republic, and that “The Presbyterian Church taught, practiced, and maintained in fulness, first in this land that form of government in accordance with which the Republic has been organized.” (Roberts).
The opening of the Revolutionary struggle found the Presbyterian ministers and churches lined up solidly on the side of the colonists, and Bancroft accredits them with having made the first bold move toward independence.9 The synod which assembled in Philadelphia in 1775 was the first religious body to declare openly and publicly for a separation from England. It urged the people under its jurisdiction to leave nothing undone that would promote the end in view, and called upon them to pray for the Congress which was then in session.
The Episcopalian Church was then still united with the Church of England, and it opposed the Revolution. A considerable number of individuals within that Church, however, labored earnestly for independence and gave of their wealth and influence to secure it. It is to be remembered also that the Commander-in-Chief of the American armies, “the father of our country,” was a member of her household. Washington himself attended, and ordered all of his men to attend the services of his chaplains, who were clergymen from the various churches. He gave forty thousand dollars to establish a Presbyterian College in his native state, which took his name in honor of the gift and became Washington College.
N. S. McFetridge has thrown light upon another major development of the Revolutionary period. For the sake of accuracy and completeness we shall take the privilege of quoting him rather extensively. “Another important factor in the independent movement,” says he, “was what is known as the ‘Mecklenburg Declaration,’ proclaimed by the Scotch-Irish Presbyterians of North Carolina, May 20, 1775, more than a year before the Declaration (of Independence) of Congress. It was the fresh, hearty greeting of the Scotch-Irish to their struggling brethren in the North, and their bold challenge to the power of England. They had been keenly watching the progress of the contest between the colonies and the Crown, and when they heard of the address presented by the Congress to the King, declaring the colonies in actual rebellion, they deemed it time for patriots to speak. Accordingly, they called a representative body together in Charlotte, N. C., which by unanimous resolution declared the people free and independent, and that all laws and commissions from the king were henceforth null and void. In their Declaration were such resolutions as these: ‘We do hereby dissolve the political bands which have connected us with the mother-country, and hereby absolve ourselves from all allegiance to the British crown’ .... ‘We hereby declare ourselves a free and independent people; are, and of right ought to be, a sovereign and self-governing association, under control of no power other than that of our God and the general government of Congress; to the maintenance of which we solemnly pledge to each other our mutual cooperation and our lives, our fortunes and our most sacred honor.’ ... That assembly was composed of twenty-seven staunch Calvinists, just one-third of whom were ruling elders in the Presbyterian Church, including the president and secretary; and one was a Presbyterian clergyman. The man who drew up that famous and important document was the secretary, Ephraim Brevard, a ruling elder of the Presbyterian Church and a graduate of Princeton College. Bancroft says of it that it was, ‘in effect, a declaration as well as a complete system of government.’ (U.S. Hist. VIII, 40). It was sent by special messenger to the Congress in Philadelphia, and was published in the Cape Fear Mercury, and was widely distributed throughout the land. Of course it was speedily transmitted to England, where it became the cause of intense excitement.
“The identity of sentiment and similarity of expression in this Declaration and the great Declaration written by Jefferson could not escape the eye of the historian; hence Tucker, in his Life of Jefferson, says: ‘Everyone must be persuaded that one of these papers must have been borrowed from the other.’ But it is certain that Brevard could not have ‘borrowed’ from Jefferson, for he wrote more than a year before Jefferson; hence Jefferson, according to his biographer, must have ‘borrowed’ from Brevard. But it was a happy plagiarism, for which the world will freely forgive him. In correcting his first draft of the Declaration it can be seen, in at least a few places, that Jefferson has erased the original words and inserted those which are first found in the Mecklenberg Declaration. No one can doubt that Jefferson had Brevard’s resolutions before him when he was writing his immortal Declaration.”10
This striking similarity between the principles set forth in the Form of Government of the Presbyterian Church and those set forth in the Constitution of the United States has caused much comment. “When the fathers of our Republic sat down to frame a system of representative and popular government,” says Dr. E. W. Smith, “their task was not so difficult as some have imagined. They had a model to work by.”11
“If the average American citizen were asked, who was the founder of America, the true author of our great Republic, he might be puzzled to answer. We can imagine his amazement at hearing the answer given to this question by the famous German historian, Ranke, one of the profoundest scholars of modern times. Says Ranke, ‘John Calvin was the virtual founder of America.’”12
D’Aubigne, whose history of the Reformation is a classic, writes: “Calvin was the founder of the greatest of republics. The Pilgrims who left their country in the reign of James I, and landing on the barren soil of New England, founded populous and mighty colonies, were his sons, his direct and legitimate sons; and that American nation which we have seen growing so rapidly boasts as its father the humble Reformer on the shore of Lake Leman.”13
Dr. E. W. Smith says, “These revolutionary principles of republican liberty and self-government, taught and embodied in the system of Calvin, were brought to America, and in this new land where they have borne so mighty a harvest were planted, by whose hands? the hands of the Calvinists. The vital relation of Calvin and Calvinism to the founding of the free institutions of America, however strange in some ears the statement of Ranke may have sounded, is recognized and affirmed by historians of all lands and creeds.”14
All this has been thoroughly understood and candidly acknowledged by such penetrating and philosophic historians as Bancroft, who far though he was from being Calvinistic in his own personal convictions, simply calls Calvin “the father of America,” and adds: “He who will not honor the memory and respect the influence of Calvin knows but little of the origin of American liberty.”
When we remember that two-thirds of the population at the time of the Revolution had been trained in the school of Calvin, and when we remember how unitedly and enthusiastically the Calvinists labored for the cause of independence, we readily see how true are the above testimonies.
There were practically no Methodists in America at the time of the Revolution; and, in fact, the Methodist Church was not officially organized as such in England until the year 1784, which was three years after the American Revolution closed. John Wesley, great and good man though he was, was a Tory and a believer in political non-resistance. He wrote against the American “rebellion,” but accepted the providential result. McFetridge tells us: “The Methodists had hardly a foothold in the colonies when the war began. In 1773 they claimed about one hundred and sixty members. Their ministers were almost all, if not all, from England, and were staunch supporters of the Crown against American Independence. Hence, when the war broke out they were compelled to fly from the country. Their political views were naturally in accord with those of their great leader, John Wesley, who wielded all the power of his eloquence and influence against the independence of the colonies. (Bancroft, Hist. U.S., Vol. VII, p. 261.) He did not foresee that independent America was to be the field on which his noble Church was to reap her largest harvests, and that in that Declaration which he so earnestly opposed lay the security of the liberties of his followers.”15
In England and America the great struggles for civil and religious liberty were nursed in Calvinism, inspired by Calvinism, and carried out largely by men who were Calvinists. And because the majority of historians have never made a serious study of Calvinism they have never been able to give us a truthful and complete account of what it has done in these countries. Only the light of historical investigation is needed to show us how our forefathers believed in it and were controlled by it. We live in a day when the services of the Calvinists in the founding of this country have been largely forgotten, and one can hardly treat of this subject without appearing to be a mere eulogizer of Calvinism. We may well do honor to that Creed which has borne such sweet fruits and to which America owes so much.
1Hist. U. S., I, p. 463.
2Presbyterians and the Revolution, p. 49.
3They Seek a Country, J. G. Slosser, editor, p. 155.
4Harper’s Monthly. June and July, 1872.
5The’United Netherlands, III., p. 121.
6The United Netherlands, IV., pp. 548, 547.
7English Literature, II., p. 472.
8Address on, “The Westminster Standards and the Formation of the American Republic.
9Hist. U.S., X., p. 77.
10Calvinism in History, pp. 85-88.
11The Creed of Presbyterians, p. 142.
12Id. p. 119.
13Reformation in the Time of Calvin, I., p. 5.
14The Creed of Presbyterians, p. 132.
15Calvinism in History, p. 74.
Dont think youre correct about that. After all, the most famous revivalist of the Great Awakening in early 19th century America, the Methodist preacher Lorenzo Dow, was an outspoken opponent of both Calvinism and Roman Catholicism.
You mean the “Second Great Awakening”, not The Great Awakening. Big difference. The first Great Awakening is associated with the preaching of Jonathen Edwards and George Whitefield. Men who preached nothing but the Cross and Jesus Christ crucified for our sins. The “Second Awakening” spawned cults, false teachers, Adventism, Mormonism, etc and focused on Moralism/Restorationism among other heresies.
To finish off the day you obviously curl up on the sofa every night just before you retire with a glass of warm milk and a few pages of Loraine Boettner? I've heard that's what all of the informed reformed do.
I'll bet you didn't know that the modern tongues/sign gifts movement has it's roots in the theology of Rome? I'll bet you didn't know that?
I'll bet you didn't know that the backbone of refomed theology ie: "covenant theology" comes stright out of Rome?
I’ll bet you didn’t know that the modern tongues/sign gifts movement has it’s roots in the theology of Rome? I’ll bet you didn’t know that?
No, but I can’t say you are right or wrong about that. I haven’t looked at it very closely.
I’ll bet you didn’t know that the backbone of refomed theology ie: “covenant theology” comes stright out of Rome?
By covenant theology I assume you mean infant baptism? I wasn’t baptized as an infant so I don’t have to defend it. I do know that the practice was around as early as the second century. It was an issue discussed by Tertullian. Therefore, it was practiced by the persecuted church, long before the authorities in Rome decided to adopt Christianity as its official religion. I also know that in at least one Catechism (Lutheran-Augsberg?) it says that if a person who grows up without faith, their baptism is without effect. I am not dogmatic about the mode of baptism. Neither was the Apostle Paul. (1 Cor. 13-17).
I think monk doesn't know that because it isn't true. In fact, there are people on the traditionalist fringe of Catholicism who don't accept it even now.
Azusa Street is in California, not Rome.
WRT covenant theology, guilty as charged. It's simply correct, and Luther and Calvin got that one right.
There were plenty of non-Calvinistic Protestants in America 200 years ago. Not to mention that Calvinism, in its original New England stronghold, had already started to deteriorate into Unitarianism and unbelief.
Augustinian monk, I guess fatboy wasn’t the only student asleep in class.
Then following that, the bonus section, where compain demonstrates from the Bible the covenants of redemption, works and grace.